I agree with you. One of the most beautiful things about the constitution is its plain language that anyone can read and understand, no law degree or political acumen required.
That said, muddying the meaning of plain language is an old reliable trick in the DNC's playbook. We even have (unless everything since 2020 is pure show) a confirmed supreme court justice who testified before Congress that she (?) couldn't define what a woman is. Bill Clinton parlayed the definition of "is" into absurdity back when he was in office. And Obama could say he is eligible, since he meets the eligibility standard of Article 1 (35 years of age, resident for over 14 years, and the presumptive natural born language) as long as he is not elected.
If the democrats tried it, we could see a trial to challenge his natural born status. Or a trial for treason. Either one (why not both?) would be quite the show.
Anyone who has taken time to read the constitution can plainly see that it means he's not eligible.
Even so, as John Adams said
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
If he lived today, he might have added that it also requires honesty and common sense. We all know politicians don't respect any of those virtues, and they have plenty of lawyers happy to pretend they do.
It's an interesting theory, supported to some degree by the Q interpretation. We'll soon see what kind of show we are watching. I'm not making bets either way, but if it happens we can all point to Q having told us first.
(Edit: I still think OP is wrong, and those drops applied to 2020. But I'd be happy to see the trials.)
I agree with you. One of the most beautiful things about the constitution is its plain language that anyone can read and understand, no law degree or political acumen required.
That said, muddying the meaning of plain language is an old reliable trick in the DNC's playbook. We even have (unless everything since 2020 is pure show) a confirmed supreme court justice who testified before Congress that she (?) couldn't define what a woman is. Bill Clinton parlayed the definition of "is" into absurdity back when he was in office. And Obama could say he is eligible, since he meets the eligibility standard of Article 1 (35 years of age, resident for over 14 years, and the presumptive natural born language) as long as he is not elected.
If the democrats tried it, we could see a trial to challenge his natural born status. Or a trial for treason. Either one (why not both?) would be quite the show.
Anyone who has taken time to read the constitution can plainly see that it means he's not eligible.
Even so, as John Adams said
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
If he lived today, he might habe added that it also requires honesty and common sense. We all know politicians don't respect any of those virtues, and they have plenty of lawyers happy to pretend they do.
It's an interesting theory, supported to some degree by the Q interpretation. We'll soon see what kind of show we are watching. I'm not making bets either way, but if it happens we can all point to Q having told us first.