The American people have a right to ask their leaders for information.
But the questions they ask might not be the “right” questions.
I could ask Obama is he is born in Hawaii.
But if I were convinced he was born there, and had a chance to ask him a question, that would be the wrong question for me to ask.
Getting into more of an area of opinion, most of us would agree that the press had the right (freedom of the press) to ask Bush about whether he did crack 20 years ago. But some people thought the press was WRONG (improper) to ask those questions.
Trying to wrap around it with an analogy here — but don’t you sometimes find yourself saying “Sure, you have a RIGHT to ask that question, but why would you, it’s offensive, or it’s insulting, or it’s inconsequential”.
As to what Sarah meant by that, I can only guess.=================================
Doing crack 20 years ago doesn’t make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ineligible to be the President of the United States. I am not really sure where you were going with that line of thought.
I was trying to esplain to another poster how a person could have the “right” to ask a question, but the question not be a “right” question.
I was using analogies to try to find an example that would make the point.
Sarah used the example that reporters had the RIGHT to ask her to prove she was Trig’s mother, but that the question was actually offensive, and they SHOULD NOT have asked. Thus, “have a right to ask”, but not “right to ask”.
Legal vs moral, I think.
I know that others find less conclusions to draw from her use of the “Trig questions” analogy when explaining the birth certificate question.