Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
But then my lack of confidence in you would have been poorly placed. Go take a critical thinking class, troll.
You said — “Please, all ... DO NOT confuse me with this Star.”
Someone was already “cursing” me, because they confused *me* with the other “star”... LOL..
I don’t know who is worse... :-)
You said — “We all eagerly await your first post on the topic!”
I’ve already posted that I’m going to see to it after the holidays and do so in my local area (i.e., “state”). And, I know I won’t be the only one. This should be a really *big* movement by all FReepers, because it will need the political support to get the laws passed.
If you’re married, I hope you don’t use this passive/aggresive crap on your partner: “It’s merely an explanation on my part. I’m sure you will do what you want to do anyway.”
Bless your heart, Doctor, you still don’t understand the meaning of the word “lineage”. Post #15 is not in the lineage of our posts to each other, nor is it even addressed to you. If you take offense to every insult sent to every FReeper then by all means, you would really enjoy the bugzapper thread.
I just can’t resist the temptation, though: BZZZT, you’re wrong again. Keep coming back, this is fun for me.
You said — “Here’s a suggestion for you Star Traveler. Next time you interview for a job and they ask you for your experience, just tell them that it’s their responsibility to prove you aren’t qualified. That is exactly the kind of ridiculous argument you are presenting here. It’s laughable to say the very least.”
When I’ve gone in for some jobs — there were some *technicalities* that I had to show and prove. And this thing, with Obama, is not a “job interview” but one of those “technicalities” for qualification (i.e., the “natural born status”).
Obama has already been “interviewed” by the voting public and has been approved for the job by a larger margin of the voters than either Clinton or Bush ever got. So, that part is out of the way.
Now..., what I had to do, for a “technicality” was to bring them a Social Security card. I did, they copied it and put it in to the file and they were done. I *met the technicality* and that was all there was to it. Nothing more.
And likewise, Obama has presented what he needed to do (under our present system) to satisfy this particular “technicality” about “qualifications”. He’s done it already.
HOWEVER..., what people are complaining about here is that they don’t think the “process” that Obama used to meet and certify this qualification was “strict enough”.
So..., that’s where we need to change the “vetting process” in order to make it so this doesn’t happen again...
You said — “I believe they should. This is not just any “Issue”. This goes to our Constitution. If they ignore this “Issue” they will ignore anything they want.”
They won’t do it, because it would change the precedent they have in doing this. It won’t change...
You asked — “Why don’t you just say he says he is instead of he purports to be a natural born citizen...”
Simply because *he* is saying it and not *me*... Therefore he “purports” to be... means that it’s coming from him and not from me (i.e., in “asserting” that this is the case).
You’re correct. “It won’t change.” Unless the people of this country demand that the Constitution be upheld. How the people can do this is the question. Is it only through the vote? I don’t believe so.
You said — “Now matter how hard the stupid “realists” pretend otherwise, at January 20th at noon our country will no longer have a constitutional government, and sooner or later disaster will ensue. I would guess sooner.”
Since this thread is about how Obama goes about “proving” that he is a natural-born citizen — I have to conclude that your statement about not having a constitutional government pertains to this issue, then.
If that is so, this issue (which is causing your concern about a constitutional government) can be resolved easily by passing state laws requiring the Secretaries of State to vet a candidate before having his name on a ballot, legally. And, once that is done (i.e., those state laws put into place), then the “constitutional government” issue (as you’re referring to it above) is no longer a problem because we will have solved the problem...
—
On the other hand, if your concern for having a constitutional government is because Obama is President and because of what he might do as President, and because of the Democrat Congress (both sides) — then you’ve got a bigger problem than simply a “vetting process”. You’ve got a *major problem* with the majority of the voting public.
In that case, your problem is not Obama, it’s the greater majority of the “voting public” who will put another such person in office even if Obama is not there...
You said — “You just implied Obama is a crook. The problem here is that you don’t understand, or refuse to understand, what’s going on (if I give you the benefit of the doubt and you’re trying to be intellectually honest). Obama admitted that he is a native citizen. He admitted that his father was british. Native is not natural born.
Well, I may think he’s a crook, but I can’t prove it (in regards to this issue...) :-)
—
And — “The mechanism is not deficient. The problem here is people like yourself not understanding or comprehending the issue.”
