Your comments are a demonstration of my tongue in cheek reference to hiding out in an undisclosed location.
You know that Obama was not required to provide proof, you say so, and then you seem to be trying to play ‘gotcha’ with the kid playing rec soccer having to provide more documentation than the president.
Frankly, I think anyone running for public office should have to provide basic proof of eligibility. Unfortunately, without an ex post facto law (something we don’t typically favor here at FR), Obama will not have to do so, unless one is passed prior to the next presidential election cycle.
No actually I was playing devil's advocate to your insane posterings. I happen to believe Obama IS required to provide proof.
20th Amendment Section 3 specifically states ".....shall have failed to qualify....."
How is anyone going to determine if a candidate fails to qualify unless the PROOF of those qualifications is GIVEN? That fact that proof is required is right there in the constitution its just being ignored. And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer. So I'll ask it again: "Why should a kid playing soccer be REQUIRED to submit proof of U.S. citizenship while a PRESIDENT with his hand on the nuclear button DOESN'T HAVE TO?"
Frankly, I think anyone running for public office should have to provide basic proof of eligibility.
Good glad we agree.
Unfortunately, without an ex post facto law (something we don’t typically favor here at FR), Obama will not have to do so...
B.S. The constitution demands it in Article 20, Section 3.
...unless one is passed prior to the next presidential election cycle.
We're working on it:
Eligibility Bill Hits Congress