You’ve called me an obamabot and referred to my insane posterings. Yes, you have engaged in the ancient art of the ad hominem. But I won’t take the bait. You can keep trying if you wish, or deny that you’ve done it. I don’t care either way.
Let me try again.
I am in full agreement that anyone seeking public office should have to supply proof of eligibility. By the same token, I see nothing in the Constitution of the US that says someone MUST do so. There is no contradiction in holding those two positions, despite your notion to the contrary.
You are not a consitutional scholar, nor am I. My reading of the 20th amendment, and a few articles about it refer to it as the lame duck amendment. None of the articles I have read address the ‘fail to qualify’ issue, eligibility issue. I am very open to the opinions of those who know more than I do about the amendment, but I don’t think you are the person to educate me.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.