In addition , if they want to argue "Officers appointed over him say Obama is Ok," then all he has to argue is that, as a commisioned officer, he is responsible for the orders he passes down. They cannot argue that the COC concept limits him, but that he then has no responsibilities thereunder to those who follow his orders.
Obama can not succeed with a “unduly burdensome” argument, since one production by a civil servant from Hawaii puts all these cases to rest. Throw in testimony from a few Expert Questioned Document Examiners and it's over.... so why haven't the Dems just......
?
I also wondered why there can't be an Article VI Supremacy argument to be made.
The "one production by a civil servant from Hawaii" is hiding behind Hawaii's data privacy laws to protect Obama from having his birth certificate revealed. But doesn't the fact that the presidential qualifications stem from Article II of the Constitution, and Article VI say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" open a door of opportunity?
Wouldn't this assume that the Constitutional requirement to show qualification trumps Hawaii's state privacy laws? Couldn't this be used to compel Hawaii to provide Obama's birth certificate?
-PJ