A Surprise From the Liberterian Party...

I haven't had any luck getting the two major parties to respond to my calls and emails, so today I decided to try the minor parties. One, the Libertarian Party, responded almost immediately to my request for information. What they told me boldly highlighted the problem with our current system. First, the correspondence:

Dear Sir/Madam, According to my Secretary of State's office, it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that its candidates are qualified to hold the office for which they run. I'm doing a research project on how different parties go about fulfilling this obligation. Specifically, I was wondering:

1) How did your organization ensure that Mr. (redacted - I first got the candidate's name wrong) was eligible to hold the office of President, should he have been elected?

2) When did the qualification process take place, and was there a particular date when he was "declared" to be eligible?

3) What evidence was your candidate required to present to the party in order to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold office? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.

Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs

The response:

There was no question as to Congressman Barr’s eligibility, so we went on good faith that he was Constitutionally qualified.

If you'll remember, the Colorado Secretary of State's office explicitly stated that the legal responsibility for ensuring that a candidate is qualified falls to the candidate's party; yet here we have a concrete example of a party who performed no check on their candidate, proceeding on "good faith" because "there was no question" about their candidate's eligibility. I don' t think I need to point out the more obvious problems with this scenario. In fact, I don't know that I need to say anything at all - the problems are so glaringly obvious that they speak for themselves.
There was an error in this gadget