In 2000, some residents went to court objecting to the intrusive questions on the census long form. They lost, and, it was reported that a $500/day fine would be imposed on anyone refusing to answer the census (which is under penalty of perjury, by the way). The idea of having a right to remain silent was disallowed, leaving, what appeared to me to be at the time, a very large minority of americans upset about being forced to answer these intrusive census questions (such as the number of bathrooms??????).

This time, for the first time since the post revolution generations (I think), we have a president that did NOT have two american parents, and, who has not bothered to respond to reasonable requests about whether or not he is a "natural born american".

So what is to stop anyone, targeted in 2010 by the census takers, to once again take them to court, but, this time, claim the "law", which authorizes the census takers intrusion, is not valid because it would have been signed by a de facto president who is the son of one non-american parent, and who has never conclusively demonstrated, for public inspection, his eligibility to serve as president.

Some judges might throw such a case out as being frivolous, and they would be appealed, all the way to the supreme court, if needed, but, other judges might recognize that such a case has merit and needs to be decided on evidence.

This exposure (by the president's having one non-american parent) offers any number of census targets to challenge the 2010 census law in court. The courts might get overwhelmed by recalcitrant residents requiring a validation of the president's status at birth.

I wonder how this is going to work out.

Any law, appointment, or executive order signed by the current de facto president can be challenged as not being valid on this same ground (as was a military order recently in the news). The exposure is based on having one non-american parent, which offers a kind of prima facie case for ineligibility to serve as president.

Expect this issue to fester to where it will have to be resolved definitively by the courts, or by default (where the president resigns amidst multiple such cases).