On the part where Obama has stated things which you say deal with the definition of natural born, I can see where a judicial pronouncement on what that means in very specific detail can be helpful. It would appear — since these details were admitted — that our “system” did not think it mattered. It will be interesting to see if the courts think it matters. We’ll see how they take up this particular part of it. But, it’s clear that our system has allowed it. The question then comes down to whether a court will even address it and if they do, will they come to a different conclusion than our system has, thus far? That’s a big question...
As far as any accusations that will actually make a difference, in this particular instance, it all comes down to whether any evidence that will be accepted by a court can and will be produced. That remains to be seen. By the time frame we have for Obama taking office, it’s getting quite close and it doesn’t look very good. After that, it will be in the hands of Congress to take any action to remove the President.
And in the issue of being elected or not — as far as I understand, it’s merely “being President” that is at issue — that is can you *even* occupy the office if you’re not qualified. That’s what I’ve heard from others, so it apparently doesn’t matter whether you’re elected, or like Johnson, had to take office under unfortunate circumstances...
Now, all these details that you say *differ* from President Arthur and Obama — will actually disappear (and not be “different”) if Obama does serve as President and no court decides on the issue before taking office and the Congress doesn’t remove him and he goes through his term in office. He’ll be just like President Arthur — if that future works out that way.
The way you’re talking about — that it’s different — is only if one of these things “works” and he’s either prevented from being in office or removed from office. Absent that and absent anything that works — he’s just like President Arthur. So, time will tell...
Now that Ed has announced to the world where to look, two things are going to happen:
a. Someone in the media is going to rush to get the scoop faster than slow Ed; or
b. Someone in the bot-camp is going to rush and bury it and the source with grandma’s ashes.
It seems as if the whole point you are trying to make is that this issue may notbe seen through to the point of getting justice.
Is that it?
I do not think that anyone here thinks that there is any guarantee that we will get justice here.
My point is that thecase of Arthu really does very little to teach us anything in regards to how this all will go.
Alternate interpretation: after a century of no fraud, the "system" fell asleep and no one bothered to ask the question, opening the "system" up to fraud. When the fraud was committed, the "system" went into denial because no one thought such a fraud could be committed.
Some people even looked at the "system" and said "no one has proven he's not qualified," when "he" controls the proof and refuses to produce it.
Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we'll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.