Lurking:”There is a principle of law called the “presumption of regularity of official action”— if a government body or officer does something within their official duties, the courts will presume it to be legal and the burden of proof is on the person challenging it.”
But isn’t the citizen Obama (not a govenment agent, at this point) responsible for submitting proof that he is elgible for the office of US President when he applies for the job (declares candidacy)? I do believe he has the burden of proof at this point. It seems to me that the legal process should be able to place burden on Obama retroactively since the governing bodies that oversee his candidacy appear not to have acted within the law.
Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications. There seem to be many various theories flying about on FR concerning who is liable.
He may have had the burden of proof before January 8, but once Cheney signed the certification of electoral votes, Obama is presumed to have met that burden, becuase the people constitutionally charged with vetting him said that they were satisfied. The burden now shifts to whoever chooses to challenge Cheney's certification.
So the burden of proof is on the person challenging that certification.
***That’s once a person has the job, using your analogy. The person doesn’t GET the job until they’ve submitted proof that they qualify for it, including often a birth certificate. Like VA says, “I do believe he has the burden of proof at this point. It seems to me that the legal process should be able to place burden on Obama retroactively since the governing bodies that oversee his candidacy appear not to have acted within the law.” And since this is a constitutional issue, the bailiwick is squarely with the SCOTUS.
Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications.
***It may be unclear, but that doesn’t remove the constitutional requirement.
There seem to be many various theories flying about on FR concerning who is liable.
***But the constitutional is steadfast in terms of the requirement. The constitution is the highest law in the land.
Apparently no one.