If part of the statute requires a general waiver of privacy then the fear of the press should deter any candidate who does not have a clear claim to be a " Natural Born Citizen".
Either you believe that the Articles of the Constitution should be enforced or you can forget the whole thing. As far as I'm concerned it means what it says and its articles should be enforced.
“If part of the statute requires a general waiver of privacy then the fear of the press should deter any candidate who does not have a clear claim to be a “ Natural Born Citizen”.”
Why? A challenge can be presented against a candidate today and could have been presented in 2008. What’s different?
“Either you believe that the Articles of the Constitution should be enforced or you can forget the whole thing. As far as I’m concerned it means what it says and its articles should be enforced.”
Do you think YOU have Art. III standing to enforce Art. II sec 1? If an Obama presents what Hawaii provides for a bc, what right do YOU have to challenge that? I submit that it is highly unlikely, unless you are let’s say a state secretary of state or perhaps a candidate for president, that you have any standing at all and any suit filed by you would be an attempt to unlawfully disrupt an election and cause chaos in America leaving us open to an assault by our enemies.
I suggest that instead of nonsense and perhaps sedition, we concentrate on finding and electing candidates who support a conservative line, however that might be defined.