March on Washington to tell president to quit

[Christians4LessGvt]

Why is the burden of proof not placed upon the accuser as it usually is?

It is....but almost all the cases are thrown out before any evidence can be shown.

[sirs]

Cu4.....if its one thing I'm a huge advocate of is QUALITY.  The quality of one's answer is far superior than the quantity

Well SIRS I dont really care if you dont think my answers were of quality I dont think some of your answers were very high quality.  But AMI fought your war for you anyway....you came in the game on the kicking team but thats cool...i learn more sparring with him anyway

Strange, how I neither complained your comments were without quality, or that I was trying to compete with Ami.  I learn far more from Ami than myself, so not sure where you were going with that.  A mild backhanded dig, perhaps?  Don't know.  I too was at work, and only had those few occasions to add comments.

You could have saved yourself so much time and energy had you addressed the specific core problem and subsequent question at the base of that problem, that Ami clearly provided.

I think I did address the core problem.

See??  NO, YOU DIDN'T.  The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.  A core question to this whole debate, that you conveniently punted to some nebulous "experts".  You opined, on and on about slavery and the injustice of it all.  Never once addressing what exactly needs to change in current law to right such an injustice that Obama is now President.  Again, why spend all this time on the fringe, and not once, dealing with the main issue at hand??

as you layed it out...that of how much of a travesty our current law is.....akin to slavery even, according to you.

I see you still miss the point completely.  You were the one pushing legislative remedy not me.

That's because this isn't a court problem.  The law is clear, and Obama & company have provided the necessary legal, and subsequent constitutional requirements to be POTUS.  YOU're the one trying to make a judicial mountain out of legislative molehill.  Just because others have the same "problem" with this, doesn't equate to it being a valid problem, or one that the courts need to handle.  There's NOTHING to handle.

Since you won't answer, I'm gonna make a guess....... that you hate this President so much, that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH.  That you really don't have an issue with the law, only that you're mad as hell that this President was legally elected, that you have to then convince yourself he was illegally elected.  You know what we referred to those on the left, when they had that mentality aimed at Bush?......BDS

You provided a position how terribly bothered you are with the current law that allows Obama to sit in the WH.

SIRS....no I did not do that.  Again I stated I am fine with the Constitution on the issue.

LOL....THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??  Why all the rhetoric about slavery??  This travesty of justice, if there's no problem with current law??

It just needs to be enforced.

IT HAS BEEN    

Actually no new laws must be enacted.

Then I have no idea why all this time and energy has been spent.  Laws, that YOU have likened to slavery.  Laws that YOU have said need fighting for.  Now........."Actually no new laws must be enacted."  

Whatever

He's provided every aspect required BY LAW to fulfil the mandates to be elegible for President.

Until a court finds otherwise....that is true.

So, you ARE hoping for some legislating from the bench.  How so very....liberal of you    

OJ was within the law...until another court found otherwise

I'm afraid to ask, what law would that be?  Obama is now OJ?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Constitution does NOT say that the president must be born in the US. Washington was born in a British colony, as were nearly all of the first presidents. It says that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. This term has not been defined. It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.

Obama was elected by 53% of the voters. His mother was a citizen. This crap about Hawaiian birth certificates is just that: crap. Every Democrat elected since Johnson has been attacked by Republicans for silly crap. It is what they do. It is nonsense and should be ignored.

[R.R.]

It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.

Not even close.

Arthur was born in Vermont.

[Amianthus]

The Constitution does NOT say that the president must be born in the US. Washington was born in a British colony, as were nearly all of the first presidents. It says that the president must be a "natural born" citizen. This term has not been defined. It seems that Chester Arthur might have been born in Ireland, for example.

The early Presidents slid by on the second part of the qualifications: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President".

The term is defined in British Common Law from which our current law derives, so absent a conflicting definition introduced later, that definition stands.

Oh yeah, some had claimed that Arthur was born in Canada, not Ireland. His father was Irish, however.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Strange, how I neither complained your comments were without quality

Yeah sure SIRS...you just brought up quantity over quality completely out of the blue.
As you said "whatever"......lol

A mild backhanded dig, perhaps?

No it was a straight forward dig....I don't hide "between the lines" like you did.

