OK, I see we have a fundamental epistemological issue. :-)
"Having it in your mind or saying it is true does not make it a fact. Showing to other observers who see the same thing makes it a fact. If you say you are 35 that is not a fact until it can be shown in some manner to be factual."
It may not be a confirmed fact, but if I really was born 35 years ago then it's a fact I'm 35, whether anyone see the proof or not. It's a fact because it IS, not because someone's confirmed it.
There's a dark side of the moon that nobody had ever seen before we built rockets that could get there. For all of human history no person had ever confirmed anything about the dark side. But it still existed. It was there. It has craters that didn't pop into existence only when someone looked at them. It was a fact of existence, even without a person confirming it.
In the same sense, I am my age whether anyone ever looks at my driver's license. It just is.
Well, it’s been an interesting and somewhat disappointing day. I figured everyone would be undivided when it comes to vetting candidates. I am worried about that little factoid. If we’re not all for vetting, then this whole thing could happen again.
I posit the there were at least two sides to the moon as humans had observed forever there are two sides or more to physical objects. How many millenium of observation would it take for you to accept that as fact. Being in the dark does not always deny a facts. The fact that it was referred to as the dark side is an acknowlegement of the side. In fact when we see OB's records, you may still choose to believe there is no other side to the moon.
This is the same logic problem you have when you look to the constitution for a specific rule to require a BC, when it is obviuous to the rest of us that the best evidence of age and location qualifications is the BC. And please answer my previous question Where are the rules in the constitution about what the president can do with the military?
You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted. You should be concerned more about having an unexperienced socialist in the Oval Office and as CIC than whether or not a candidate might have to show his BC.
Should your fact still have a requirement of proof?