Definitely. Although it need not be at the State level, it could be. It could also be a Constitutional amendment, or even just an ordinary law, under the necessary and proper clause as applied to the "natural born citizen" requirement.
But this is not an either or situation. Congress and/or the courts could still remedy the current problem, if problem there be.
I just dont think there is “any there, there”
If we cant hang this guy on his communist and anti constitutional ties, what are the odds we will get him on a “technicality’?
You were saying — “Definitely. Although it need not be at the State level, it could be. It could also be a Constitutional amendment, or even just an ordinary law, under the necessary and proper clause as applied to the “natural born citizen” requirement.”
Well, I do understand that it’s definitely possible to get a Constitutional Amendment for specifying a clear and open process for verifying a candidates Constitutional qualifications. But, I personally think that would stretch it out too long into the future and be very difficult to get through the Congress (for proposing the Amendment in the first place).
My estimation of this kind of process (i.e., getting the law on the books) is that it’s much easier on a state level because certain states are overwhelmingly Republican and they would be more inclined to support the Constitution this way (at least in their own state). If we were to get just a few states, that would be sufficient to make it so that a candidate would not want to forgo being on the ballot of a number of states — just for the sake of keeping his information away from the people.
—
But, I notice that the FReeper “mylife”, also responded by saying — “If we cant hang this guy on his communist and anti constitutional ties, what are the odds we will get him on a “technicality’?”
Ummm..., I think it’s a lot easier to “hang a person” on the technical aspects of the law, as it is written — than it is to “hang a guy” on political issues. Political viewpoints (even if we don’t agree with them) *are allowed* — but, in *all cases* — breaking the law (when it’s clear and specified plainly) is not what the overwhelming majority of the population will go along with.
You see..., you make it written into the “letter of the law” that a candidate cannot be put on the ballot, in the first place, unless they have complied with very specific things that the law very clearly states. And then you make it so that anyone in the state can sue to prevent a candidate from being on the ballot, and they are able to take it *directly* to the Supreme Court of that state (in the first instance, without going through lower courts) in order to prevent that, if the Court determines that those *specifics* in the law were not followed. They can issue an injunction. And also, they will be able to issue an injunction (by law, again, as specified in the statute to be proposed) against any Electoral College vote being cast for that particular candidate. Such an injunction will allow a state to cancel an Electoral College vote from being submitted, if it has that candidate’s name.
That’s how I would see such a statute working...