What's different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so. Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.
Do you think YOU have Art. III standing to enforce Art. II sec 1?
I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.
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,
You seem very melodramatic and overwrought by this proposal so let me ask you a question. Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?
“What’s different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so.”
Any secretary of state can require that now and in Obama’s case such a secretary of state would have received a perfectly legal Hawaii bc...the same one used to get a passport. So what’s different?
“Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.”
Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?
“I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.”
You are right, you don’t have standing. A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely).
“Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?”
I’ve practiced law for 33 years. I’ve heard more times than I could count claims that one party or another has “dispositive evidence” which will end a case. More often than not the party doesn’t have that evidence and a trial demonstrates that. Trials are very good at finding the truth. In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive. If it is, and the sitting president is not qualified, then he should be removed. That’s how the Constitution provides, T.