You seem to have gotten confused. The claim was that the Constitution required documentation. I asked you to show one other president that has produced a birth certificate to prove eligibility, as part of that documentation requirement. You answered with:
"Perhaps ? other than President Chester Arthur, that there where no suspicions that they were not natural born, besides ? how do you know for a fact that they didn't show their documents ?"
Either there's a documentation requirement or there isn't. What anyone suspected is beside the point.
Why not just acknowledge that the constitution has no such requirement and move on?
That's ridiculous to say that there is no document requirement, how else can the candidate prove that they are eligible without documents ? it's plain common sense.
Are we suppose to do the Johnny Carson trick of Carnac the Magnificent ? and just figure how old the candidate is and where they were born ?
What you say is totally absurd.
Are you of the same school of Bill Clinton on the definition of what the word : is , IS ?
Tell us all great and knowing one ? how can the candidate prove eligibility without any kind of documents ?
Don't lead this discussion back to your line " the Constitution does not require showing documents " that's just a BS cop out on your part..... a non-sense revolving door argument that the liberals play.