A new law in each state certainly is one solution. Up to this point the legislative branch of government has not dealt with the issue. If indeed it is their job.
The SoS certainly did not have it in their job description. It may have to go back to the judicial branch to determine consistency and who is responsible to vet the candidates.
It was that reason that we turned to the judicial branch. Did I ever give you the letter I sent to the SCOTUS. Here's a taste, I think we agree.
Our Forefather’s in their wisdom established our government in three parts to check and balance each other. They specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president. You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately they did not establish who would vet each candidate to determine eligibility.
Nor did they establish “standing” if such a case were ever to be presented.. Standing , a arbitrary term established for the smooth working of the judiciary system, is not a condition established by the Constitution
... “We The People” are about to be in crisis if you chose to ignore these cases. We the People all have standing.
The SCOTUS must put this crisis to rest. ... A “rule of Law” one way or the other must be decided. The Constitution must remain intact, only qualified persons shall hold the office of the Presidency.
Hi...
You said — “We’ve missed you.”
Well, one word... MacWorld... :-)
—
Okay, I read the portion of the letter you included.
Here is where I think that the Supreme Court will do what conservatives mainly (in general) want the Supreme Court to do. For the most part (in general) the conservatives do not like the Supreme Court act in ways that create new laws or new rights that do not exist (i.e., are not in legislation or even in the Constitution). On the opposite side, usually liberals like it when the Supreme Court will act in such a way that they can bypass legislation (which liberals can’t get through Congress), but the Court can “make it so” by means of a decision that steps outside of the law that is given (already).
Now, if it’s the actual case that there is a loophole in our system, in which the Constitutional qualifications are given for President — but the actual vetting process and the *actual documentation* is not spelled out in the statute, but left up to the discretion of various Secretaries of State (as to how they are going to do it) — then for the Supreme Court to actually specify a method or to force a particular document to be produced, which is not legislatively required — this would be stepping into the area of “making law” where none existed before.
Now, the *purpose* of doing this (from the viewpoint of conservatives) would be good and commendable, in order to *find out for sure* if Obama is qualified or not, and/or to get the “evidence” needed to bring it to court, one way or another — but — it would violate the very principles that the conservatives desire for the Supreme Court in the first place.
That’s kind of how I see it. And, I think..., if the Supreme Court is really intent (within themselves) to stick to strictly giving decisions based upon existing law — then I don’t think they are going to step out of bounds (of this principle) and make any kind of decision with Obama on this issue.
Now, that’s how I see this thing shaping up. It doesn’t present a good picture, in terms of what us conservatives would want, in requiring Obama to produce proof — but — it may be exactly what we get for the principles that we want the Supreme Court to abide by....
And then, that would lead me back to the “legislation route” once again... (i.e., the state laws, as being the easiest to implement right away).