If we’re having this conversation (which we are) — and if Obama has gone through the election and won the popular vote by a large margin, and if Obama has succeeded on being elected per the Electoral College, and if he gets sworn in at his inauguration — then — the “facts” of what is happening shows that the vetting process is deficient.
We simply would not be talking right now if it were sufficient to make it so that no one could be President if they are not qualified. Where Obama is at right now proves the process is deficient.
—
And then you were saying — “No. Stop putting words into Obama’s mouth. He did not say that. Native is not natural born. They are two different words, ok? Natural is not native. Native is not natural. Obama did not ever say natural born that I am aware of. Nor did he even imply it. That is your misrepresentation. Seriously, get that straight. Obama is, at best, a NATIVE citizen. If you say that again, please provide a reference where Obama clearly states that he is a NATURAL born citizen.”
I use the terminology of natural born. But, as you indicate the “devil is in the details” and that would require more “sorting out” to figure out what exactly is such a distinction — legally speaking. And even going into all that still means that the process is deficient, because — once again — we wouldn’t even be having such conversations — if — the vetting process took into account all these things that we’re talking about. There are only a set of qualifications but there is not a good and sufficient vetting process — and that is the problem.
The problem is not the qualifications or even all the different arguments and positions on the various words use. The real problem is that the vetting process has not taken all these factors into account and has failed us — which is why we’re arguing this whole thing about Obama right now.
—
And finally — “Here’s another point where you don’t understand or comprehend. Are you aware of the electoral college? Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? If one person say 1 + 1 = 2 and 10,000 people say it equals 21, which is right? Would your politics make it equal 21?”
Yeah, I do know what the Electoral College is and does and how that is different from the popular vote. And I know why we shouldn’t get rid of the Electoral College and go over to a popular vote, only, for President of the United States.
You should know why I mention the popular vote, though. It’s not because I think that these are the actual *direct votes* that the Constitution says actually elects the President and Vice-President. No, the Electoral voters (for each state) do that.
And that is the reason why the “state laws” have to be enacted for vetting the candidate, as I’ve been saying. It’s not a federal issue, it’s a “states rights” issue and the Federal Government should stay out of the states rights issues. To put a candidate on the ballot is solely a state issue and it should remain that way, and keep the Electoral College and vet the candidate per the state’s laws requiring a proper vetting of such a candidate per the Constitutional requirement. The Supreme Court should *also* stay out of “states rights” issue in this regard, too. It’s solely within the province of the state and not the Federal Government.
So, what’s the reason for mentioning the great plurality of votes for Obama in the election? Well, very simply it’s a good gauge of the support that is out there in the voting public, when it comes down to what *Congress* will do.
There have been some FReepers who have said that Congress will have to throw out Obama, “out of office” for him violating the qualifications for office — or else — the public will “throw the rats out” at the next election.
Well, I say that given the large majority of the voting public going for Obama — I don’t see them switching over and rejecting Obama (after they just “voted” for him) and “throwing out the rats” — because “the rats” wouldn’t do their job and throw Obama out of office. LOL....
AND..., furthermore..., Congressmen *are* voted in by popular vote... :-)
As a last comment on what you just said — you were asking if it would make it right if people voted for the wrong thing (i.e., voted for something false...).
Well..., I’m of the position that “truth” is always “absolute” no matter what political party you are in and no matter how many people think one way or another. And that is precisely why I’m stating the “truth of the matter” with Obama.
I’m stating the truth of the matter in that it’s “politics” and “votes” that get representatives in office and certain policies enacted — no matter what the truth of it is. That happens simply out of how much political power one side or the other has — and it has nothing to do with being “right or wrong”. The public (most of them) have given up a long time ago on the “right” or “wrong” of the matter. And *that* is the truth of it.
So, why I’m engaging in this particular conversation is precisely because I think “truth” exists on an absolute basis, regardless of what transpires through politics.
In “politics” the “process failed” in vetting the candidate properly. We need state laws properly vetting these candidates. And in the political process that Obama went through, no one is going to rid of us Obama for President.
And that’s the truth of the matter, whether it fits what one sees as “absolute truth” or not. Politics have never been about absolute truth.
