Well, with any luck the Supreme Court will decide that public statements given by Hawaiian state officials (including the director of the Department of Health) is verification enough under Article IV, Section 1.
On The State Side this shows the qualifications for all officesQualifications for Office
And now that I looked it all up again, in my Texas State Statement of Candidacy I did attest to this statement:
"Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared (name) _________________________________________, who being by me here and now duly sworn, upon oath says: “I, (name)________________________________________, of _____________________________ County, Texas, being a candidate for the office of __________________________________________________ ____, swear that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Texas. I am a citizen of the United States eligible to hold such office under the Constitution and laws of this state. I have not been finally convicted of a felony for which I have not been pardoned or had my full rights of citizenship restored by other official action. I have not been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote. I am aware of the nepotism law, Chapter 573, Government Code. I further swear that the foregoing statements included in my application are in all things true and correct.” " http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/a2-8.pdf
But never had to show any proof, just sign the form and gather the signatures to become a write-in candidate
Last edited by Hatuey; 12-19-10 at 02:41 PM.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
When our reading of the letter of the law supports our cause, we're all about the rule of law and all the little technicalities that strengthen our position without changing a damn thing about the reality of the situation.
When our reading of the letter of the law opposes our cause, we're all about the spirit of the law and all the little things this or that important person has said that strengthen our position without changing a damn thing about the reality of the situation.
Why is the crux of the matter so often completely removed from the reality of the situation?
Obama's citizenship has been verified.
It staggers me how many people still don't know this.
One of you will end up here next!