I'm interested in having the Constitutional questions answered, such as:
1. Who has authority to test the qualifications clauses in the Constitution BEFORE the candidate runs for office?
2. Who has standing to contest the authorization of a candidate's qualifications, that is, the check and balance against item 1?
The Constitution has references to the process that happens when a president-elect fails to qualify (Amendment XX Section 3). Why is that? What could cause a failure to qualify after an election? If the Constitution has a process for dealing with it, why should we look away if we suspect it?
The requirements are there in the Constitution. We can't just ignore them. We have to answer the questions of responsibility for determining and validating the determination of Article II qualifications, once and for all. We can't let a candidate use privacy laws to shield against Article II inspection. Article VI says that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." That means that the Constitution trumps Hawaii privacy laws, if it comes to that.
-PJ
That sounds sane and well-reasoned to me.