[BuckeyeTexan]

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard provides an interesting assessment from U.S. Senate Republican attorneys on Scott Brown's Constitutional qualifications and whether or not the Democrats can delay seating him if he wins in MA.

"But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. 'Qualification' does not require state 'certification,' the lawyers said."

I wonder how they ascertained that Brown meets those Constitutional requirements. I'm sure he does, but what legal process did they follow to determine his qualifications? Are they relying on the fact that the MA SOS certified him to be on the special-election ballot? There are no laws of which I am aware that require candidates to produce qualifying documents.

They make the specific point that qualification is separate and apart from a state's certification of election. So did that apply to Obama too then?

[rxsid]

Is there a reason to have any doubt that Scott Brown is NOT a "citizen?" If there is, then he should be required to submit proof of citizenship.

Are you implying that he's either an illegal alien, a visitor on a visa or a permanent resident green card holder?