Replies

You were asking — “So, because we interred the Japanese Americans during WWII the government has Historical Precedence for imprisoning its own citizenry for no actual crime, no?”

You’re saying that as a comparison with Chester Arthur (of course...). Well, the fact that he was illegally President — does *not* provide the precedent for someone else to become President “illegally” — because “it was done before” that way.

Another way to say it would be to say that if several people get away with murder (even when they go to court and they are not convicted, but pronounced “not guilty”) — murder is still a crime and the law is not changed. And you can convict others for this crime of murder, even if many have “gotten away with it”. The law does not change because of that “precedent” of “getting away with it”.

That is how the “precedent” is not created for this to be “legal” now.

But, I was not talking about making it legal to be President even when one is not qualified under the Constitution. No, I still say that is the law and that is the requirement. Nothing changes there.

What I said, was that the acts and the laws signed and the things that the President did — did not become “undone” because of him being an “illegal President.” Nothing changed in that regard (not in terms of the “illegality” of his taking the office).

So, that was the comparison (for me, with Chester Arthur), in that all laws and legislation and normal stuff that the President does (i.e., signs and enacts) will still remain intact. And furthermore, Obama will still be considered to have been President for the time he is in office, just like Chester Arthur is considered to be President for his time in office, even though it is well-recognized that he was not qualified under the Constitution.

—

And lastly you said — “{I agree with you on the importance of the ‘if’ statement. Here’s a question for you: how do we prove it?}”

I do have an answer to that — as to how we prove it. I’ve been hammering on this solution for “proving it” — as the *only thing* that will work!

I’ve been saying for months that we need to enact state laws which demand the specific documentation that we need, in order to place a candidate on that state’s ballot. If they don’t provide the documentation, then they can’t be on the ballot. Get enough states to do that and you’ve got an effective hammer to produce the documentation — or else, force the candidate to resign...

That is currently being done in Oklahoma and Arizona right now. I’ve been working with my state legislature in Oklahoma on the issue since it went into session this year. I’m only a citizen and have no special connection with anyone — but that’s enough, as a normal citizen. The legislator that put it through is from Broken Arrow, a suburb and adjacent to Tulsa, OK. I’m in Tulsa so he’s close... :-)

I’m hoping it sails through, and it’s “moving” now, having gone out of committee now...

That’s the answer as to how one can get the proof. I see no other way that will work.