Never said or meant any such thing. Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those .
I’m tired of the blind allegiance folks hear and spinners like you.
I’m out.
“Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those.”
__
I can tell you how I personally became convinced of his eligibility, but I’m only a single voter. I can’t speak for what convinced the Democratic Party, or the other voters, or the vast majority of the press and the Congress, etc., etc. They have to speak for themselves.
But they clearly have made their decisions on whatever basis they considered appropriate, and you are right — most people are abiding by them.
If you wish to describe adherence to the Constitution as blind allegiance, of course that is your right.
“Never said or meant any such thing.”
__
And that was my point, wasn’t it? That when you said that “[t]he person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone,” you didn’t actually mean that the person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone? It’s an absurd statement, as I pointed out.
The candidate is required to convince many decision-makers of his or her eligibility (voters, Congress, etc.), and in this case, Pres. Obama has clearly done that. He hasn’t convinced you, but there will always be some who remain unconvinced.
So, I ask again, in a case like this, where the candidate has convinced all of the Constitutionally relevant decision-makers to their satisfaction albeit not to yours, what mechanism would you like to see in place to override their decision? Do you want the People’s choice to be thrown out by judges with lifetime appointments? By the military?
You haven’t answered that one at all.