You said — Now, if there is a requirement there must be a device to verify the requirement is correct. That device is a birth certificate. To say that there is no requirement to produce a birth certificate is specious and/or disengenuous. INHERENT in the place of birth requirement is the requirement to PROVE place of birth—ergo produce a birth certificate.
—
Birth certificates would be one way to do it, but it’s not the only way. It’s the plain and obvious fact of the matter just from our own recent candidates in just the last decades, that there is no legal requirement for a birth certificate. You won’t find that in the Constitution either.
What you find in the Constitution is the requirements for the candidate to *be*. And that’s precisely what the candidates have sworn on an oath that they *are*. But, it does not say that a birth certificate has to be produced. That’s something in your own mind and not in the Constitution.
And it wouldn’t be in the Constitution either, because birth certificates weren’t being issued back then. I’m not saying it a bad idea, but that it’s not a legally required thing for the candidate. And that’s precisely why you see that no one has been able to *compel* the candidate to produce it.
What you’re arguing about is what you *want* to have done. But, there is no legal requirement for it to be done.
And there has been a method in place for a candidate running for office of the President of the United States. It’s what they’re doing now. The candidates sign a sworn oath that they *are* what the Constitution says they must *be* (the three qualifications) and that’s exactly what the candidates have done.
Now, the easy solution is very simply to put into place that state legislation that will require candidates to produce a birth certificate or else they will not be placed on the ballot of that statte. That’s what three states have been working on (including mine, although for mine, it will take next session to get it done).
First, you need to reread what I wrote. I said INHERENT in the Constitution’s “native born” requirement is a requirement that it is proven. I never said the Constitution required a Birth Certificate, per se, to be produced. Of course, I’m assuming you know what INHERENT means.
Secondly, no presidential candidate’s “birth” qualification has ever been challenged to my knowledge. But, if McCain had challenged Onada, how would he prove he was born on American soil? Yep, birth certificate. So the issue may be offuscated this and that way, but all roads lead back to the potential need for a birth certificate.
Thirdly, you are quite right that in the past presidential candidates merely affirmed, under oath, that they were qualified to be president of the US. But that was back in the day when politicians were Americans first, supported the Consitution as it is written and retained a modicum of honor.
The Marxist Onada, of course, is the antitithesis of each and very one of those things. In fact, Onada swore to “uphold and defend” a Constitution that he has publicly is flawed. Therefore, as a minimum, he has lied and should be impeachable on that basis alone.
So, now that the Dear Leader and the Demrat Party have attacked the Constitution (that Onada swore to uphold), a mechanism must be put in place to close the loop hole. Hopefully, the states will ultimately take care of it.