There should be no argument about this. The Constitution is very clear. No one but a Natural Born citizen can hold the office. The real issue is that there is no clear process for vetting the candidates to assure only Constitutionally qualified persons can be elected.
All states should have a process in place to require proper documentation for candidates.
Many years ago, when I first ran for public office, I was only required to affirm to the Board of Elections that I was qualified to hold the office. Pretty lame, IMO.
Several key states should pass their own law that demands a valid BC or the candidate will not be eligible in their state...Senators, Reps, Prez, any elected official...
The twentieth amendment, section 3 says:
"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
It is the job of Congress to be aware of two things concerning the "President elect". One, is he dead? 2. Did he "fail to qualify"?
If the answer to either of these two questions is "yes" then Congress must name a replacement. This means that the "President elect" has the burden of proving to Congress that he is alive, and "qualified". The string of words from section three "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly indicate that this is an action of the President elect and not the result of an action by others seeking to verify his qualifications. It is the "President elect" who shall have failed or shall have succeeded in "qualifying". One is only legally the President elect after Congress has validated the results of the electoral college votes so this "qualification" does not refer to that. There is only one set of qualifications for President to be found in the Constitution that are not health related and they are in Article two:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Anyone serving in Congress can demand to see proof of "qualifications" by the President elect and in fact are required to do so by their oath of office from Article six. They are oath-bound to "support this Constitution" and if they are not enforcing it, they are breaking their oath of office.
So, as you can see, there is a process right there in our Constitution. If it has been enforced, then we have a right to know who did what and where the evidence is. If it hasn't been enforced, we do not have a President.
this is the part that has really shocked me about all this.
I TOTALLY assumed that at the very LEAST our government had a process in place that checked all information on a candidate before they were allowed to run for president.
at least before THIS president.
what gets me is this: the entire GOP during the election....NO ONE thought to check his credentials??????
NO ONE????!!!