“They are not “unfounded assertions” they are very well documented and logically demonstrable claims regarding the true and correct meaning of Article II and how the current legal system is corrupted by a doctrinaire orthodoxy of ignorance.”
__
Well, once more, we are facing what you personally consider to be “very well documented and logically demonstrable claims” and what you see as the “true and correct meaning of Article II,” and you acknowledge that your views are opposed to the holdings of the “current legal system.”
And I am not arguing with you. I am simply pointing out, as I did a bit earlier, that regardless of your opinion that the legal system is corrupt, it is our legal system, and its conclusions are our laws.
Some people are unhappy about that, as you obviously are, but the law is what it is until it is changed. And that means that Barack Obama is, according to our legal system, Constitutionally eligible to be President, your opinions notwithstanding.
Well, see here is where we disagree. He is NOT a legitimate president, but the people in our legal system are desirous that we pretend that he is. Not for actually weighed legal reasons, but out of the fear that if he is ruled illegitimate, it would results in urban riots across the nation. He is even getting a form of affirmative action from the Legal system.
I think it serves the country's interest for people to keep repeating that he is illegitimate, and in as many places as possible. Repetition works as well with the truth as it does with lies. Say it often enough, and it will eventually become the consensus.
It may take awhile, but eventually we may convince enough people that he is ineligible so that safeguards will be implemented to prevent another such occurrence. Apart from that, it is my hope that we may be able to eventually put him in prison for playing us so falsely.
Hopefully we will be able to put some of his enablers in Prison as well. I personally think we could save a lot of time by locking up all the Democrats. :)