The "presumption of innocence" and the burden of proof on a prosecutor in a criminal trial does not imply that a person elected to the Presidency must be presumed to be eligible.
The fact that a Democratic Congress permits Obama's records to remain hidden is the problem; it is not the solution to the problem.
In my life, Nixon came perilously close to undermining the rule of law and bringing about a critical national emergency. Had he refused to obey the Supreme Court's decision to turn over the tapes, we could have found ourselves in a situation where armed soldiers would bar entry to the White House by an officer of the Supreme Court attempting to retrieve evidence of a crime.
Would you have U.S. soldiers forcibly bar an officer of the Supreme Court from the White House by following "lawful" orders of their commanders stemming from orders from Nixon?
Had Nixon refused the orders of the Supreme Court, I was prepared to march on Washington myself. Would U.S. soldiers be justified in barring me from carrying out the orders of the Supreme Court?
Preservation of order is not a higher purpose than preservation of the Constitution. My freedom can survive disorder; it cannot survive violation of the Constitution.
Your response doesn’t answer the basic question. Are you arguing that any soldier can, at any time, refuse to deploy, pending a court hearing on whether there is a reason why the President isn’t really the President?
You might respond “only when we know there is a real question”, but in the legal community, we don’t know what is a real question and what is not, until the court actually hears an argument and makes a ruling. At this point, the argument that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.A. is no more serious an argument than the argument that he isn’t really old enough, or that he didn’t live here long enough, or that he renounced his citizenship, or that he didn’t really win the election. All those arguments could be put forth, and a court would have to make some ruling.
My argument is that, in the meantime, All the evidence is that Obama IS the President. He was in the election, he was certified in 50 states, he received popular votes which gave him electoral votes. The electoral college voted, and certified Obama the winner. The results were sent to congress, and a duly elected congress ratified the election results. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ratified the elections by swearing in the President.
It’s not a “presumption of innocence”, it is a series of steps laid out in the constitution that have been met, and the judgment of both the legislative and judicial branches.
It is now on the opposition to show that these steps were taken in error. But we can’t have our soldiers refusing to obey the lawful orders of their commanding officers simply because they believe that, if a court case was held, Obama would be ruled ineligible for the Presidency.
Because if that were so, any soldier could do that at ANY time for ANY reason; For example, at the time we deployed to Afghanistan, nobody had really sued in court to force Bush to prove he was eligible for the Presidency.