Alright, we'll see about that, since we're talking law let's get this done-and-over with. (Using semi-formal logic.)
The Constitution mentions the case wherein the "the President elect shall have failed to qualify" so it must therefore be possible for an "elected president" to fail the qualification.
The Qualifications for president are "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Rephrased, the both of the following two conditions must be met for a person to qualify for the Office of President:
The only variable qualification is the age of the person; if some natural born Citizen were to run for President at, say, 34 years old at the scheduled time of inauguration (let's put his birthday in June), then his qualification would have changed from ineligible in May to eligible in July. Right?
Because people's age only grows this can only provide an example of the status of someone not-qualifying changing to that of qualifying. For aging to produce a qualifying to non-qualifying change the person would have to age backwards, like Merlin in some of the Arthurian tales.
Now here is where people seem to be getting tripped up: because the Natural Born Citizen status can never change they assume it to be true... that is they assume that whomever appears on a ballot is a Natural Born Citizen (if they ever think about it at all, that is). However, this is not necessarily the case; as can be seen here. As the wikipedia link shows, someone who did not meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement was on that ballot; thereby illustrating that assumption to be possibly fallacious.
Now, there are multiple factors which might have an impact on Obama's eligibility, here are just a few:
When I was in the Army, it was incumbent upon me, the soldier, to provide documentation should it be lost, especially concerning promotions. How than can someone be 'promoted' to the position of Commander in Chief and not provide the requisite proof upon request? It simply boggles my mind. The image posted on the web saying "Certification of Live Birth" is not a birth certificate. Litigious nit-picking aside, every birth certificate I've ever seen has had the name of physician/attendant and this does not.
Let's put this in another light; suppose that you are given a promotion at work and the promotion requires that you a) have a certain degree, and b) have been employed by the company for a minimum length of time. Suppose now that this promotion came about because of a paperwork error, say a HR person entering 10/01/01 instead if 10/01/10 for your employed-on date or someone misread the qualification as an AS instead of a BS.
Would it be 'uncouth' for a co-worker to think that seems strange... and ask that the facts be reviewed? Would it be be 'wrong' for the company to take away that promotion when the truth came to light?
Why then do so many seem in a rush to "just recognize Obama as President"?
“When I was in the Army, it was incumbent upon me, the soldier, to provide documentation should it be lost, especially concerning promotions.”
Bull! I spent 25 years in the military, and on any given day or month I couldn’t have PROVED my promotion except for my ID card. And if anyone had challenged my orders on the basis that I wasn’t an officer or had the rank, I would NOT have been expected to show him paperwork to his satisfaction. The burden of proof for his accusation would have to come from him. Otherwise, I’d have the cops take him away.
“they assume that whomever appears on a ballot is a Natural Born Citizen”
In the absence of any evidence, darn right. Everyone KNEW about Obama’s father, and NO ONE with standing objected. No party. Not McCain or Palin. Not the GOP or Hillary Clinton. No state official, governor or legislature. No one with STANDING. And that is still true - no one tasked to check has raised an objection based on either A) his father’s citizenship, which was completely known, or B) his supposed birth overseas, for which no evidence has been presented.
“Litigious nit-picking aside, every birth certificate I’ve ever seen has had the name of physician/attendant and this does not.”
My daughter’s certificate from New Mexico is in the same format as Obama’s, and no one can challenge her birth in the USA based on wanting to see the name of the physician.
