Sir Xsarus wrote:
The process is to bring it up when they are in the primaries.
And what? Sue? People did and the cases were dismissed for lack of standing.
Quote:
That's what worked for McCain and it worked for Obama, you're just ignoring that fact for whatever reason.
For McCain, there was a Senate resolution declaring that he was a natural born citizen. For Obama? A PR campaign consisting of leaking copies of a digital certification on the interwebs. Surely, you can see that this is not remotely the same thing, right?
Quote:
It's amusing because you keep on hanging onto that long form, when it's been utterly and completely debunked by any number of sources, but you won't let go.
Debunked, by whom? Just repeating the assertion over and over doesn't make it true. Can you find me a single authoritative source stating that they have viewed the long form of Obama's birth certificate and that it says that he was born in X hospital on Y date and not filed via application?
If you can't, then this hasn't been "debunked" at all. It's just been claimed to have been in the hopes that no one will notice that no one actually did make that determination.
Quote:
It's LEGITIMATE!!! The fact of the matter is that he was vetted, there is a process and he passed it.
Vetted by whom? The DNC? I don't think you understand the existing process. All that's required to appear on the ballot is for the party to sign a piece of paper saying you are qualified to be on the ballot. Are you aware that the Socialist Workers Party fielded a candidate for president (of the US) who is a Nicaraguan citizen and was able to put him on the ballot in 5 states? There is *no* actual process for dealing with this in our system. We have no method to prevent someone who does not qualify to be president from actually taking office if he wins the election anyway.
That's a problem. And it's one that doesn't go away by just sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring it. You continue to assume that there's some magical agency which checks these things and verifies them and makes sure that no one who doesn't meet the qualifications can get through. But there isn't. The *only* process we have is to sue after the fact. Yet, for some bizarre reason, judges are letting their opinions of this particular case cloud their judgment with regard to the issue as a whole. They are rejecting cases on
standing instead of examining the evidence, making a determination of qualification and making a ruling.
By dismissing the cases on standing, they get to avoid having the birth documents examined. I'm not sure what value there is to that, but this absolutely appears to be their reason for doing so. However, because they are doing this, they are setting the precedent that no one has standing to sue a president if they think he doesn't qualify for the office. If a US military officer, who is being commanded to lead soldiers into battle and is personally responsible for the acts his soldiers take does not have standing to sue to ensure that those orders come from someone constitutionally authorized to give them, then who the hell does?
