by Professor » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:24 am
I still think that Congress should institute a rigid test for meeting the qualifications to run for President. For every other elected office in the nation, there are specific laws stating how a person should prove that they meet the criteria. You have to have owned a house in the district for X years, proven by mortgage deeds, utility bills, etc. Must be a resident of the state and pay taxes there. Things like that.
But, there is no set-in-stone standard for proving that you are qualified to run for President. Like I've said, I have no doubts that Obama is legit. But, it highlights a problem. To qualify to be on the ballot in a state, a Presidential candidate should have to file, within that state, proof of birth. This would prove both the age and the citizenship requirement set forth in the Constitution.
To the best of my knowledge, that specific Constitutional requirement is the only one that has no Federal laws backing it up and clarifying it. There are numerous laws clarifying freedom of speech, voting rights, separation of powers, etc. And, that's the way that the Constitution is supposed to work. It outlines basic guidelines. But, it's not specific enough to be a law unto itself. The ideas in the Constitution are meant to be clarified and codified. But, there is not a single law clarifying what is a citizen, and what is needed to prove such.