Since July of 2009, which is the farthest back I can go in the comments (because that’s when you joined FR) the ***ONLY**** subject you have ever commented on is Obama’s eligibility. And you have always argued steadfastly, unmoved by and unresponsive to any evidence.
So as long as Osama Bin Laden were a little more obscure (like being a non-noteworthy nobody most his life and then either hiding or purging all his records when he rises to public attention, maybe... hiding behind “confidentiality”...) they’d be fine. Nobody would know any better and everything would be peachy. Just think of the damage OBL could have done if he had just shaved his beard and blended into the woodwork in America for a while instead of giving away his cover on 9-11...
But the question all you Obot trolls won’t address is this: ***HOW**** would anybody keep Osama or Mickey Mouse off the ballot? If the public voted for these guys even though they are not eligible, how would they be kept out of our White House? How is the system set up to insure that a non-eligible President can never illegally occupy our White House?
I've addressed this numerous times, although you ignore my responses. Congress can refuse to certify an ineligible candidate, and the opposing candidates (either in the primary or the general election) have standing to sue in court. Your problem is that John McCain thought Obama is eligible, Mitt Romney thinks he is eligible, all 535 members of the Congress in 2009 thought he was eligible, and all 535 members of the current Congress think he is eligible. The Constitution has no "butterdezillion veto" clause that I can find.
“How is the system set up to insure that a non-eligible President can never illegally occupy our White House?”
__
The Founding Fathers wanted most of all for the power of selecting the President to be left to the people. So they enshrined in our Constitution the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. As soon as a candidate comes into prominence, people are free to say and publish whatever they like about him. If there is evidence of ineligibility, it is incumbent upon those who have the evidence to make their case to the public.
I made the point earlier, and you don’t seem to dispute it, that the public has remained hugely unswayed by the ineligibility arguments. There is no groundswell of support, there is no rising up in protest. And this was intended by the Founding Fathers to be our first line of defense.
But they provided a second line too, a safety valve. If for some reason an ineligible candidate managed to keep his secrets from every investigative journalist and opposition researcher, and that the public chose to elect him, the Congress is still given a chance to block the votes of the Electoral College. As I’m sure you know, not s single objection was filed by a single member of either house of Congress for either of the two elections.
The Founding Fathers distributed the power to choose the President in a way that the weight falls mostly on the people, but in part on the Congress. Those who claim Obama is ineligible could have succeeded by persuading either the people or the Congress of the validity of their claims. They have failed utterly on both scores.
It’s not too late. The Constitution also provides for impeachment if the House feels that the evidence supports it. Yet, even now with several Republicans talking about impeachment, I am not seeing ineligibility as a significant claim. There really are very, very few who still take it seriously.
I've been a FReeper since 1998. I am not an Obot or a troll, and you could never find a single post of mine in 14 years to show that I am. I am a lawyer, and I know a bit about what courts do, and do not do, in our system. Ignoring reality is not a conservative virtue.
I opposed Obama's re-election the way the Constitution says I should-- I voted for Governor Romney.
I’m with you. The utterly naive here disregard the elephant in the room, and that is how the 4th estate influences and directs the public opinion and the stands of politicians, in fact and in practice intimidating the political establishment. Captain Obvious here, but look how Watergate was manufactured out of a meaningless break-in into a Major Scandal, and how Benghazi is less known to the public than Ben Gazzara! It doesn’t exist until we say it exists!