“I simply do not see the “mechanism” there for the requirement of proof that someone qualifies under the Constitution. It only says that one be qualified...”
Well, I don’t really know why you have a problem. It’s pretty darn straight forward.
“NOW..., going further, one could very easily say that even without the *requirement of proof* — that Obama did put forth enough evidence of his natural born status to satisfy the majority of the voting public. In fact, they accepted it so well, that they put him in office by larger numbers than voted in Clinton or Bush (in any of their terms in office).”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. NATIVE citizenship. Come on, Obama knows this, you know this, it’s on his web site, he doesn’t deny it, and he’s only qualified as a native citizen if we take him at his word, because of the ambiguities involved with hawaii’s birth certificate madness. Native is not natural born. Technically speaking, he may very well be an illegal alien.
Why do you keep bringing up ‘majority rules’ points? Do you think it has any bearing on the issue or truth of the matter?
“So, at this point, and since Obama did put forth some documentation that he says shows that he’s a natural born citizen —”
Wrong again. Native, not natural.
“The reason why you say there is “a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution...” is because their hands are tied by the nature of the laws which do not require anything more from Obama. He has *already* asserted that he meets the qualifications and he has given preliminary proof of such. There are no laws that require anything more than that.
So, by all legal intents and purposes he *has met* the qualifications of the Constitution for qualification for the office of President of the United States.”
Wrong. Saying the same misrepresentations over and over and over again won’t make you right...
Anyways, I said there ‘would be if’... If Obama becomes president.
Yeah, he’s asserted it, and he knew he didn’t qualify beforehand... What does that tell you?
You said — “Well, I don’t really know why you have a problem. It’s pretty darn straight forward.”
Well, the qualifications are fairly straightforward — and mind you, Obama does say that he meets those qualifications and he’s not saying he’s ignoring them. It’s only those who don’t believe him that are saying that. He’s — in essence — agreeing with the Constitution, by saying that he’s meeting them. And..., that’s what a crook does anyway, pretends to meet standards that other people take as essential and necessary...
The problem here is that the “mechanism” is not straightforward — as we can well see *by the results*. The results are that no one was able to use *any mechanism* to prevent Obama from being on the ballot. That, by itself, shows you that the mechanism is *deficient*.
The fact that you are here — right now — still hollering about this thing and Obama is just a few weeks from being sworn in — is the absolute proof that the mechanism is totally deficient...
—
And then you said — “Wrong, wrong, wrong. NATIVE citizenship. Come on, Obama knows this, you know this, it’s on his web site, he doesn’t deny it, and he’s only qualified as a native citizen if we take him at his word, because of the ambiguities involved with hawaii’s birth certificate madness. Native is not natural born. Technically speaking, he may very well be an illegal alien.”
Well.., right here *both sides* are agreeing upon the requirement for being a natural-born citizen. Obama does not dispute this with you. In fact, he has said he *is* a natural-born citizen and has put forth a document from Hawaii that he says shows that he is. Therefore, you can say, very clearly, that Obama agrees with you on the *requirements* of being a natural-born citizen.
If he didn’t agree with you, he would say that he’s not a natural-born citizen and would say that it didn’t apply to him. He has not said that. He has said he *is* a natural-born citizen — and that shows that he agrees with the “requirements”.
—
Then you ask — “Why do you keep bringing up ‘majority rules’ points? Do you think it has any bearing on the issue or truth of the matter?”
Very simply because you’re involved in a matter of politics and that’s what governs politics. People are bringing up other political matters, too — which also bear on the voter majority carrying the day with Obama’s election.
For example, one of those points is that once Obama is sworn in, the only mechanism that is available for removal of a President is impeachment (and conviction, of course). Well, that two-step process doesn’t work like you would like — as you could well see from Clinton’s little impeachment episode.
And likewise, what you have an example of with Clinton, you’ll have a *greater* example of with Obama, because Obama got a larger majority of the voting public than either Bush or Clinton did. That means if these Congressmen weren’t about to convict Clinton, because of politics, then a larger voting public majority for Obama means that these Congressmen are going to be even *less likely* to convict Obama.
BUT, with Obama, it goes further in that they won’t *even* get an “impeachment” hearing, in the first place, because these Congressmen are not going to want to face the wrath of the big majority of voters who voted for Obama. That’s where the politics and the majority of the voters comes in, in this matter.
—
You state — “Wrong again. Native, not natural.”
All you’ve got here is “you say — he says”... not much more to go on here...
—
And then you continue, quoting me saying — “So, by all legal intents and purposes he *has met* the qualifications of the Constitution for qualification for the office of President of the United States.”
You answer back and say — “Wrong. Saying the same misrepresentations over and over and over again won’t make you right...”
Without proof to the contrary, in the face of his own assertions and the limited paperwork that he did provide — you’ve got nothing to contradict him, other than speculation and guesses on your part. That’s the problem... AND... that shows up the *deficiency* of the “process” for vetting a candidate — which is why I say that the state laws must be instituted to vet the candidate properly and prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
—
You said — “Yeah, he’s asserted it, and he knew he didn’t qualify beforehand... What does that tell you?”
You’ve made a statement that you cannot *know* and you cannot *prove* — and therein lies your problem. You cannot know and you cannot prove that Obama asserted this, knowing that he is not qualified. If you had the proof of the fact that he was not qualified, then you could say that.
And, once again, that shows up the *deficiency* of this “process” for vetting a candidate. It’s not the “qualifications” that are deficient, but the “process” by which the people would “know for sure” that is deficient.
You just seem to not want to recognize that the process is deficient and you seem to not to want to close up the loopholes in our deficient process. I don’t know why you would not want to correct this deficient process that we all see has happened here...