You just don't get it, do you?
One more time for those on the short bus:
Obama is obliged to produced proof that he is legally qualified. Lemme repeat that for the truly challenged:
Obama is obliged to produce proof that he is legally qualified. Now go home and meditate on that for a while.
Until and unless a court or relevant government agency requires Obama to present anything more than he has already done, I can guaranty he will not do so.
That's the problem for people who claim that he needs to show more- he can simply say "no" and unless someone with the power to do so forces the issue, this will go nowhere.
I do. I'm wondering about a lot of other people.
You took the statement out of its context. The poster asked whether the Chief Justice would *knowingly* swear in an imposter.
You see, he couldn't do it knowingly if he wasn't convinced of the proposition. Since nobody has proved it, he wouldn't be convinced. It had nothing to do with Obama's obligations.
Really? Legally obliged? Please cite the federal statute and/or any enabling legislation. (The constitution is not a statute.)