I’m glad to hear what you say in regards to the truth, but as I’ve been trying to say, you don’t seem to understand what’s going on, and in fact, are arguing in a manner that is in direct opposition to what you say about truth.
Here, we’ll put aside all the natural born qualifications and how that applies to politics aside for a minute because I don’t think you are doing this intentionally:
What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.
You said — “What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.”
I know that there are some remaining possibilities for pursuing this issue of Obama’s qualifications. But, from the standpoint of politics and the “history” of this issue, thus far, this is not going to happen (i.e., that Obama is removed).
The history of it shows that at every “step” of the way, on the process to eliminate Obama because of this issue, it has failed.
It first failed in the courts (at least the lower courts before the election). It failed at the election on November 4th, the majority of the voters voting in such a way that they dismissed this issue and voted for Obama in larger numbers than either Clinton or Bush had ever gotten. It failed in the Supreme Court, it having denied stopping the Electoral College voting. It failed at the votes of the Electoral College.
And so..., one would be asked (under the “thinking” up above) to think that this issue — to kick Obama out of office because of his “alleged” [... :-) ...] lack of qualification under the Constitution — is actually going to happen with a new Congress that is overwhelming Democrat.
First of all, no one has any evidence to submit *showing* and *proving* that Obama is not qualified. And secondly, Obama has asserted that he is qualified and has presented a document that he says shows that he is qualified (that’s the document from Hawaii).
Now..., given the “track record” of lower court cases, the election, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College votes — to think that someone (i.e., a legislator) is going to make what has been shown to be an *unsubstantiated claim* that Obama is unqualified under the Constitutional requirements would be sheer lunacy on their part — given the political climate and how it would be perceived (again politically — “suicide”... LOL...). And furthermore, if the claim is made, to think that any number of the Congress will “back it up” is really questioning “one’s sanity” to even think it’s something that can even happen (again, without “proof” and only on the basis of accusations).
And — THEREFORE — that sort of shows that Obama has done his “political maneuvering” very well in making sure he makes it through this process, unscathed.
So, this — once again — shows to me that this process that we currently have of how to “vet the candidate” is flawed and needs to be shored up by means of state laws regarding the popular and electoral college votes as to whether a candidate is qualified and that he must prove that he is (according to the terms of said law).
—
And, it’s not the first time that this process of a new President has been shown to be *defective* — as is shown by the fact that we even have a 12th and 20th Amendments. Apparently now, we also need (in addition to those changes already made before) — state laws, regarding the vetting of candidates for President of the United States.