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.
“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.”
Additionally, Herbert Hoover’s Vice President, Charles Curtis was not born in a state of the Union. He was born in Kansas Territory in 1860. Kansas didn’t become a state until1861.