It would seem to me that, since the Constitution forbids any ex-post-facto laws, that such a law would hardly provide grounds for impeachment, but would perhaps pose an obstacle in a re-election bid.

I’ve quoted you and [object].

[note: fished from spam filter]

So why doesn’t he show it? Make it available to ten Republican Lawmakers – leaders in congress for privste examination?

Yes he has a foriegn father, not since the civil war has this occured –

Or do we just not collectively care because its awkward

Sadly, it’s the Globe, genius. And as far as the NE goes, even a broke watch is right twice a day…

It’s the tone that has permeated this topic that I’m complaining about. Both sides. And probably deliberately by people who want this topic to become unpleasant. If everyone were as nice as DRJ if would be fun to delve into the pedantic. But instead… see this thread.

However, I don’t see why it’s a bad thing to be simultaneously interested in political and pedantic issues.

I guess it’s not a problem! But it certainly is pedantic. Look at SPQR’s recent comment about a witness at a trial.

He’s trying to carry on the debate in a polite manner, but the trial is completely irrelevant to me. Obama is hiding the document… that’s why it matters. It doesn’t matter that Obama obviously could get a million people to say they were in the room and saw him born in any city Obama wanted them to say he was born in.

It’s pedantic in the extreme, and it has overwhelmed a very simple point. These threads are so full of outrage and ugliness and people trying to prove the other side is wrong by arguing about things that appear to be irrelevant.

Some people are way too touchy about the legal issues. There is no law when it comes to a matter like this. I wish there was, but Mccain and Obama are above the law.

Ark, Elg, and whatever followed the 14th Amendment and chose to disregard its meaning, is a whole nother story.

If Scotus can totally disregard the Constitution, it becomes worse than worthless because we can’t change it and are forced to live with rulings that are designed to destroy the country.

What is the point of a new amendment if that is the case? Would we just state the Citizenship Clause again followed by the words “and this time we mean it!”?

When they say the Constitution is flexible and rulings that totally disregard the meaning of the words in the Constitution should be maintained as some principle of not disturbing precedent, it’s time to set the evil piece of paper on fire.