Replies

The problem with your argument about Obama not being qualified is that no one has shown that to be the case, and as I’ve said before — with a court, with any documents — and the Supreme Court isn’t going to act on something like that and be “cowboys” based on hunches and speculation from various people. And additionally, until someone produces documentation with lower courts, which will rule on it, the Supreme Court is not going to “cowboy” the process. From what I’ve seen, the Supreme Court is inclined to kick cases back down if they haven’t gone through the proper stages in the process of getting up to them in the first place. It hasn’t happen yet, in the past, it’s not happening at the present, and I don’t see it happening in the future (and that future is not too much longer with January 20th just around the corner).

And in terms of the Constitution being the framework, I’ve said all along that there is nothing that is being disputed with what the Constitution requires for the qualification for President of the United States. The problem is — rather — that Obama has qualified, per the vetting process that has always been done. So, there isn’t a “problem” in meeting those qualifications per the Constitution (again, according to how it’s always been vetted in the past). Obama has gone through the very same process that candidates have in the past — and has been determined to be qualified per the Constitution.

Now, if someone was able to produce some evidence in a court of law and have that case with that evidence, having been verified by a court already, be taken up to the Supreme Court, maybe at that point in time, the Court would *have something* they could act upon. Right now the Court has nothing in the way of verified court evidence that they can act on. And since Obama has been vetted and determined to be qualified per the Constitution (again, the same way everyone else has always been) — they’re just not going to do anything more.

For those who say that Obama has not been vetted as qualified under the Constitution, then I would say, why doesn’t the Supreme Court see it your way — thus far? That’s a strong indication that they don’t see it that way at all. In addition, neither does President George Bush see it that way, as he had Secretary of State Rice report to him the situation with Obama’s passport and Bush knows the details there. If there was any fraud going on there, it’s an easy matter for him to direct prosecution by the Justice Department and put a quick end to that one. He had that information as far back as last March. Since President George Bush has done nothing in the way of prosecuting Obama, we’ve also got the Executive Branch of the government agreeing that Obama is properly vetted, in addition to the Judicial Branch also saying so (by their actions).

You mentioned the 3rd Amendment — and one can say that this is one that gets no attention at all, if it ever did. I think it may have gotten attention in exactly two instances, in its history (I think one case got thrown out). On the other hand, the candidates for President of the United States have been vetted to be qualified (or not) under the Constitution every Presidential election and it hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least not recently. Obama has done the same thing as prior candidates and he’s gone through that very same vetting process which determined him to be qualified. It’s only a very small segment of people who think that Obama has to do more than other candidates have had to in the past to “prove” that he qualifies, when it has not been required of anyone to do any more than he has done presently.

It would be a different story *if* anyone, someone, anywhere, anytime — had an ounce of proof that went through a court of law that could be verified and then carried up in a case to the Supreme Court. But, sorry — nothing there...

And that’s what you’ve got — *absolutely nothing* — that any court can act upon, to prevent Obama from taking office. And soon, after January 20th, it’s only going to be Congress who can remove the President — unless someone comes up with that idea that I saw posted elsewhere — where a sheriff (or some law enforcement) walks into the White House and escorts Obama out of the White House, because he’s not qualified to be President... (now..., that’s a funny one... LOL...). It’s amazing what kinds of ideas pop into people’s heads when they really really want something to happen their way....

The problem with your argument about Obama not being qualified is that no one has shown that to be the case,
***Yet.

and as I’ve said before — with a court, with any documents — and the Supreme Court isn’t going to act on something like that and be “cowboys” based on hunches and speculation from various people.
***Straw argument. No one expects SCOTUS to be cowboys.

And additionally, until someone produces documentation with lower courts, which will rule on it, the Supreme Court is not going to “cowboy” the process.
***I wouldn’t expect SCOTUS to be cowboys, I’d expect them to do their job.

From what I’ve seen, the Supreme Court is inclined to kick cases back down if they haven’t gone through the proper stages in the process of getting up to them in the first place.
***Yup, when there’s time. But Bush v Gore in 2000 showed that they needed to speed up the process.

It hasn’t happen yet, in the past,
***It happened in 2000.

it’s not happening at the present,
***Argument from silence. Gosh, how many times can you do that?

and I don’t see it happening in the future
***But we will all keep in mind how you think aliens will abduct some citizens in the future as well...

(and that future is not too much longer with January 20th just around the corner).
***POTO.

The problem is — rather — that Obama has qualified, per the vetting process that has always been done.
***NOPE. 20th amendment says the PRES ELECT can fail to qualify. That means the party could fail to vet him, the voters could fail, even congress. I agree that it’s a problem that he made it this far, but he has not yet qualified.

So, there isn’t a “problem” in meeting those qualifications per the Constitution
***Yes there is, and this is the umpteenth time I’ve told you to read the 20th amendment.

(again, according to how it’s always been vetted in the past).
***And, all along, we’ve had the 20th amendment ready to go if they screwed it up... which they have this time.

Obama has gone through the very same process that candidates have in the past — and has been determined to be qualified per the Constitution.
***Boy, did you get that one wrong. Again, you just blithely overlook what I’ve been pointing you to, the 20th amendment, but like the troll you are you return to the vomit of your argument.

