No, if he becomes president it will show a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution, as they have sworn to do.
You said — “No, if he becomes president it will show a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution, as they have sworn to do.”
I simply do not see the “mechanism” there for the requirement of proof that someone qualifies under the Constitution. It only says that one be qualified...
NOW..., going further, one could very easily say that even without the *requirement of proof* — that Obama did put forth enough evidence of his natural born status to satisfy the majority of the voting public. In fact, they accepted it so well, that they put him in office by larger numbers than voted in Clinton or Bush (in any of their terms in office).
So, at this point, and since Obama did put forth some documentation that he says shows that he’s a natural born citizen — it turns out that the “burden of proof” is on the “naysayers” to show otherwise. That’s because there is *no requirement* for any more proof than what Obama has already done. And..., the majority of the voting public says that is okay (by them, that is...).
—
The reason why you say there is “a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution...” is because their hands are tied by the nature of the laws which do not require anything more from Obama. He has *already* asserted that he meets the qualifications and he has given preliminary proof of such. There are no laws that require anything more than that.
So, by all legal intents and purposes he *has met* the qualifications of the Constitution for qualification for the office of President of the United States.