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 make a big deal of the fact that the voters picked him. If he wasn't eligible, then those voters where hoodwinked and defrauded.
The fact that no one (officially) asked for proof that he met the qualifications is beside the point. He knew what they were, so he can't claim ignorance, if he does not meet them.