I could understand a problem with documents back 100 years ago. The 21st President was elevated by the death of Garfield.
The biography says that Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield, Vermont in 1830. I am not sure what is not in order according to Donofrio.
But in this day of electronic records even things like school records should be easily verifiable. Obama would have been in grade school in 1965 or 1966. Records were on microfilm. At least in the US. But didn’t Obama go to school in Indonesia, a muslim school?
I don’t know about the loophole in 1881. But I do know we have a problem in 2009. Where are those records from the 1960’s that show Obama’s heritage as qualifications require for PotUS?
That’s why I’m supporting the following in Arizona and Oklahoma (so far) to close up that loophole and to require *specific documentation* in order to be placed on the ballot...
Eight Arizona Legislators Introduce Bill for Presidential Candidates to Prove Eligibility
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170651/posts
I’m involved in the Oklahoma one, but I just give the reference to the Arizona one to show that this is being done...
—
The loophole back then? It’s the same as now. There is *no legal requirement* to produce *specific documentation* (outlined by specific name and type in the statutory language) in order to vet the candidate. All one has to do is sign the forms and affirmed that one is qualified, per the party, the campaign and per the candidate — and that’s it.
*That* is the loophole — the same one that has existed all along...