Is that the point you were making?
I thought we were talking about scrutiny of the candidate. Are we now talking about "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?"
Also, and you have to help me here because it's all becoming a blur... you weren't one of those who were arguing that the people voted for Obama so that is enough to credential him, right? Because if you were, then the Arthur argument fails that test, because they voted for Garfield and Arthur probably skated under the radar (so to speak for the time period). It's not like the people were voting for Arthur...
-PJ
No..., what I’m asking here (and it can be for anyone) is a simple question to find out the *effect* of one thing that people here have said will have a major effect.
I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office. Did that change the Constitution? Did people decide to ignore that provision afterwards, or did it actually change the meaning legally in some way that I don’t know about.
That would simply solve one riddle for me, as to whether it would have an effect of changing it now... So, it’s a very limited question and it doesn’t have broad implications on everything else about Obama...