You said — “The Constitution is the law....it mandates the requirements to be POTUS....logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with zero in this case.....we do not need new laws....can you follow that?”
I don’t see that the “proof” is required, only that he’s qualified. Now, if he and the party and the voting public all say that they agree with him, in that he said he was qualified — that pretty well answers it.
What this last election with Obama has shown is that it’s the *process* that is defective and wrong. That’s why the process must be corrected.
I don’t know why you can’t see that one...., that *yes* in this case of vetting a candidate, we do, indeed, need a law to that effect.
“Now, if he and the party and the voting public all say that they agree with him, in that he said he was qualified — that pretty well answers it.”
Honestly, Star Traveler, you seem to become quite hung up on having “fellow travelers” along with you. Those of us intent on right and wrong and principles don’t need lemmings lopping along. We know right from wrong when we see it...regardless of the idiocy of others.
“I don’t see that the “proof” is required, only that he’s qualified.”
What.
“What this last election with Obama has shown is that it’s the *process* that is defective and wrong. That’s why the process must be corrected.”
What we’ve seen is that Obama simply refuses to be reasonable about the matter.
“I don’t know why you can’t see that one...., that *yes* in this case of vetting a candidate, we do, indeed, need a law to that effect.”
Why don’t you go write some more laws then. Come back when you’re done. You can probably look at the DMV for examples on where to start writing your new laws.
That is the most insane post/argument I have ever seen, you must be smokin some good stuff.
I guess next time I apply for a job, I'll just tell the employer my qualifications, when he asks for me to back up what I say, I'll just say, I don't need no stinking proof!!