Was playing fast and loose with the matter of residency to be on the presidential ticket with Bush in 2000?
He had been claiming a homestead exemption in Texas for years and then flew to Wyoming when the 12th Amendment was pointed out to the GOP, to take advantage of their 'motor voter' program. Some didn't agree with his actions:
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=604Guess the Tea Partiers were too busy listening to Rush at the time to notice a case that went through the courts but was thrown out by GOP appointed judges. It should have gone higher. Just one of the many things that went wrong in 2000. The fact that Cheney made a mad dash to Wyoming to settle shows something was wrong.
While it doesn't say they can't be together, it says the electors for the state, in this case Texas, (Electoral College, anyone?) can't do it:
Q101. "Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state? In the 12th amendment the wording leads me to think that the electors and the candidates cannot be from the same state."
A. The Constitution doesn't say that they cannot be from the same state. However, the 12th Amendment does say that electors may not vote for a President from their state and a Vice President also from their state. This issue came up in the 2000 presidential campaign when Texas Governor George W. Bush chose fellow Texas resident Richard Cheney to be his running mate. Cheney, who had served in Congress as a Representative from Wyoming, quickly changed his legal residence back to Wyoming to avoid the possible conflict for electors from Texas. Court challenges to Cheney's change of residency were denied.
It is unlikely that two people from the same state would ever be nominated by a major political party. It is constitutionally possible however. If it ever came to pass, the party that won the ticket's state would likely suggest to the electors that their votes for the President go to the presidential nominee and that the votes for the Vice President be given in honor of a party official. Electors in all other states, as mentioned above, would be free to vote for both of the party's nominees.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.htmlThe current governor of the state of Hawaii who knew both of Obama's parents says this is bunk:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-birthers-20101224,0,3744847.storyBut they'll believe what they want to believe. Like keeping tax cuts for the rich make jobs appear suddenly even though they'd been in place for almost ten years. That there was no TARP before Obama. That unions and public workers are the enemy. That war makes peace. Always room for the gullible.