I gave the examples of a thing existing, without proof and that they are realities(Pluto and Africa).
Shouldn’t the next step then be proof of the thing? or does the conversation stop at a thing exists because it exists?
Um, honestly, I don’t know. I was following mlo’s conversation and that’s as far as he ever got with that person. I think the point he was trying to make was that Obama can be 35, a 14-year resident, and a natural-born citizen in actuality/reality without having provided any documentation to that effect. That is true or rather it can be true.
Sorry, real life intruded and sucked up my time. I’ll look at what you posted and see if a response is needed.
So far I’ve found the discussion rather silly and frustrating. It shouldn’t have been a big deal to postulate that a thing is, whether someone documents it or not. But some birthers seem to be unable to concede even a basic fundamental point of reality if they think it might be used to argue against them. Absurd.
It wasn’t my intent to spend much time on this tiny point. The intent was to move on quickly to the next. If even this little fundamental uncontroversial thing can’t be agreed on then it sure looks like trying to reason with certain birthers has to go out the window.
Yes, those are good examples of what I meant. Nobody would doubt that Pluto existed before anyone observed it. (Note: This is ignoring questions raised by quantum physics, I know, but it's good enough for our purposes.)
So something can BE without having been PROVED. What's the relevance? Only this.
The Constitution requires that the President BE a "natural born citizen", among other things. That passage does not say anything about proving it. It is violated only if the President is, as a matter of fact, not a natural born citizen. It is not violated if he simply hasn't proven it.
That does not mean there aren't other constitutional provisions which would call for validation, but that's another post. I have to go do something right now.