No, I am not arguing that. I am arguing that he was already elected president 2008 (not a candidate AS you suggest) in another humiliating defeat for republican party. So making up a requirement (long form) that does not presently exist as a requirement to NULL and VOID an election, and claiming the that requirement is in ‘the constitution’ when it isn't, and claiming you are only defending ‘the constitution’ as if you are the only one that cares about the constitution, is nonsense that everyone sees through.
Now if you somehow made the case BEFORE the election, and it was effective, and you actually had some proof in hand, it might have been different
sickoflibs, nothing personal, but I would never do business with you. You’re interested in what is technically required by the letter, but oblivious to what is the right thing to do according to the spirit of the law. Would you do me out of whatever you could get away with? That’s what Barry has done to the country. He has a moral obligation to be open and honest with the people.
Interesting.
Before the primaries we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually his party's candidate.
Before the main election we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually the president elect.
Before the electoral college vote we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been elected until the electoral college said so.
Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.
Before was sworn in we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually violated the constitution until he became president.
Now that he is president, trolls like you say it's too late, you should have said something sooner!
Yes, you were arguing that. It’s obvious.
I said “candidate” because we were demanding to see his BC back when he was a candidate!
No one has ever said that a birth certificate is a requirement in the constitution. They would not have put that in there weren’t too many people at the time who had one. Today, every person running for president would have one and since it is the best evidence for birth and since the requirement in the constitution is that you must be natural born, the birth certificate must be seen. This is especially important in Obama’s case because his place of birth absolutely crucial to his natural born status.
We’re simply asking to see his BC and justifiably so. The burden of proof is on Obama. He has the BC. So what exactly are we supposed to prove?
You can’t criticize us for not having proof when so much of the evidence is being hid by Obama! It’s like a cop trying to figure out the identity of a suspect, so the suspect tells the cop that his name is Bill Smith, and the cop asks for a driver’s license for proof that his name is actually Bill Smith, but the guy refuses to give him his license and instead tells the cop that the cop has no proof that his name isn’t Bill Smith! And instead of just showing the cop his license he just goes on and on about being falsely accused and how the cop has no proof that he’s lying. Your logic just doesn’t make any damn sense!
Let me ask you this: Should Obama have even showed us his certification of live birth? The words “certification of live birth” isn’t in the constitution either. Using your flawed argument, he shouldn’t even have had to show a COLB, right?