See??  NO, YOU DIDN'T.  

Yes I did.

The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.

Maybe the core problem for you, you dont define what I see as the core problem.

A core question to this whole debate, that you conveniently punted to some nebulous "experts".  

I don't really see it as a legislative problem, so I am not concerned with any new laws....
if they want to write new laws....fine...I'll look at them...
and approve or disapprove....thats pretty much how reality works.

You opined, on and on about slavery and the injustice of it all.  
Never once addressing what exactly needs to change in current .
law to right such an injustice that Obama is now President.
Again, why spend all this time on the fringe, and not once,
 dealing with the main issue at hand??

Again....you dont get it....I guess.
Not sure if you are playing games and pretending to not get it
or you really dont get it.

In debate SIRS analogy can be an important tool.
You are fixated on the slavery analogy
My references to slavery have really nothing to do with slavery per se
The analogy is used to expose your false/weak logic.
Basically you say "well he's legal"..."he's following the law"....so nothing can be done.
And I say "wait a minute" there is something that can be done....
just like in our country's history....something once legal/unjust was reversed.

The analogy shows that in our past history that injustices can be
approved by courts or be "legal", but that does not mean the injustices are "ok".

That's because this isn't a court problem.

That's your opinion.

Since you won't answer, I'm gonna make a guess.....that you hate this President so much,

I did answer....you just dont approve of my answer.
I dont hate our President....but I do hate socialism or the march towards socialism.

I like Mitt Romney but if questions arose about him not being born in the US and
he refused to show his full long form birth certificate and Mitt allowed millions and
millions to be spent keeping the courts from investigating this....then I would say
I would not want him serving as President....change the names to Palin, Reagan
Jindal, Bush, Brown, Rubio, who-ever...no matter what Party...I do not want
a non-US born person serving as our President. PERIOD!

"Technicality" my ass!

that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH.  

See there is the truth...FINALLY.
Finally, finally, finally!
You and others actually see the US Constitution as a "technicality".
Do you really think that?
Do you really think if I am correct that it is a "technicality"?
Honestly SIRS that is "WOW" to me.
SIRS what else do you see as a "technicality"?...our right to own guns?...free speech?
Amazing people see a very clear sentence in the US Constitution, put there not by accident
Put there for a reason, and then try to demean and imply others are haters for simply
trying to follow that Constitution.....AMAZING.

That you really don't have an issue with the law, only that you're mad as hell that this President
was elected, that you have to then convince yourself he was illegally elected.  
You know what we referred to those on the left, when they had that mentality aimed at Bush?...BDS

Mostly ALL Wrong once again.
Yes I am not happy a super super Liberal was elected President.....are you?
But actually it is working out pretty well.....what's he done?....whats he got passed?
Cap & Trade? FAIL!---> Healthcare? FAIL!---Close Gitmo? FAIL!----Ban Earmarks?---->FAIL!
He's getting his ass kicked up one side and down the other and he controls BOTH Houses!
(one thing he's done I like is fire many more Predator missiles to kill IslamoNazis)

But getting back to your wrong "guess"....I have stated repeatedly this is not a big issue for me.
I think we've been held up, robbed, whatever....but most likely the crime will go unpunished.
Fine.....I didn't start the thread....I very, very, rarely bring the topic up here or anywhere else.
I didn't obsess with OJ when he sailed thru....yeah I thought is sucked....but I moved on
unless someone brought it up.


THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??  

There is no problem that I really worry about unless it's brought up by someone,
that is unless one of these court cases is fully accepted and discovery of evidence is executed.
Then I think we'll see a VERY BIG PROBLEM!

Why all the rhetoric about slavery??  

To use analogy to expose the fallacy of your argument.....nothing more.

This travesty of justice, if there's no problem with current law??

Yeah....there are "travesty of justice" whenever someone guilty gets off.
But that does not mean we must always write new laws everytime someone gets off that
we are pretty sure is guilty. I think OJ was guilty....but because he got off I dont really
see that we need to write a bunch of new laws concerning murder.

