You think a law requiring someone to show identity is the same as a law banning people of different races from running?
+1
I don’t understand the resistance to eligibility requirement laws. I think its foolish to want this to be about Obama when the flaw will continue to exist.
The BC issue isn’t going anywhere because those who want Obama gone the most have dug themselves in so deeply that they can’t see the problem. Its why I’ve mostly walked away from the issue.
“You think a law requiring someone to show identity is the same as a law banning people of different races from running?”
It was a point-in-time reference, not a literal, moral, or racial one.
It would be a leap back in time, before the passage of the 10th Amendment, to adopt Adams great “solution” for getting the federal government dictate who can or cannot run in local elections like city commissions.
On the other hand, my Homeowners Association already requires everyone to be a natural-born citizen. :-)
The way to address this isn't all these obviously doomed lawsuits. The way to address it is to pass legislation at the state level defining how qualifications are validated. There are, however, three cautions: (1) you can't embellish the Constitutional requirements for a Federal office at the state level; (2) the full-faith-and-creidt clause precludes asking for birth documentation in excess of what a given state provides; and (3) if you stick in your own definition of “natural born citizen,” recognize that that can be challenged in a court and potentially overturned.