The Constitution doesn’t require a presidential candidate produce a birth certificate for public approval - read it, the requirement just isn’t there.
*** Just like there’s no requirement for an army general to prove he’s an army general when he tells you that you have to put up his friends for a year rent free? The requirement against that bit of bullstuff is the 3rd amendment, but you won’t find case laws or procedures built up around it because that problem hasn’t reared forth in our constitutional history. That does not mean the constitutional requirement isn’t there. For him to say, “well, where’s the written law that prevents me from doing this” is disingenuous. And it is just as disingenuous for CoLB trolls to demand that such a law be present for the same kind of untested constitutional area. The written law is the very first set of laws: the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Your requirement that there be some kind of procedure or statute in place is a way of putting such procedures in priority over the constitution and it is a logical fallacy.
Further, I don’t recall any presidential candidate ever being required to prove his citizenship
***Because no one has tried to game the system until now. You may be old, but you ain’t that old. The constitution predates you.
(McCain volunteered his and Obama did too, just not the long version), and I’m OLD.
The Constitution does require the president to be a natural born citizen, however it doesn’t not suggest nor require any action on the part of the candidate to prove his or her status.
The situation you describe is not a requirement, it is a prohibition; in other words, no action may be taken to quarter soldiers in private homes. There is no need for the general to prove who he is because the action, not rank or identity is the issue.
For him to say, “well, where’s the written law that prevents me from doing this” is disingenuous.
On that we agree, clearly there is a law that forbids housing soldiers in private homes. However, it does no follow that
And it is just as disingenuous for CoLB trolls to demand that such a law be present for the same kind of untested constitutional area.
It is not the same kind of untested Constitutional area at all; one is a clear prohibition, meaning NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to quarter soldiers in private homes.
The written law is the very first set of laws: the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Your requirement that there be some kind of procedure or statute in place is a way of putting such procedures in priority over the constitution and it is a logical fallacy.
We agree that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and then we part company. The Constitution sets forth the requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen, but doesn't define, in detail, what that means nor a process or form of proof for assuring compliance. Without that, compliance could mean taking the word of the politician that he meets the requirement. To define and spell out in law what compliance means does not put "procedures in priority over the constitution", it merely sets forth how the Constitutional requirement must be met.
Obama did release his CoLB that states he was born in Hawaii. You claim that's not good enough to prove Constitutional compliance to your satisfaction. The logical fallacy is yours.