Who's job is it to confirm that the president is a natural born citizen before he takes office?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by meson

I had a brain fart hence my edit...funny you whould pick up on it though.
Btw the term "natural born citizen" didn't come up prior to Obama's presidency
so why would you expect us to believe the thread is not about him?

Actually it has come up prior to Obama..

The clarification as to the definition goes back to 1789 where Madison clarified the meaning to the House of Representation and there have been numerous Supreme Court challenges going back as far as the early 1800's to further define the term.. Everything in this world isnt about Obama, despite you believing it is..

[Maine88]

Originally Posted by meson

I had a brain fart hence my edit...funny you whould pick up on it though.
Btw the term "natural born citizen" didn't come up prior to Obama's presidency
so why would you expect us to believe the thread is not about him?

I first heard of the term natural born citizen before i heard about Obama, it was back when Arnold Schwarzenegger first became governor and people were hoping he might run for president.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Evenstar51

Apparently the Secret Service and FBI are initially required to vet a candidate, after which the media combs through every aspect of their lives. President Obama has produced his b.c. and it was verified; even John McCain, who had every reason to attack Obama, accepted that he was a viable candidate.

The OP said this was not about Obama.. (regardless if you believe him or not, he asked a question)..

btw, there was also questions raised if McCain was legally allowed to run for President as well..

But the media, Secret Service, FBI and the media do not have an obligation to verify if a candidates legal authorization to be sworn in, which was the question asked..

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by pghquest

not true at all...

An opponent does not have legal jurisdiction to question if a candidate passes constitutional muster to be elected legally.

It is true. As far as I know, they're the ONLY people with legal standing to sue on the issue. In our country if someone violates a law and because of it you are harmed, then you have the legal standing to bring suit and ask for remedy (unless there is a specific exemption preventing the suit). That's how our legal system works.

In this particlar instance Obama would be violating the law (in particular article 2 section 1 of the US Constitution). The people being harmed would be the people who were also seeking the same office. As such, they would have standing to sue for remedy (Obama's disqualification).

Originally Posted by pghquest

An example might be if Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for President. As his opponent you can question if he should be on the ballot, but being on the ballot and being sworn in is 2 different things.

Huh? I don't understand your point here at all. What does the chronology have to do with anything? If Schwarzenegger decided to run, I imagine every single other Republican in the primary would sue within minutes of his announced candidacy to have him disqualified. If they didn't and he won the Republican primary, I image the Democratic/Green/Libertarian/American Constitution Party/Communist Party, etc candidates would all sue within minutes of his primary victory. If he somehow sneaked by and won the election, any of these candidates could sue afterwards as well.

Originally Posted by pghquest

If those states decide he should be allowed to run, his opponents have no legal authority then to sue and neither does the citizens.

I agree with you that citizens don't. The candidates absolutely do.

Originally Posted by pghquest

If Schwarzenegger got on the ballot and won the election, its the responsibility of Congress to verify the candidate is legal to be sworn in..

I agree kinda of. They swear to uphold and protect the Constitution. However, there is absolutely no procedure set up for such a circumstance. The congress doesn't double check to see if the president elect meets the qualifications set out in the Constitution (well, they don't really check at all in the first place - they don't do any kind of verification). I imagine impeachment followed by removal from office after conviction would be the method they'd choose to take.