I posit the there were at least two sides to the moon as humans had observed forever there are two sides or more to physical objects. How many millenium of observation would it take for you to accept that as fact. Being in the dark does not always deny a facts. The fact that it was referred to as the dark side is an acknowlegement of the side. In fact when we see OB's records, you may still choose to believe there is no other side to the moon.
This is the same logic problem you have when you look to the constitution for a specific rule to require a BC, when it is obviuous to the rest of us that the best evidence of age and location qualifications is the BC. And please answer my previous question Where are the rules in the constitution about what the president can do with the military?
You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted. You should be concerned more about having an unexperienced socialist in the Oval Office and as CIC than whether or not a candidate might have to show his BC.
It doesn't matter if I know it. It still happened. It is a fact in itself, because it did happen when it did. What people know about it is another question. A fact is true or not true, apart from whether anyone knows its truth.
"You may want to find someone you trust and dicsuss the flaw in your logic and why you have such an illogical expectation that prohibits candidates from being vetted."
No, you are attempting to jump ahead. If you can't even accept the notion that a thing is true whether anyone knows it is true or not, then there's nothing to build on. BTW, if you can't accept that notion you don't get to talk about supposed flaws in MY logic. :-)