Since the Constitution requires a natural born citizen, why would it be illegal to ask for proof? Not arguing this, just not sure I understand the why of the statement that you speculate and I've seen others state as fact. If it was proof of age, would it seem illegal? If so, then how is it that we get asked for proof of age for all types of activities, like driving, buying beer/cigs, or firearms as examples.

I dunno, this sounds like a reasonable exercise of state powers under the Constitution. To my knowledge, the states--with no federal interference--have always set the requirements for appearing on the ballot, and almost every state has a different set of procedures.

I frankly think it should be somewhat difficult to get on a state's ballot for President of the United States. It keeps the Naderites and Mickey Mouse Party candidates busy for months.

They clearly do have the right to do so, just as they have the right to set other ballot access criteria (fees, signatures, party certification, etc).

I agree that the State of Arizona has the right to do this. I believe all candidates should prove that they meet the requirements of the position they are running for as a matter of course. As for a Certificate of Live Birth being legitimate (for all the Birthers out there), I believe it is or at least can be. I say that because that's what I have, and I was born at the Naval Air Station Hospital in Memphis, TN. The fact that he has a Certificate of Live Birth instead of a Birth Certificate proves nothing.

I think this is an excellent move, though it should have specified an original document or a document that has more info than an abstract of the original document, which Obama has presented so far.