Replies

You said — “So then you are ducking my question:”

Saying I don’t know how many Supreme Court cases is not ducking your question — it’s answering it directly and truthfully... LOL..

—

And then you said — “You are trying to make it seem that if Arthur got away with being a fraud and that there is no apparent harm that was done that then we all can rest easy knowing that in this case it will be exactly the same. It is no going to be exactly the same though.”

It does seem very clear that Arthur got away with fraud, no question about it. Or..., at least that was the allegation (or was it the truth?). Well, anyway... he got away with fraud...

I didn’t say that no apparent harm was done — I was wondering what was the harm that was done. Perhaps someone can outline that harm for me, so I would know. That would be a good indicator of what is going to happen here. Please, let me know the harm...

I’m not saying rest easy — but there is one thing to say — the Constitution *still* has the same provisions for the requirements for the Office of President of the United States — even though President Arthur was not qualified.

I think that would allay some people’s fears that the Constitutional requirements would somehow disappear...