Hey, the issue is does the President meet the qualifications of the office. In both cases, we’ve got allegations that Arthur did not and Obama does not.
And it seems, that it’s going to be, in both cases, that no one is going to come up with proof.
So, they sound the same to me on a Constitutional grounds...
So then you are ducking my question:
How many cases were before the Supreme Court in regards to Arthur?
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.
And it seems,that it's going to be in both cases, that no one is going to come up with proof.
Doubters of Chester Arthur at his time and place are long gone, of course. As to the present case, they are going to hang on like a wire haired terrier clamped onto someones posterior. I am with 'em.
Hope you have a sense of humour.
There are qualifications for being president. It is not the responsibility of the voters to prove that a candidate is unqualifeid. It is the responsibility of the candidate to prove they are. And voting for someone does not qualify them.
The fact that no one has required OB to do so, puts this into the courts. We will raise the issue until the evidence is made public. We will ensure that the issue follows OB throughout history, unless HE PROVES HE IS QUALIFIED.
You of course are free to keep stating that we haven't proven anything. That remains an open question anyway. We will see what the force of free dialogue and the energy of thousands of people might produce. Put your money on your favorite.