I wouldn't stoop to the question.
Well, if he wants his name on the ballot in AZ., he'll have no choice !!
It will be interesting to see if 0's people file a law suit over the new law in Az.. You better believe someone will.Well, if he wants his name on the ballot in AZ., he'll have no choice !!
constituency....did you have to look that spelling up ??? (I would have to)
It will be interesting to see if 0's people file a law suit over the new law in Az.. You better believe someone will.
Personally, I think it is a good law. That would erase the chances of having this kind of debate over again. It should have been a law long ago or been included in the original amendment.NH was considering that too.
That may be so, however past practice isn't always a determining factor where the constitution is concerned. Although, being the staunch union supporter 0 is, he may try that approach. lolHe has "Past Practice"! You do not have to prove you were born in the US in order to be President!!!!
That's why I rely on speelcheck .constituency....did you have to look that spelling up ??? (I would have to)
This is the litmus test of a good man today? What will it be tomorrow? A good man would make the Bush tax cuts permanant?I would want my constituency to know, to have no doubt, that I am an American citizen.
A good man would erase the doubt.
IMO, Over can speak for himself, To me a good man would erase the doubt, that is to say he would be upfront and honest in his dealings.This is the litmus test of a good man today? What will it be tomorrow? A good man would make the Bush tax cuts permanant?
IMO, Over can speak for himself, To me a good man would erase the doubt, that is to say he would be upfront and honest in his dealings.
And answer a question no other president before has been asked? Nah. The doubters will not be satisfied. Let them doubt.
I like the cockiness, the "Go friend--- yourself" attitude on this one. ..