You said — “Right so you are on a crusade to let everyone know that all be alright if Obama is ineligible and the Constitution gets ignored.”
No..., I said it was a serious issue with President Arthur to violate the Constitution and he did it twice, not just once. That’s doubly serious. It’s like having two counts of a crime instead of one count. Obama so far, has only been accused of one count of violating the Constitutional requirement for office, because he’s only going into one office (not two offices, one after the other). So, they are serious issues.
But, the problem is the same as it was before with President Arthur, No one could come up with any proof. Now, if someone does have some proof — then I guess a court will rule in their favor. But, if they don’t then it will be the same thing as President Arthur, both being serious problems...
—
And then you were saying — “And you are on another crusade in this thread to tell us all that we should accept whatever the Supreme Court says and never disagree and fight to change it.”
Nope, that’s not quite the accurate story there. I guess some people just don’t read close enough. What I said (and you can verify this by following through on that conversation) is that you accept what the Supreme Court says, regardless of whether you think it’s right or not. And if you don’t agree with it, then you can work within the system to make any changes that you think are needed.
The Dred Scott decision was wrong and it was finally corrected. The Roe v. Wade decision was wrong and that hasn’t been corrected yet. It’s still being worked on.
So, that’s how you do your changes — you abide by the court’s decision and you make the changes in the same ways that people are doing so and have done so with Dred Scot and Roe v. Wade. (plus other decisions, too).
—
You asked — “You are not a liberal?”
That’s not what my Liberal/Conservative test says... you can see it on my Home Page... LOL...
You also made a big point about no damage was done by Arthur serving and that no laws were made ineligible and so on. So how serious can you really be claiming that it was?
It much more seems to me that you are trying to downplay the seriousness of this by insisting on thse points in regards to Arthur.
And it seems that you intentionally made an issue out of what people said here in regards to how they would or would not accept a Supreme Court decision and even brought up references that a liberal would bring up.