“...The Supreme Court was very clear...”
“...all children born in the country
to parents who were its citizens...
are natural-born citizens...”
-
I’m guess what I’m tryin’ to say is that
if it is so danged clear (to you and me)
then why are we having this discussion?
Apparently it is not so danged clear to everybody else.
So how do we clear it up?
Can congress define the term?
-
Hiding behind this discussion is this:
IF:
Congress COULD define what “natural born citizen” means...
THEN:
COULD congress define what the “commerce clause” means?
COULD congress define what “promote the general welfare” means?
-
My belief is that our founders established a government “of the people” and
“We The People” select and send our representatives to congress and
congress is granted our authority to determine what these terms mean.
in our system, Congress and State Legislatures may amend the Constitution by those means provided within the document, but not add or subtract to it by simple legislation.
IOW, Congress cannot merely pass a law declaring, clarifying, or interpreting what what the term "Natural Born Citizen" means. Article II, or any other part of the Constitution can be restructured only by amendment and ratification, or by Constitutional Convention, .
If any state's electoral authority were to demand proof of eligibility from a candidate, and that proof not be forthcoming, or be unacceptable to them, they would be completely within their constitutional rights to keep that candidate off their state ballot. The rejected candidate would have every right to contest their decision. Either side would then have the right of appeal, which IMHO is the only way this thorny issue will get to the SCOTUS.
The issue is NOT clear to me*. That is why I would seek the opinion of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is an appeals court. The trick is to perform the process to the point where they must accept the case.
*IOW, until the SCOTUS rules, I have no idea if my side would prevail, or not. Just for the record, I happen to believe the present POTUS was ineligible to contest the post. MY POV is just as good as anyone else's until the courts rule on the cases brought on their merits.
While our discussions are most edifying, absent any legitimate legal process, they don't mean very much. Of course, in the meantime Obama occupies the office.
IMHO, the court will avoid the issue until after he leaves office. If Jindal or Rubio become candidates, all bets are off and the issue will have to be fast-tracked, again probably through the states.
I asked what kind of legislation would make it more clear than what the SCOTUS wrote. That was directed at you. Why didn't you answer??