[Hostage]

Thanks but I am still not getting the connection in the direction going from Obama’s ‘authority’ to his ‘eligibilty’.

I certainly understand the reverse direction going from ‘eligibilty’ to his ‘authority’.

I mean I can see the dealers questioning his constitutional authority and I would back them on it.

But the question of eligibility is not settled so we have to assume he was eligible and that he has presidential authority, but it is certainly questionable whether presidential authority allows Obama to act in a manner that might have contributed to those dealers losing their businesses.

BTW I have always questioned Obama’s unwillingness to provide a copy of his long form birth certificate.

[American Constitutionalist]

" I certainly understand the reverse direction going from ‘eligibility’ to his ‘authority’ "

That's the whole point, Obama and his administration does not have any authority if he is not eligible and legitimate.

[patlin]

Try this, to gain authority, one must 1st qualify for the position.

For president, one must be atleast 35, been in the country for the 14 prior to the election and must be a natural born citizen to be able to qualify for the authority to run the nation. These qualifications are not despensible, they must all be met and if even just 1 of the 3 qualifications is not met, then the person does not qualify for such authority.

So, by what qualifications aka warrant does Obama have the authority to hold the office of POTUS & the authority to be making the decisions he does?

The answer: NONE!