Replies

You said — Whatever it takes, but we as citizens, would be derelict in our duty if we do not compel him to comply with the Constitution, and that’s why we are birthers.

—

You’ve got two different kinds of “compel” here — the one you’re talking about and the one I’m talking about.

Now, you’ve been saying that you’re going to keep compeling him, and that’s the “political kind” (as I call it). That’s the kind that has been going on for over a year now. It started before the election, continued right up to the election, and then, at the very election itself, and then after the election and then, all the way up to now — as we speak today.

That’s been the political compelling. You talk to people, let them know the facts, write letters, holler and yell, get on radio programs, send e-mail to others, write to your Congressmen, post on forums all over the place, call up state officials, research material, write long tomes on Obama is not qualified, and so on and so forth.

And since we are not looking at the birth certificate, presently, after all this time (of one year passing by) and since Obama was elected and since Obama is in office now — that has *obviously* not worked (again... we’re not looking at the birth certificate right now).

Now, the other kind of compel is the legal kind. And there are *two avenues* here. One avenue is the court cases and lawyers pursuing it. The other avenue is state legislation, legally “compelling” a candidate to show his birth certificate.

The one avenue, of the court cases is failing (it “has failed”, “is failing” and after one year of it, it obviously will continue failing). That avenue is where a whole slew of court cases were put forth, different places, different people, different rationale and different venues and even through different levels of the court system, all the way through *many* at the Supreme Court level. And, as we sit here speaking, no court case has brought any birth certificate forward. We are not looking at it.

The other avenue of getting a state law where the candidate is legally required to show his birth certificate or else he cannot be placed on the ballot — has yet to even be promoted by any significant movement. What has happened thus far, has been *under the radar* and hardly anyone knows about it, barely any FReepers talk about it, hardly any news reports come out about it — and even so — four states have started the process. And with *no one pushing it* in the public, I can imagine that these four states are going to go nowhere with it. But, just the fact that they have even made it into the legislature is amazing for being so far under the radar.

Once a state gets the legislation in place in which a candidate cannot be placed on the ballot — then — it’s not a matter of someone “going to court” to get something done. It’s that a candidate has to do something himself, or he just doesn’t get registered on the ballot in that state. That a *completely different legal matter*...

And I’ll guarantee you, that if five states (just a mere five out of 50 states) got that legislation in their states, no candidate could afford to lose five states off the ballot and expect to win the national election. “Problem solved”...

—

(1) So, the “political compelling” that you’re talking about — no birth certificate after one year of trying.

(2) The “legal compelling” in court cases — no birth certificate after one year of trying.

(3) The “legal compelling” through state law — *IF* it is enacted — candidate is *not on the ballot* until birth certificate is shown.

You say #1 — nothing happening after a year. Others say #2 — nothing happening after a year. I say #3 — birth certificate *guaranteed* or else candidate is *not on ballot*.

So, when are you going to jump in on #3? ... :-)