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...
The loophole does not exonerate the individual from producing documents when challenged to do so.
Simply affirming legal status is not sufficient because there are criminal provisions under law for making false statements. The Constitutional laws anticipated the potential for fraud or it would not have provided penalty.
Under a legal challenge the question of law should be settled by simply producing proper documentation to prove qualification.
If the loophole is just the question of what is considered a proper document, or who the documentation should be presented to I find no comfort in a complete avoidance of the question. The Constitution clearly states natural born citizen. The PotUS is held to the highest civic standards.
If Obama is proud to be an American citizen by birth, he shouldn’t be ashamed to produce whatever documentation necessary to satisfy the people or their appointed agents.