The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is about absolute truth. And that absolute truth says that the United States will be judged and punished for all her sins (just as the other nations) and that Jesus Christ will return to earth to set up a world-wide Kingdom, ruling from Israel on the Throne of David (and that includes ruling over the United States and with a higher authority than the Constitution).
Now, if we’re talking absolute truth - then that is it...
If we’re talking about politics, then it’s whatever can be put through with the support of the voting public.
You said — “Bless your little heart, you’re confused. You need to ping RedSteel to make your argument.”
You were responding to an answer that I gave to “Red Steel”. As such, since you were the one responding..., the answer was back to you...
To make it clearer for you, you questioned the “reasoning” in Post #228. You did that by replying (to my answer to Red Steel) in Post #258. My answer to you was in Post #337, given to you, since you questioned the reasoning to Red Steel in #228.
Now, it seems that you’re the one who is getting confused here and who can’t follow the thread... LOL...
You said — “But then my lack of confidence in you would have been poorly placed. Go take a critical thinking class, troll.”
It’s the same lack of critical thinking that leads some people on FRee Republic to criticize on the basis of the word “troll” — rather than anything that holds up to reality.
Critical thinking and the reality of the situation that you’re complaining about go together. It’s just that you’re not exercising that critical thinking when the truth of the matter gets in the way of how you *wish* things would go.
That’s the *very problem* you’re having with this issue — in that the “vetting processs” did not work the way you wanted it to and you don’t want to face up to that reality...
You said — If you’re married, I hope you don’t use this passive/aggresive crap on your partner: “It’s merely an explanation on my part. I’m sure you will do what you want to do anyway.”
—
Well, from the terminology and the wording that you’ve been using, I would be surprised if you do have a partner... LOL...
You said — “You’re correct. “It won’t change.” Unless the people of this country demand that the Constitution be upheld. How the people can do this is the question. Is it only through the vote? I don’t believe so.”
No, you’ve got the wrong thing out of my statement. What I said *would not change* was the Supreme Court’s practice of making “no comment” on their denials. That is not going to change. That was the meaning of what I said.
You’ll remember that you said that the Supreme Court should give us the “reason” for their denial. I said that they won’t do that, because they never do that, and they won’t change the process that they’ve been doing all along. Therefore *that* is the thing that won’t change.
HOWEVER, on the matter of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirement for taking office — this *can change* — with no problem (I think...).
All it will take to change this (so that it doesn’t happen again) is for the states to put a law into effect for their Electoral College votes (and the popular vote, too) that says that a candidate must be vetted and proven to be qualified for the office of President of the United States before that candidate can be placed on the ballot.
That is the change that can happen and happen easily, I think...
I’m glad to hear what you say in regards to the truth, but as I’ve been trying to say, you don’t seem to understand what’s going on, and in fact, are arguing in a manner that is in direct opposition to what you say about truth.
Here, we’ll put aside all the natural born qualifications and how that applies to politics aside for a minute because I don’t think you are doing this intentionally:
What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.
So.........if the states WON’T do it........you are saying that SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution in regards to whether a candidate is qualified for the office of the President? If they won’t do this, in my opinion, they are useless.
You said — “What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.”
I know that there are some remaining possibilities for pursuing this issue of Obama’s qualifications. But, from the standpoint of politics and the “history” of this issue, thus far, this is not going to happen (i.e., that Obama is removed).
The history of it shows that at every “step” of the way, on the process to eliminate Obama because of this issue, it has failed.
It first failed in the courts (at least the lower courts before the election). It failed at the election on November 4th, the majority of the voters voting in such a way that they dismissed this issue and voted for Obama in larger numbers than either Clinton or Bush had ever gotten. It failed in the Supreme Court, it having denied stopping the Electoral College voting. It failed at the votes of the Electoral College.
And so..., one would be asked (under the “thinking” up above) to think that this issue — to kick Obama out of office because of his “alleged” [... :-) ...] lack of qualification under the Constitution — is actually going to happen with a new Congress that is overwhelming Democrat.
First of all, no one has any evidence to submit *showing* and *proving* that Obama is not qualified. And secondly, Obama has asserted that he is qualified and has presented a document that he says shows that he is qualified (that’s the document from Hawaii).
