But that's not an answer. The constitution doesn't say he has to produce a birth certificate. It only says he has to be certain things. He can be those things, and still not produce a birth certificate.
So if you want to take someone into court for not following the law, that's not going to work. You have to be able to point to a law that says they must do a specific thing that they didn't do.
Come on, let's deal with this one concept without evasion. There's nothing wrong with acknowleding the reality.
Then how do you prove he it those things and skip the BC? I probably wouldn’t skip anyway. He put out information (COLB) that doesn’t like anyone else’s and is inconsistent with our lives.
Okay, so he walks on water, then let the saviour do something special with a couple of fish and some bread.
There was just no reason to put out the COLB when he as two Birth Certificates in his possession.
There is no evasion! The qualifications for pres are in the constitution. The constitution is the law of the land. People in public service, from city councilmen, and judges to secretary of states, as well as our servicemen, swear to uphold and defend the constitution. If the secretary of state fails to enforce the law of the land, (ie:the article stating the qualifications for pres), he or she is not abiding by the law.
as a side note to your other question: What other methods are there to prove age, dob, parents, and location of birth? I’ve recently read some death certificates online, and the ones from the early 1800’s often state parent’s location of birth unknown. This would often be the result of the party signing the death certificate, a family member, or spouse would not know. In addition, some folks in the 1800’s were born at home. How they arranged for their social security numbers I have no idea... Regardless, certificates in the 1900’s are not like the 1800’s..and are the current method of identification. What other method would be used to prove a U.S. Birth, DOB, and location of birth?
Maybe you are right, maybe the consequences for a secretary of state’s failure to do her job would not require the use of the court system. I didn’t think about that. What happens to servicemen, city councilmen and judges who fail to uphold and defend the constitution?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/06.html#1
That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘’preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. 102 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. 103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing. 104 Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.
Public officers of a municipality may be removed from office for official misconduct, malfeasance in office, incompetence, neglect of duty, or gross immorality, pursuant to W.Va. Code 6-6-7(a). Removal of such officers, however, is a drastic remedy and statutory provisions prescribing the grounds for removal are strictly construed.
The law says he has to be qualified. One of the qualifications is age and another is natural born.
The sec of state of cal has the responsibility to see that candidates are qualified for statewide election. The presidential primary is a statewide election.
They have checked BCs in the past and excluded non-qualified candidates from the presidential primary based upon a review of thei birth certificates.
Nowhere in Cal or the US constitution does it say present BC.
How would you suppose they meet their requirements? Or is the constitution just so much toilet paper, not to be enforced? Maybe they could cut the candidates in half and count the rings for an age check.
Why didn't the candidates challenge the sec of state's authority in ca? Why has no one written about this abuse of power?
Why does some redundant poster on the internet think that every ministerial procedure must be spelled out in the constitution when the elected officials have the power to carry out their duties, as required and without every step being codified.
Why would someone ask the same ridiculous question over and over and not develop an understanding of the law, without proposing the preposterous assumption that there is no way to check a candidates age or place of birth, because the founders forgot to write a thousand page constitution?