You said — “You stated your opinion that every president is disqualified...”
I only stated that in context of qualifying for a security clearance, as a normal citizen. I “gave you” two Presidents (Washington and Jefferson, not the rest of them...) that I wouldn’t contest on that issue..., that’s all... (of a security clearance, but I’m not sure how relevant they are to today’s security clearances).
But, in terms of Chester A. Arthur’s “qualifications” — that was not in the context of security clearances — but rather — in terms of the *Constitutional requirements* for holding the Office of the President of the United States. That’s a completely different matter, altogether.
And so, the 21st President was not qualified per the Constitution and he knew it, while it’s not been proven (other than simple allegations) that Obama is not qualified per the Constitution.
You’re talking about two different things here (security clearances that a President has, versus him being an “ordinary citizen” — and then — a President being qualified to hold office per the Constitutional qualifications — two different matters...).
—
As for the rest of it, I’ll say just like I was saying *before* the inauguration — We’ll see what happens on Inauguration Day. And we “saw” didn’t we... He’s now President.
So, now, I’ll say (to the rest of what you posted), we shall see if anything — at all — comes of anything that FReepers have been posting about Obama’s qualifications per the Constitution to hold the office. I don’t think so — but “we shall see...”
I have a lazy and hazy view that the modern federal concept of "security clearance" dates from the National Security Act of 1947-- with roots probably going back at least to secret agents acting on behalf of the US federal executive brance prior to the Mexican American War).
[Microbrew time? :-)]