The question was whether we still had the right to see his birth certificate in the absence of a specific statute requiring him to submit one. You said "yes".
Either we have a right to see it or we can't compel him to do so. It's one or the other.
You said — Now you are avoiding the issue yet again.
—
I think it’s more like you’re avoiding “reality”... no really... :-)
You see, it’s a real simple matter, there are two kinds of “right to see” and it comes down to political right to see and legal right to see.
I’ve already said that there is a political right to see, but unfortunately that “mode” carries “no force” in the ability to get someone to follow through (like a candidate). It’s only political persuasion. And oftentimes, that’s enough. But, in Obama’s case, he had about 10 million more votes, in the election, who said they didn’t care, than conservatives who said that they did care.
And then you have the *legal right to see* — and I’ve already made that clear that there is *no legal requirement* for a candidate to show his birth certificate. So, you’re out of luck there.
This is the *reality* that you’re avoiding.
I’m simply making it so that that *reality* can be “changed” and made to be that there is a state law which *legally requires* a candidate to show his birth certificate.
I have no idea why this is so complex to understand. It seem really straightforward and simple to me.
In the case of the requirement that the president be natural born, the best proof is the birth certificate. If the officials mentioned above exercised the power of their offices and stood by their oath to uphold and support the constitution, this crap would have been over a year ago.