That statement may apply to you but.............
I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records. They have a list. I posted it in Post 599
“I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records.”
Let me break to you plain:
1. I am a Constitutionalist, of the Scalia/Thomas type.
2. I want to see Obama’s records. That would be great. He has hid alot.
3. I believe the evidence is clear that Obama was born in Honolulu
4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Now ... are we in 100% agreement? If not, where do we differ? and how does ‘Constitutionalist’ help distinguish our positions if we are not in the same camp on #3 and #4?
Clearly there are “Disagree with #3” types and “Disagree with #4” types.
“I know of a lot of Constitutionalists that want to see all his records. They have a list”
It is my opinion that such a list would never have been pushed without the birth issue. Or at least there wouldn’t have been a clearly identifiable movement without the birth issue at its center.
There would be, as always, people complaining about the double standard whereby Democrats aren’t guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the media, and that they have wider latitude to hide secrets than the opposition. There would also be lingering complaints about Obama coming out of nowhere, and not having a long enough public past on which to have built such trust in his honesty, abilities, etc. But no splinter movement, if you will. Just like there’d have been libs to yell at Bush for being a Neo-Con if the Truthers never were.