[Nero Germanicus]

“What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts. Further, there is no practical reason for doing so. There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

So, when you vote for a President, do your job and consider the qualifications of each candidate. The courts will not and cannot help you. ;-)

---

To amplify the points being made above, a federal judge ruled and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to overrule the following:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitutional mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president— REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of the CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.”—
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09:

[DiogenesLamp]

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office.

Catch 22. Till an injury has occurred, you have no standing to sue. After the injury has occurred, it's too late to sue.

[Ray76]

> either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment

The succession process applies. When a person is removed due to a judicial determination that a person fails to meet Constitutional requirements this creates a vacancy in the office.

[Tau Food]

Yes, as I said before, no court has ever disqualified a candidate for President. The language you quote states only that a court might have the power to do so. Having decided that the court could not intervene in that case, the court quite properly refused to decide whether in other circumstances the court might have that power. If and when a court ever has that issue before it, I believe that the court will rule that it has no such power.

In addition to the other reason that I mentioned (political question doctrine), I do not believe that a court would ever wish to place itself in the position of stating that our Founding Fathers wanted courts to consider questions like the paternity of a candidate at least 35 years following birth (paternity being relevant to the question of parental citizenship, should that be deemed important). In those days, identifying biological mothers was much easier than identifying biological fathers, particularly several decades after birth of the candidate when many of the relevant witnesses may be dead or unavailable. And, then there are the residency questions. Is the candidate to show up with utility bills, etc? ;-)

I just do not believe that the Founding Fathers wanted courts involved in these questions and I do not believe that courts then or now wanted/want any part of it.

By the way, did you know that Tennessee once sent to Washington DC a 28 year old Senator despite the Constitutional requirement that a Senator by 30 years old? So did Virginia. And, then there was Henry Clay, who began serving as a U.S. Senator when he was 29 years old. People were not so picky in those days when it came to Constitutional qualifications.

[Ray76]

> the Supreme Court of the United States refused to overrule

Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. was one of many cases denied certiorari without explanation. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061112zor.pdf

Denied certiorari is not the same as “affirmed”