And here you trot out the ole "argumentum ad vericundiam" fallacy. No thanks. Dealt with it too many times. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people in positions of authority nowadays. The country has gotten more infantile since World War II.
Wow. I guess the state of North Carolina is another of those "weasel word" states that just won't say what it *IS.* Right?
And here's the old "tu quoque." Because one state does something stupid or deceitful, it should justify other states doing something stupid or deceitful.
It also completely overlooks the point that such a certification of an abstract is perfectly reasonable for "Joe Smith" to get his driver's license, but is quite insufficient when it directly impacts compliance with a Constitutional law. A nation can tolerate a useful fiction to serve a good purpose regarding the adoption of children, but a nation can not, and ought not tolerate this sort of subterfuge when it directly impacts a Constitutional requirement to meet qualifications to be President.
All state laws should have fallen like wheat before a scythe when they are put into confrontation with Constitutional law.
The Default standard implicit in the wording of article II should be to require a person to establish proof of eligibility, not to assert they have it until proven otherwise.
But as I said, the Nation has become far more infantile and stupid since World War II, you being but one example of the decline.
Says the man whose stock-in-trade in debate is to haul out lots of insipid photos and name-call at every turn. When will you grow up?
And here's the old "tu quoque." Because one state does something stupid or deceitful, it should justify other states doing something stupid or deceitful.
"Tu quoque" would refer to YOUR being accused of committing the same flaw. (Actually, my point above might be that, but it fits, so tough.) But most of your appeals to logical fallacies are off.
The point is that near all of the States issue certifications in similar form, and doing so is not "deceitful." I'm not talking about adoptions here. That is a special case that simply cannot be invoked to question a B.C. showing BHO and S.A. as parents unless one wishes to posit the absurd hypothetical that they went and adopted someone else's kid. But "abstract" still means to everyone that the abstracted information is true (to near all but you, it seems)
but a nation can not, and ought not tolerate this sort of subterfuge when it directly impacts a Constitutional requirement to meet qualifications to be President.
Here you're simply begging the question.
The Default standard implicit in the wording of article II should be to require a person to establish proof of eligibility, not to assert they have it until proven otherwise.
And if that were to be raised and adopted as the standard, then fine. Your problem is that such has NEVER been the practice at any time in our nation's history, so it's simply an ad hoc and self-serving argument to assert it here.
Your arguments boil down to one big whine and foot stomping rant that "I'm not the Standards Czar."