“Yes, the question does come down to “can you prove it” — and — if you can’t (i.e., everyone that is trying) then it’s like President Arthur, who became President under those doubts.
It’s still a few days away from January 20th, so he’s not quite like President Arthur yet... There’s still time to come up with some definite proof, if there is any (and that’s a real good question...).
So, in any case, you’re saying that if it’s not proven that Obama is not eligible, then it will be like Arthur, because it was never proven for him either — right?
Or, maybe in a more limited sense — as long as it’s “not proven at the present” that Obama is not qualified, then he can go on and be President in the same way President Arthur was (*again* given that no proof has come up “yet”)...”
I wouldn’t take Jan. 20th as being a deadline as to how it would effect us. This is a different time and a differnt culture. If it gets proven even after Jan. 20th the consequences will be different than the Arthu case.
The media was much smaller during Arthur’s days and the alternative media was smaller even still. No interent. How was it being reported during Arhtur’s preidency.
The other major difference in this case is the “Natural Born” Constitutional issue. That will not die. Both Arthur’s case and Obama’s case contain the “born on foreign soil” argument but Obama is admittingly a duel citizen at birth and that is a rather large distinction already.
I really think that you are off-base in thinking that the case involving Arthur will teach us very much at all in regards to what will happen here.
Well, in talking about the possibility that Obama may be proven ineligible, one is left in *two camps* at the same time — while you still hold out hope that it can be proven.
Now..., I would imagine that those during President Arthur’s time were *still trying to prove* their case, too. It’s just that they never did.
SO..., *during the time* that they were *still trying* — was President Arthur *really the President*. Now, that question is applicable here, too — because you don’t really know if you’ll ever come up with the proof — so you’ve got an “interim time” while you’re still trying to find it — but — Obama is still President. The question is — Is Obama *really* the President — while you’re still “looking” for the proof? And then, what if you never find it — is he *still President*?
There’s what I mean by living in two camps at the same time — Obama is President — while — you’re trying to find that Obama is not President — both at the same time... except only *one* is relevant at a time...
—
Continuing — it doesn’t matter how it is reported — what matters is *if you can prove it* — that’s the main thing. And that’s still questionable...
Anyway..., I still do think that President Arthur’s situation is “instructional”...