I don’t see your point. If, as it does, the Constitution states that any candidate for POTUS must be a natural born citizen, then it is incumbent upon Obama to demonstrate by producing his Birth certificate and/or other relevant documents that he is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution doesn’t say WHO is responsible for enforcing this requirement. Well, that seems eminently solvable, too. If those who are most obvious in a position to vet Obama—his party, the various secretaries of state, the electors, or the Senate, refuse to act, then citizens have a perfect right to ask the courts to come up with a reasonable method to enforce the constitution.
Usually, that is what SCOTUS does. Unfortunately, they have declined to do their proper job.
However, the burden is still on Obama to demonstrate that he is a citizen. He refuses to do so, and his party, which currently controls the levers of power, also refuses to act. And the press, which might put pressure on them, also refuses to act.
That pretty much leaves us, doesn’t it?
Every day it becomes more and more evident that Obama is almost certainly NOT a natural born citizen, indeed probably not a legal citizen at all. I don’t think we are required to shut up about that. If he gets tired of hearing about it, he can always produce his records, as every other president has done, except Bill Clinton and Osama Obama.
First, I am not the enemy. From where I sit the guy is not eligible and certainly seems to be working awfully hard at hiding something. If he isn’t hiding something why isn’t he producing the real goods?
Under normal circumstances, for example business arrangements, were someone not being as transparent as they claim to be I would walk away from the deal. There I get to be judge, jury and exicutioner.
While your suggestions are reasonable, e.g. Democratic party vetting, SCOTUS, Secretary of State, Electors etc. ...they aren’t going to, it isn’t in their interest. They like this creep and still think he is going to give them all the want.
As I read the Constitution it does not say how evidence of eligibility for office is to be provided ...I guess the framers thought any fool would figure out that some thing more than an affidavit would need to be provided. Anybody with any sense at all knows that so long as one need not provide proof that the affidavit is true one can CLAIM ANYTHING. Why? Because if the burden of proof is placed upon the one(s) to whom the affidavit is being sworn ...a negative can never be proven. You see ZERO claims he is a legitimate candidate and we must prove he is NOT ...without the evidence that only he can provide, since the law is silent on how the eligibility is to be proven, we are on a fool’s errand.
I repeat what I have said to congress creeps and spinators, “It is incredible to me that you can run for your office or President with much less documentation proving your eligibility than it takes to join a little league baseball team.”
I find it almost equally interesting that Congress had to rule on the eligibility of John McCain and not ZERO ...tell me why on that one if you can?
So, you are right, it is left to us but what legal power do we have? What can we do but present credible and rational arguments in the hope that someone will be compelled to do what should have been done in the first place? AND for which there appears to be no legal requirement to do now (that is to provide real PROOF in the form of a real birth certificate for yourself)?