So if the legislators intentionally or inadvertently violate someone’s Constitutional rights, who do we turn to determine that and to fix it? That’s right - the courts. And what do the courts use in determining their Constitutional remedy? That’s right - past case law and Supreme Court decisions.
Which means at the end of the day the courts will decide if Obama is an NBC or not.
I would suggest that the place for the court to look first is the constitution itself, and only examine case law if the decision is not obvious from reading the meaning and intent of the Constitution, but you are probably right. They most likely prefer to do it bass-ackwards.
That a Law created by the legislature must pass constitutional requirements before it can be held to be valid is a given. This principles was established in Marbury v Madison when the court took upon itself the task of judicial review.
Beyond that, ignorance or idiocy is no bar to the creation of a law. I can name off half a dozen wrong headed and stupid laws currently on the books and upheld by courts.
Which means at the end of the day the courts will decide if Obama is an NBC or not.
I doubt it. They have been evading the issue like a Starship engaging in evasive maneuvers. Their shields are up, and reality will not be permitted to impinge upon their hull. All they have to do is refuse to hear any cases, and eventually the Usurper will be out with nary an effort on their part. As I pointed out in Planned Parenthood v Casey, being constitutionally correct is not the courts primary goal.
I suppose running away is a sort of decision.