You said — “You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story”
I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...
WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE COURT SAYS. You are ignoring what I posted earlier or you’re still trying to come up with an answer. If the court or the congress do not ensure that the president meets the qualifications, we will ensure it is not the end of it. You can be as flabbergasted as you like.
Here we may find some common ground.
There is a difference between accepting a Supreme Court ruling on the here and now, and fighting to change it (which is not an accepting behavior).
For example, I offer the recent Kelo eminent domain "takings" decision. People accepted the taking of their property because the alternative was forcible removable by law enforcement. But, that did not stop states from enacting laws to nullify the Supreme Court ruling for future eminent domain claims in their states.
So, Supreme Court rulings are not "final" in that sense. If Obama can't be stopped in 2009, he might still be prevented from running in 2012, as was Arthur, by new laws requiring the positive proof of qualification by candidates before running for president.
-PJ