Replies

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.

"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."

It's ridiculous to say there is a document requirement, when the text of Constitution is available to anyone and we can all see that it's just not there.

It's doubly ridiculous to insist that such a requirement exists when no other president has ever had to comply with one. You would have us believe that this requirement just magically popped into being, inside the hidden part of the Constitution, in 2008. Now that's absurd.

The common sense view is that the procedure laid out in the Constitution itself is exactly the process the founders had in mind for enforcing the provision. The electors are selected, they vote, and the Congress certifies. Those entities had the power and authority to enforce the requirements. No magically changing Constitution required.