You said — “I say it. Obama is disqualified. Others have filed court cases saying the same thing. Those courts punted due to lack of standing. Did you know that as a voter you have no standing in the process? And yet, here you are deriding those who fight against such evil.”
Okay, you “say” it... And now we know that this statement is meaningless... LOL...
I should have thought you would know enough to understand that you can’t say it with any authority — without — proof that he is unqualified... But..., that’s the point that escapes you.
And it’s precisely this point that I said represents the “failure of the process” — which also indicates why we need state laws to vet the candidates.
—
You said — “I have. And the process is theoretically still in place for vetting the candidate.”
I know of *no state* which has any law that refuses to place a candidate legally on the ballot (for President of the United States) without him proving that he has met the qualifications. Show me the law and what state it is in...
I would like to see that one...
AND..., if you can’t — then that addresses *precisely* the deficiency in the state electoral process for President of the United States. It needs to be address at the Electoral College level, on a state-by-state basis, in which no one can be placed on the ballot unless they have proven that they have met the requirements.
I should have thought you would know enough to understand that you can’t say it with any authority — without — proof that he is unqualified... But..., that’s the point that escapes you.
***Yes, you should have said that. And if you’re trying to make a point next time, maybe you should just shave your head... LOL.
And it’s precisely this point that I said represents the “failure of the process” — which also indicates why we need state laws to vet the candidates.
***I said, “We’re right at that point in the 20th amendment in the constitution and we’ve got REMF jerks like you shooting at us for not having our bootlaces tied correctly.” And you are going on about what happened in the past, during the state and party vetting processes. Of course that should be fixed, and I’ve stated in other threads that I foresee about 30 states coming up with more stringent requirements in the future. You need to figure out where you are on the timeline. Quit deriding FReepers for the past when we’re in the present. Catch up, REMF.
Representative Presents Proof of Citizenship Bill (2012 Obama Showdown)
Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:56:35 PM · by CalifScreaming · 61 replies · 2,007+ views
Arkansasmatters.com ^ | December 13, 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148734/posts
—
You said — “I have. And the process is theoretically still in place for vetting the candidate.”
***It is in place: the 20th amendment, right where it says the president elect fails to qualify. The framers of the constitution understood that the requirements for the candidate might be glossed over in the excitement to get an electable guy out to the public. But you seem to have not understood that.
I know of *no state* which has any law that refuses to place a candidate legally on the ballot (for President of the United States) without him proving that he has met the qualifications. Show me the law and what state it is in...
***As I stated, we are at the point where qualification takes place, AFTER the president elect may fail to qualify per the 20th amendment. You’re trying to steer the discussion back to the past, which is still invalid. For instance, Donofrio vs. Wells was against the SoS of Donofrio’s state because three candidates were not vetted to their constitutional requirements. Two of those three were Obama and McCain. So if you’re going to deride FReepers in the present over PAST issues and behavior, then dig up PAST threads and deride them there.
I would like to see that one...
***So would I, so go fetch.
AND..., if you can’t — then that addresses *precisely* the deficiency in the state electoral process for President of the United States.
***I have no intention of playing fetch with you over past issues. If you really want this to happen, you’ll dig up past threads where this past issue was discussed in the past, and take it up with those FReepers who seem to have so disappointed you in the past. While you’re digging up bones in the graveyard, say hello to Obama’s Gramma for all of us.
It needs to be address at the Electoral College level, on a state-by-state basis, in which no one can be placed on the ballot unless they have proven that they have met the requirements.
***I agree, but your little point is completely out of place in the timeline that we are in with regards to this constitutional issue. Get your facts straight. Get your constitution straight. Get your timelines straight. And then get yourself into a critical thinking class, you need it.
But of course the catch 22 is that the one thing that would prove the case, either way, is being kept from the public.
Now there are all sorts of circumstantial evidence that something is amiss, but again the one thing that would provide proof is what is sought.