It’s a slight bit different that you say. I mean by that... the Constitution says what the candidate must *be* and then it’s up to the officials to carry out the “methodology” of determining that.
Now, the conflict here is that people here have said that they want a “methodology” of “seeing the birth certificate” while the officials have simply (and with all candidates in the past) had them sign and swear an oath they are *are* what the Constitution says that they must *be* — and that is their “methodology”...
The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...
And here’s the Constitution for you...., the *basics* of the Constitution on this qualifications issue...
And yes, there is a Constitution, it’s to follow — and here is what it says, in regards to qualifications. The Constitution says that a candidate must be the following in order to qualify for the office. The candidate must ...
*be* 35 years or older
*be* a resident 14 years or more
*be* a natural born citizen
And Obama has sworn under oath that he *is* (as the Constitution says he must *be*)...
It does not say what is necessary to show it, prove it or what any means for “vetting” is. That’s up to the states themselves to vet and make sure that the candidates meet the qualifications.
And what they have done is sworn an oath that they are qualified..., Obama has, the other candidates have and they have in the past...
—
And in addition the State of Hawaii says that he *is* exactly what the Constitution says he must *be*...
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
This shows that there is no Constitutional issue or question. So, when there is no Constitutional issue at problem here with the Qualifications for office, why would the Supreme Court get involved? Which is why they didn’t get involved.
—
And if you want to get Obama to show his birth certificate, you’re going to have to get a state law to that effect, which is what I’ve been proposing since the election.
And you’ll notice that no one is saying to ignore the Constitution...
natural-born American citizenDo you not find it odd that she hyphenated Natural Born. You do realize that by hyphenated this she now has plausible deniability. i.e. "Oh...I thought natural-born meant a vaginal birth", born Naturally and not by C-Section.
Also, Fukino does not have authority to interpret the constitution.
Re: “The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...”
I take some issue with that. While the Constitution does not explicitly address that particular issue (NBC), it does have the “methodology” for confirming the eligibility of a President. First, the states determine who electors are and they vote (left to states to determine how to determine electors and how they vote). Second, Congress either confirms that vote or rejects it. I know many people here take issue with that, but I think McCain had this right when he made this argument.