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.
The inherent method is the sworn oaths that candidates give. And that’s a valid method because if any candidate lies under oath, per the qualifications, all that needs to be done — to stop that candidate from continuing — is to show that he lied under oath in regards to any of those three requirements and that’s the end of that candidate... he’s over...
As far as McCain was concerned, he did look into it and determined that there was not anything there to challenge and thus, he and his campaign did not pursue it. I can provide the recent article that said that. It was in the last couple of days or more.
So, McCain did follow it up and he and his staff determined — “nope” ... no challenge. That pretty much says that there’s nothing there to challenge (to put a “fine point” on it, at least there was nothing to challenge as far as McCain and his staff are concerned). If he could have done something else, he would have, in order to disqualify the other person and win. And I say *that* because I do believe that McCain believes that those three qualifications given in the Constitution *must be upheld*.
I agree with a mechanism being put into place. And that’s what I’m proposing, too. But, let me say something about the idea of a “flawed document”... For one thing, keep in mind, that while the Constitution is the law of the land, it’s far from perfect. One does not put forth “Amendments” to a document that is perfect. So, it’s definitely not perfect. In fact, the Constitution was determined by the Supreme Court to allow slavery. That took a Constitutional Amendment to change that “understanding” of that document. And also, there’s the initial Amendments, the Bill of Rights. We all recognize those as absolutely essential. But, at one point in time, they were not there. And later, they were the first ten Amendments to be made. Now, we’re up to, ummm... about 27 Amendments, I think.
It goes without saying that the Constitution is not a perfect document, but it’s the law of the land and if we don’t like what one part says, we change it by an Amendment. I wouldn’t try to make it into a perfect document, but one that is the law of the land, one that we go by, one that we follow — and if we need to make an Amendment, then we will.