The folks who passed the 20th amendment were lunatics?
No; that would be the folks who can’t accept that Obama was born in Hawaii (or that he won.) 8 years of lefty nutcases declaring that W was illegitimate have done serious harm to the republic. I’m not going to follow their example. Obama is wrong about almost everything, but he’s going to be president; there are lots of good reasons to oppose him, but the BC business isn’t one of them.
You have your reasons we have ours, ours at least should be allowed to see the full weight of the law before it is abandoned.
Just like Al Gore’s was.
The folks who passed the 20th amendment were lunatics? No; that would be the folks who can’t accept that Obama was born in Hawaii (or that he won.)
***I am among them. I know that he won the election. The constitution says clearly that a person can win the election, be president elect, and yet STILL fail to qualify. So we’re digging into the process of determining qualification of a president elect, especially in light of the fact that there are over a dozen lawsuits filed saying that he isn’t qualified. Two of those have gotten considered & dismissed by the Supreme Court, the two that were independent of the forged CoLB evidence. So the only path remaining is the consideration of forgery and obfuscation on the path to zer0bama qualifying. This is a constitutional issue (crisis, really), this is a constitutional website, and you are deriding us? Who do you think you are?
8 years of lefty nutcases declaring that W was illegitimate have done serious harm to the republic.
***I haven’t detected any harm, certainly not serious harm to our republic. Outline your case for such harm. Those lefty nutcases kept trying to redefine what the definition of a vote was so that they could throw out votes or generate them from thin air in the hopes that a recount would favor their candidate. The Florida Supreme court violated its own constitution and the SCOTUS rightfully intervened. I’ll point out here that the damage to the process may possibly be that the SCOTUS got a bloody nose from the politics of the process and now no longer have the courage to stand up for the constitution. We cannot tell yet whether this has really damaged our republic; the supreme court has lifetime appointment for just such considerations, to be free from political consequences.
I’m not going to follow their example.
***They brought their cases to the supreme court and they lost. Their example only comes out when you consider how they acted AFTER they lost, not BEFORE. So why don’t you just keep your mouth shut until their example is VALID?
Obama is wrong about almost everything, but he’s going to be president;
***Interesting crystal ball you’ve got there, Mr. Magoo.
there are lots of good reasons to oppose him, but the BC business isn’t one of them.
***Then why don’t you outline exactly why the framers of the constitution put it in there that a president elect may fail to qualify? It was a good reason for them but not for you. Again, in that context I ask: This is a constitutional issue (crisis, really), this is a constitutional website, and you are deriding us? Who do you think you are?