Now, if someone was able to produce some evidence in a court of law
***In process, 17 cases worth, 5 before SCOTUS.

and have that case with that evidence, having been verified by a court already,
***And if we could just get trolls to listen to arguments...

be taken up to the Supreme Court,
***Yeah, maybe you’ll go somewhere with this, maybe you won’t. But you’ve proven so disingenuous so far that I’ll bet you prove yourself to be completely full of bovine scatology. Note that your requirement for having had the SCOTUS do something by now is completely absurd, typical of how trolls move the goal posts.

maybe at that point in time, the Court would *have something* they could act upon.
***and maybe they do. You don’t know any more than I do what is gonna happen, so you can’t argue from silence, the silence of the future.

Right now the Court has nothing in the way of verified court evidence that they can act on.
***Sorta POTO. Sorta moving the goal posts. Sorta hyperbolic straw argument. Sorta combination of all of them mixed with suppositions of the law that are unverifiable.

And since Obama has been vetted and determined to be qualified per the Constitution
***More troll bull shiite, and at this point no one thinks you’ll look up the 20th amendment.

(again, the same way everyone else has always been) —
***Logical fallacy — same way we’ve always done it...

they’re just not going to do anything more.
***Logical fallacy, argument from silence.
**

For those who say that Obama has not been vetted as qualified under the Constitution, then I would say, why doesn’t the Supreme Court see it your way — thus far?
***For various reasons. They need to make sure they have done all they can to get the legal stuff right, they need to give zer0bama all the chances they can to produce the document honorably and proactively, they need to make sure there’s standing, they need to make sure they can trigger the 20th amendment which only takes place when he’s PE, plus other reasons... all of which I would expect that you’ll blithely go past and return to your vomit.

That’s a strong indication that they don’t see it that way at all.
***No it isn’t. I answered the question, and your “strong indication” is nothing more than another argument from silence... ho hum.

In addition, neither does President George Bush see it that way, as he had Secretary of State Rice report to him the situation with Obama’s passport and Bush knows the details there.
***Plenty of reasons why, all discussed with you and you ignore them... like the troll troll troll you are.

If there was any fraud going on there, it’s an easy matter for him to direct prosecution by the Justice Department and put a quick end to that one.
***Bull shiite.

He had that information as far back as last March.
***Presumption. Provably false one at that. The guvner of Hawaii said that no one had been given the BC information, which means he didn’t have it in March.

Since President George Bush has done nothing in the way of prosecuting Obama,
***I wouldn’t expect him to, but we can let FReeper lawyers weigh in on that ... best of luck getting them to follow your meandering posts.

we’ve also got the Executive Branch of the government agreeing that Obama is properly vetted,
***Bull shiite. They just haven’t moved, that doesn’t mean they agree. Gee, you seem to go out of your way to find invalid arguments.

in addition to the Judicial Branch also saying so (by their actions).
***Again more bull stuff.

You mentioned the 3rd Amendment — and one can say that this is one that gets no attention at all, if it ever did. I think it may have gotten attention in exactly two instances, in its history (I think one case got thrown out).
***Exactly the point. The reason why there isn’t much case law is because the constitutional requirement has been there all along and no one has pushed the boundaries of this law. Same could be said about eligibility of the pres, and the case law & procedures surrounding it.

On the other hand, the candidates for President of the United States have been vetted to be qualified (or not) under the Constitution every Presidential election and it hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least not recently.
***This does not follow, a non sequitur. There is no “other hand”. Your argument is meaningless because, first of all, eligibility has not been a problem just like you say, so there wouldn’t be the case law as I say,thereby nullifying your point. And there isn’t going to be a single freeper that cares enough to comment at this far into the conversation, with all your troll twists in logic. This particular paragraph was a reasonably good example of obfuscation.

Obama has done the same thing as prior candidates and he’s gone through that very same vetting process which determined him to be qualified.
***Not even close to true. The other candidate in the race produced his birth certificate. None of the other presidents have been sued for eligibility as far as I can tell.

It’s only a very small segment of people who think that Obama has to do more than other candidates have had to in the past to “prove” that he qualifies,
***Even if it’s only one person, if that person is right it doesn’t matter how many there are. And this is a straw argument, because we’re not asking him to do more, we’re asking him to do as much as McCain. And yes, he does have to prove he qualifies, the 20th amendment doesn’t say the People have to qualify him, it says if the pres elect fails to qualify. Burden of proof is on him to qualify.

when it has not been required of anyone to do any more than he has done presently.
***Already dealt with this bull scatology line of argument above.

It would be a different story *if* anyone, someone, anywhere, anytime — had an ounce of proof
***There you go again.

that went through a court of law
***In process.

that could be verified
***Moving the goal posts.

and then carried up in a case to the Supreme Court.
***Moving the goal posts again.

But, sorry — nothing there...
***Hyperbolic straw argument. There’s plenty there.

And that’s what you’ve got — *absolutely nothing*
***Back to your vomit of the NOTHING focus.

— that any court can act upon,
***IN process.

to prevent Obama from taking office.
***In process. 17 cases, 5 before the court. One tomorrow.

And soon, after January 20th, it’s only going to be Congress who can remove the President — unless someone comes up with that idea that I saw posted elsewhere — where a sheriff (or some law enforcement) walks into the White House and escorts Obama out of the White House, because he’s not qualified to be President... (now..., that’s a funny one... LOL...).
***It’s nice to be able to get through more than one sentence of yours without finding a classic fallacy. Take that writing class. Maybe you’ll be able to put a couple more of these together.

It’s amazing what kinds of ideas pop into people’s heads when they really really want something to happen their way....
***Back to your denigrating bullstuff, hinting at how we don’t line up with “reality” as you’ve said in the past... all this coming from a guy who believes in alien abduction....yeah that’s a strong grip on reality ya got there, sparky.