Then I have no idea why all this time and energy has been spent.
Laws, that YOU have likened to slavery.  Laws that YOU have
said need fighting for.  Now........."Actually no new laws must
be enacted."   Whatever

This is just further evidence ...you dont get it.
No....no new laws need to be enacted.
The Constitution is fine, it just needs to be enforced.
Why would any new laws be needed?

It's simple really....but so far....it has not been successful
there needs to be a lawsuit filed and accepted to be heard
that allows for discovery....in the discovery process documents like
Obama's original long form 1961 birth certificate will be under
subpoena...and then examined by the courts and both sides of case.

So, you ARE hoping for some legislating from the bench.  
How so very....liberal of you  

One man's "legislating" is another man's "interpreting the constitution".
You pretend you are different, but I am sure you applaud when a court sides with you on issues.

You just call it "following the constitution" then when the court sides against you
claim "legislating from the bench"

You're just too blind to see it.

I'm afraid to ask, what law would that be?  Obama is now OJ?

SIRS....you dont do well with analogy do you?....do you even know what analogy is?

ps: I am done with this thread....you can have the last word....it's become boring
because it's not about non-US born Obama anymore and is more about sematics
and language.......I'm done....but I hope the courts aren't done!

WE'LL SEE!

[sirs]

See??  NO, YOU DIDN'T.  

Yes I did.

No, since this question "what would you like the requirement CHANGED to, since the current one - which Obama meets - is not sufficient?" went completely unanswered

The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.

Maybe the core problem for you, you dont define what I see as the core problem.

Your "core problem" was completely defined around the above, since YOU are the one that kept going on and on and on about how current law is analogous to slavery, that it requires changing, that its so egregious, it needs to be fought, like they did in changing the slavery laws.

And no, this is NOT a problem with the Constitution failing to be enforced.  If one is providing everything the law requires, there is no further "enforcement" mechanisms necessary.  And if you now start going into the slavery analogy once again, we're right back at the square 1 question, that you have yet to answer.

Can we expect one, anytime soon?  Or are you still hoping for a liberal-like legislating from the bench tactic?

[sirs]

Since Cu4 has apparently decided not to answer the core issue to this discussion, let me add a response to his 1 area of my confirmed guessing:

that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH.  

See there is the truth...FINALLY.
Finally, finally, finally!
You and others actually see the US Constitution as a "technicality".
Do you really think that?
Do you really think if I am correct that it is a "technicality"?

The Constitution is the greatest piece of parchment ever produced, IMHO.  Followed closely the Harry Potter Series, though I digress.      Hardly a "technicality".

The technicality I'm referring to is, dare I say, analogus to...let's say a home invasion robber from being convicted, because the officer didn't read him his miranda rights.  Or let's say a murderer released because the only hard evidence, the gun, was found by an illegal search.  THAT's the technicality Cu4 is looking for, since, one last time, legally Obama has provided everything required by law, and by extension, the Constitution.  Cu4, and others, since they apparently have no desire to have legislators change existing law, want some form of "get out of jail free card" technicality, provided for, by the courts, though one that mandates a "get out of the White House, now" card

The Constitution is clear.  It has been enforced.  The law has been adhered to, by all parties.  For those that say it hasn't, I have yet to see what the basis for their denial is.  If there's apparently no need to change anything, one would wonder why all the energy has been applied to this issue.

Then again, I think I addressed that in my conjecture of a possible Conservative version of BDS, one that maybe we need to refer to as ODS

[Plane]

Good thought Sirs,

      One thing that the " Bush Lied" diatribe lacked was any member of the same tribe who would call BS on their own side, they were putting forward rediculous theroys of lies about just about everything.

       I remember when Preaident Bush caught a fish and in dubble translation his statement was called a lie because the fish would have been a record for the species, only before the translation the species was diffrent. Leaping onto something finally that could be proven a lie in fact rather than opinion the "liers" fell flat on their dwindleing credability, again.

       Once it bacame clear that these guys would contradict Bush when he might say "The Sky is blue" or "Water is wet" there wasn't enough credability in the whole side to maintain any statement they might make beleiveably.

         If we have a side and our side has some credability , it is worth something to us.

     I would like to be credable when something of substance comes along with real evidence , not seem like another baying dog of the pack that bays at all shadows all night long.

[sirs]

Thanks Plane.  I do try