Replies

*** Just like there’s no requirement for an army general to prove he’s an army general when he tells you that you have to put up his friends for a year rent free? The requirement against that bit of bullstuff is the 3rd amendment, but you won’t find case laws or procedures built up around it because that problem hasn’t reared forth in our constitutional history. That does not mean the constitutional requirement isn’t there.

The situation you describe is not a requirement, it is a prohibition; in other words, no action may be taken to quarter soldiers in private homes. There is no need for the general to prove who he is because the action, not rank or identity is the issue.

For him to say, “well, where’s the written law that prevents me from doing this” is disingenuous.

On that we agree, clearly there is a law that forbids housing soldiers in private homes. However, it does no follow that

And it is just as disingenuous for CoLB trolls to demand that such a law be present for the same kind of untested constitutional area.

It is not the same kind of untested Constitutional area at all; one is a clear prohibition, meaning NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to quarter soldiers in private homes.

The written law is the very first set of laws: the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Your requirement that there be some kind of procedure or statute in place is a way of putting such procedures in priority over the constitution and it is a logical fallacy.

We agree that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and then we part company. The Constitution sets forth the requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen, but doesn't define, in detail, what that means nor a process or form of proof for assuring compliance. Without that, compliance could mean taking the word of the politician that he meets the requirement. To define and spell out in law what compliance means does not put "procedures in priority over the constitution", it merely sets forth how the Constitutional requirement must be met.

Obama did release his CoLB that states he was born in Hawaii. You claim that's not good enough to prove Constitutional compliance to your satisfaction. The logical fallacy is yours.

On that we agree, clearly there is a law that forbids housing soldiers in private homes. However, it does no follow that
***Actually, you make my point here. There really aren’t that many laws prohibiting it. There’s just the constitution. It’s the supreme law of the land. The same constitution says that an ineligible person can’t hold the office of president.

It is not the same kind of untested Constitutional area at all; one is a clear prohibition,
***So... saying the president must be at least 35 years old isn’t a clear prohibition against ineligibility? And that he must have lived in the US for 14 years isn’t clear? And that he must be natural born isn’t clear? Why, all of a sudden? Well, that’s freepin’ easy... because Obama is pushing hard on that one prohibition so the trolls must work overtime to say that one prohibition is clear while the other is not.

meaning NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to quarter soldiers in private homes.
***The same constitution says the president must be NBC. And the 20th amendment is clear that it’s the president elect who may fail to qualify, rather than the people who may fail to qualify the president elect.

but doesn’t define, in detail, what that means nor a process or form of proof for assuring compliance.
***The constitution doesn’t do that with very many issues at all. F’rinstance, it says we have the right to keep & bear arms, basically one or 2 sentences. It’s the framework upon which there are tons of laws built. For you to require that there be laws in place where there already is framework that’s adequate (like the 3rd amendment) is thoroughly disingenuous. Basically, it’s another indication that you’re a CoLB troll.

Without that, compliance could mean taking the word of the politician that he meets the requirement.
***Bull Shiite. Otherwise, why even have the 20th amendment?

To define and spell out in law what compliance means does not put “procedures in priority over the constitution”,
***Yes it does.

it merely sets forth how the Constitutional requirement must be met.
***And, like the 3rd amendment, sometimes the only thing we have is the bare bones constitutional requirement. Just because there aren’t laws & procedures in place for telling an army general to buzz off doesn’t mean that the constitution doesn’t prevail.

Obama did release his CoLB that states he was born in Hawaii.
***Oh, geez. Amazing. Dog returning to vomit type of troll stuff. Obama released a forged electronic document. That means anything else he does along these lines will be held to close scrutiny. Because he’s a freepin’ liar, that’s why. Producing a forgery towards a requirement is basically de facto proof that one doesn’t qualify.

You claim that’s not good enough to prove Constitutional compliance to your satisfaction. The logical fallacy is yours.
***What? What is the claim? When did I mention my own satisfaction? And what is the classical fallacy being used, supposedly? It appears likely that you don’t even know what logical fallacies ARE.