You said:
“Well, then I guess you don’t want to know the answer to that question. However, I would still like to know the answer to that question of how many pieces of legislation was invalidated during Chester A. Arthur’s term in office. That would give me some indication from history as to what we’ll be facing...”
Well it will not give us any real indication at all considering that it was never proven that Arthur was ineligible at the time. In this case e are still in the beginning of this process and it very well may be proven that Obama has a major problem in this case and then we will possibly see for the first time what will happen.
The Arthur case does very little toshine a light on “what to expect”
You also said:
“It sure is “hot” in certain quarters — but it’s certainly a total “non-starter” in other quarters. I guess it depends on what place you’re looking at it from...”
Well that is why I asked how many Supreme Court cases were involved in the Arthur case. It seems that it is already a much hotter issue this time around.
Yes, the question does come down to “can you prove it” — and — if you can’t (i.e., everyone that is trying) then it’s like President Arthur, who became President under those doubts.
It’s still a few days away from January 20th, so he’s not quite like President Arthur yet... There’s still time to come up with some definite proof, if there is any (and that’s a real good question...).
So, in any case, you’re saying that if it’s not proven that Obama is not eligible, then it will be like Arthur, because it was never proven for him either — right?
Or, maybe in a more limited sense — as long as it’s “not proven at the present” that Obama is not qualified, then he can go on and be President in the same way President Arthur was (*again* given that no proof has come up “yet”)...