[Nero Germanicus]

Presidential candidates can and have documented their eligibility under Article II, Section 1 by using their passports and their driver’s licenses.

Some states require a candidate to personally sign a notarized statement attesting to their qualification under Article II, Section 1. That statement can then be challenged in court.

That same 1787 document says in Article IV, Section 1 (The Full Faith and Credit Clause) that the states are the final arbitor on what is a legitimate public record of each state and that record will be accepted in every other state.

[DiogenesLamp]

Presidential candidates can and have documented their eligibility under Article II, Section 1 by using their passports and their driver’s licenses.

Even if this is true, a Candidate that has gone through life leaving the impression that he is some Foreign Prince ought not receive this level of trust regarding his subsequent assertions.

Some states require a candidate to personally sign a notarized statement attesting to their qualification under Article II, Section 1.

I don't care if they find jumping up and down with feathers in your ears satisfactory proof, that doesn't make it so.

What is satisfactory proof is something that actually PROVES SOMETHING. If it has wiggle room, or a parachute clause, it isn't good enough. It has to be sufficient attested to that there is no possibility of being wrong or incorrect.

That statement can then be challenged in court.

In a rational system, the burden of proof is not on the People, but should be on the supplicant for their favor instead. The default position of All State Elections should be "exclude in absence of proof", not the other way around.