Well, the birthers may have a rather strong point in saying, "Hey, I'd settle for any ACTUAL CITIZEN running for POTUS this go-round." :)
But citizenship (beyond the Obama question) isn't normally a "rallying" when it comes to POTUS...if that was the case, Perot and Ron Paul and Donald Trump would have been all fine as POTUSES.
One key aspect of considering a POTUS candidate is discernment...A candidate vulnerable -- gullible -- to deception in what he deems to be THE MOST IMPORTANT area of his life...can readily find bleedover effects ... for example in foreign policy.
Discernment IS key when we're talking about THE leader of the free world.
...his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.
Well, who's contending vs. Romney's "right" to be on the GoP ballot? (I'm not)
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Ok, but there are many American voters who don’t want to have to vote for someone who, in their eyes, believes in an unseen. unheard, based on faith alone being whose only claim to existence are mostly some physically impossible occurances, touted as “miracles” by said believers.