Now..., given the “track record” of lower court cases, the election, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College votes — to think that someone (i.e., a legislator) is going to make what has been shown to be an *unsubstantiated claim* that Obama is unqualified under the Constitutional requirements would be sheer lunacy on their part — given the political climate and how it would be perceived (again politically — “suicide”... LOL...). And furthermore, if the claim is made, to think that any number of the Congress will “back it up” is really questioning “one’s sanity” to even think it’s something that can even happen (again, without “proof” and only on the basis of accusations).
And — THEREFORE — that sort of shows that Obama has done his “political maneuvering” very well in making sure he makes it through this process, unscathed.
So, this — once again — shows to me that this process that we currently have of how to “vet the candidate” is flawed and needs to be shored up by means of state laws regarding the popular and electoral college votes as to whether a candidate is qualified and that he must prove that he is (according to the terms of said law).
—
And, it’s not the first time that this process of a new President has been shown to be *defective* — as is shown by the fact that we even have a 12th and 20th Amendments. Apparently now, we also need (in addition to those changes already made before) — state laws, regarding the vetting of candidates for President of the United States.
I never said anyone was paranoid, nor did I “Gratuitously insult anyone. I simply stated my belief that to this point no one has been able to uncover any evidence that would be admissible in a court of law....and until someone does... the courts are not going to take any suit seriously..... I have never claimed to be a lawyer, and am perfectly willing to state I could be wrong about this.
You said — “So.........if the states WON’T do it........you are saying that SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution in regards to whether a candidate is qualified for the office of the President? If they won’t do this, in my opinion, they are useless.”
I didn’t say that the states won’t do it. I’m saying that the states will and can do it, given that they have a state law in place that pertains to the vetting process for President of the United States. They have not done it before, because there is not a state law in place for the vetting process for the candidate for the office of President of the United States.
There’s one thing that you can’t do in this regard — and that is you can’t *require* that the state vet the candidate in a way that *requires certain proof* from the candidate (or he won’t be put on the ballot) — because if the state tried to keep someone like that off the ballot — absent a state law to that effect — the state would get sued and a judge would force them to put the name on the ballot. That’s what would happen.
So, it’s not that the states *won’t* do it — it’s that they can’t do it without the proper law being in place.
—
And in regards to the Supreme Court of the United States, they will only act upon cases brought before them, and only act in the way and manner as the case *itself* presents itself to the justices. They are not going to “step out” and go further than what the case is — before them.
I, for one, question whether the Supreme Court *can address* an issue that is a “states rights” issue, in regards to a particular state’s Secretary of State putting someone on the ballot or keeping them off the ballot or vetting the candidate for President of the United States in regards to his Constitutional qualifications — when that is something *solely* within the province of that state. And so, if someone brings a case to the Supreme Court that is solely within the province of that “states rights” — the Supreme Court should stay out of it.
So, you might ask, where should the Supreme Court intervene (and on what kind of case). It would have to be a case that showed *proof* that a President was *disqualified* and then secondly, at the point of where the Electoral College votes were counted. The case would have to be brought *after* the Electoral votes were counted.
But, it would have to be decided *before* the inauguration, because once the President is in office, the Supreme Court would have to say that the issue was “moot” and that they couldn’t take any decision on it and they would dismiss the case — being that only Congress can impeach and convict a President. Then it goes into the Congress’ hands. But, we know how far that would go, because it didn’t work for Clinton and Obama has a greater vote margin than Clinton did and we have a greater number of Democrats in there now.
Therefore, the Supreme Court really doesn’t have much room to maneuver, under the law and we don’t have any state laws regarding vetting a Presidential Candidate in order for him to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for office.
—
It’s not the Supreme Court that is useless, it’s not the states that are useless, and it’s everyone is refusing to do anything about it — rather — it’s that our *system* has been found to be *defective* in this process and we need to “correct the system” now — to make sure that this does not happen again.
It’s not the first time that our Constitutional system was found to be defective. That’s why we have Constitutional Amendments put into place. In this particular process of having a new President in office, the Constitution was found to be *defective* by means of the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment — so that shows that others saw that they had to *correct the Constitution* in the past.
Now, we see it’s necessary to correct the state laws to make the “process” of vetting a Presidential Candidate for him to prove he can qualify for office — is correct.
That’s where we are at now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.