Somebody tell me why this wouldn’t work, so we can figure out how it could be MADE to work.
Nebraska’s eligibility bill was based on a de Vattel definition of NBC. It required Presidential candidates at the primary level to provide proof that they were born on US soil to 2 parents who were at the time US citizens, and if they did not present lawful evidence of that they would be denied placement on the ballot. The purpose for writing it that way - and this is what I argued at a committee hearing - was so that the constitutionality of the law could be challenged so the country could have a legally binding definition of “natural born citizen” and potential candidates and their supporters from both parties would be able to know their eligibility status BEFORE they spent a fortune on a campaign. A severability clause was included so that whatever WAS constitutional would stand. The bill itself would pose no threat to anybody, and is not intended to pose a threat to anybody. The purpose for it was to FORCE the courts to rule on the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen”, and to require candidates to actually legally prove their eligibility before being allowed on the ballot.
In Nebraska there is a big snag. The guy who heads the committee on government affairs is a liberal from Omaha and he will never bring the bill out of committee.
But if we had a conservative state where something like this could pass, and it could be passed in the next legislative session, for instance, that would give time for the issue to go through the courts before 2016. The time for people to start rallying legislative support in their state would be right now, because deadlines for proposed bills creep up very quickly.
My question about the effectiveness of this strategy primarily hinges on whether the DOJ would have to challenge the Constitutionality of the law immediately, before the law went into effect. And would Ted Cruz, for instance, be able to challenge the law if the DOJ didn’t - asking for an injunction against the law until its constitutionality was determined, on the basis that he could wrongfully be denied placement on Nebraska’s ballot in the 2016 primary? If the DOJ wouldn’t challenge the constitutionality of the law but Ted Cruz did I would contribute to his legal defense.
My point isn’t to argue one definition of NBC over another. My purpose is to force the courts to do their job and define NBC now, so that a compromised SCOTUS has no ability to wait until after we have elected a conservative President and then boot him out by defining NBC to exclude him.
I think everybody here should be able to agree that we need protection from that.
I’m pinging a few lawyers in the hopes that they can help me know whether this is a flawed legal strategy. We have to do something. If anybody knows other lawyers who could give good advice, please ping them to this also. We also need to know where we would have the best chances of passing an eligibility bill like the one we fashioned in Nebraska, that would force the courts to define NBC. Is there a state where the chair of the committee that would handle this understands the importance of having clear definitions, to be fair to everybody?
The Governor and the AG of Nebraska are absolutely free right now to challenge any candidate for office on any grounds they might feel valid. In fact, I daresay they often have thrown candidates for state and local office from the ballot until the prospective candidate has established the necessary bona fides. Every state electoral official in the nation has, at various times, done exacrtly that.
There is no need for "legislation."
As you and I have often discussed, if one (1) state electoral official had done their job in 2007, we would have long ago had a ruling from the SCOTUS on this issue.
What is a "Natural Born Citizen?" Must we wait until several more Leftist Lesbians are appointed to the SCOTUS before we get an answer?