There's a difference between an ability and an obligation to perform a task. If a Secretary of State has an obligation to ensure a candidate meets certain criteria that's quite different from a legal ability to do so. And I see your eagle eye apparently missed my reference to original documentation. A " Certificate of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii can be whatever the Hawaii Legislature says it is but the Secretary of State of another state is not necessarily obliged to accept it as " dispositive proof" that the child was "Natural Born". If one of the candidate's Grandmother's had insisted - up until he decided to run for the office of President - that he had been born say in Kenya and newspapers reports prior thereto had referred to him as " Kenyan Born" it might alert the Secretary of State that his duty of care to enforce the statute was somewhat heightened.
Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?
Yes that was an interesting document. If I recall correctly that had a footprint on it and of course footprints do not change over a lifetime.
A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely
You misunderstand me. I envisage a procedure whereby the candidates would prove to the Secretary, to his complete satisfaction, that they were eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. I agree that things would get very messy if a candidate were allowed on the ballot and an election took place. Thus it would be an administrative procedure that ensures the candidates bona fides before any court was involved.
In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive
Yes that would be true if we genuinely had elected Solons. Unfortunately where the President's party has a majority in both houses the chances of the present incumbents overcoming self interest to do what is right for the country is practically non-existent.
I hope you can see that even reasonable people are concerned when a candidate is born and raised in unusual circumstances and refuses access to any of his personal records relating to his birth, his academic records or his health. The Present incumbent could easily rid himself of all these "wild" rumours by granting access to his birth and other personal records. He has declined to do so.
“Thus it would be an administrative procedure that ensures the candidates bona fides before any court was involved.”
Administrative proceedures never “ensure” much of anything save an opportunity to be heard at an entry level. There’s always the option of court and that’s where the problem comes in. Any disappointed party can appeal and thereby thwart an election.
“Yes that would be true if we genuinely had elected Solons. Unfortunately where the President’s party has a majority in both houses the chances of the present incumbents overcoming self interest to do what is right for the country is practically non-existent.”
But T, that’s the system the Founders gave us. And of course, whether or not the congressmen are acting in their own interest, the interest of their party, their constituents or of the nation is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, that’s why the Founders’ system is such a good one because there is the regular opportunity to change the composition of Congress if the majority of the people no longer like its looks.
“I hope you can see that even reasonable people are concerned when a candidate is born and raised in unusual circumstances and refuses access to any of his personal records relating to his birth, his academic records or his health.”
I don’t doubt that there are such people. What I cannot credit is the sincerity of the belief that the perfectly legal Hawaii birth certificate is not conclusive enough proof of where Obama was born. If Obama claimed to be a foreigner for scholarship purposes, but has a legal Hawaiian bc, then he lied on a scholarship application. Maybe you can make some political points with that, but you won’t get him removed from office. His health records won’t tell us where he was born. Truth be told, I don’t believe for one minute that if Obama appeared on TV with the doctor who delivered him and all the OB nurses in attendance who all swore they were there when he was born in Hawaii that the group who have supported Taitz, et al, would be satisfied. I say that because the group, by its own actions and words has completely destroyed its own credibility, if indeed it ever had any. This is also why I, and others, honestly question the motivation of the birthers. What they hope to accomplish, at least what they have asked for in their lawsuits, is very, very dangerous for our system of government, especially in time of war. Believe me when I say that these people have succeeded in garnering more than mere passing notice or a chuckle from some very non-partisan, and extremely conservative, elements of the government.