The proof of that being?

Not a really good way of preventing "bought" politicians, iwas.

Show me where is says in there that you have a guarentee to health care.

Show me where is says the government is responsible for overseeing banks.

Show me where there is anything said about torture.

I have read every word of both documents.

Genuine legal prohibitions against torture are contained in the Geneva Convention which the US has signed and agreed to.  Treaties with other nations are also legally binding on our government and on US citizens.  There are more valid sources for Law than just the US Constitution, even as important as it may be.

There is also the specific prohibition contained in the Constitution regarding "cruel and unusual punishments" which relates in clear way as a prohibition on our Government to refrain from torture.

I thought I should also add that our Federal Government's legal authority for regulating both banks and health care stems from the Commerce Clause of the Constituition.  That is, the Constitution conveys to the federal government the power to regulate Interstate Commerce.  If you wish further information on this check your local library Xiandi or try a library or law school web site.  I'm sure there are good sources of information regarding the Commerce Clause that you can find.

Which raises a 3-part question, the answers to which I don't know.  What proof of eligibility is required to run for President, to what entity is it submitted, and why isn't it a matter of public record?

If you're that interested Daiwa try your local City Clerk's or County Clerk's office regarding information for filing with your state's local Election Board.  It would probably be a good place to start.  After the elections when they are less busy is when I would try them.  You can also check with your local Republican or Democratic party office.  I'm sure they could tell you more about it.  I don't know the details of it myself.

I would think that the powers that 'be' have checked the guy's citizenship before enabling a presidential candidacy.

I'm certainly assuming so, also, but I wonder why his birth certificate is an issue at all - you'd think 1) proof of citizenship would need to be provided and 2) that it would be a public record that anyone (certainly media) could review.  I also wonder why BO wouldn't just put the rumors to rest by unsealing his birth certificate.

He obviously has complied with all federal election laws to run for president.  The nonsense steve- posted on the prior page is just that a bunch of nonsense.  Oh well.  It seems some people want their freedom of speech to grant to them the capacity to bare no responsibility for posting misleading or untruthful content.  I at least try to be realistic.

As I indicated earlier Obama only has to comply with the law the same as McCain to run for president and all the smoke people have been blowing in this thread isn't the law.

I think the answer to that is rather straight forward.  People's capacity to generate rumors, inuendo, allegations and all the rest of it is endless.  The only thing Obama is required to do is comply with election laws just like McCain.  Also, just like the newsmedia, private citizens can request through the freedom of information act copies of all records pertaining to a candidate's filing to run for office.  Just be prepared to contact the right office, fill out the paperwork correctly and pay the fee for the copies.  They are often not all that cheap to obtain.

DPCloud, your points are well put. I'd vote Democrat for the same reasons. Everyone that I've asked is voting Democrat and none of them are voting for Obama. They're voting against Bush, who isn't running. They use the hatred of the " Bush years" to justify their vote. They're voting for CHANGE. Change to what they can't say because so far none can point to any results, only promises without any evidence of competency for the task. A year of Congressional stagnation so far.

I found this online and I think my boss did too. (Read the third paragraph, especially)

"Want to know why we are in the financial mess we are in? Read this article which appeared in the NEW YORK TIMES ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999. It answers the question."

Too bad my boss just told me today that if (and he thinks it will happen) the Democrats are in charge of the economy, he's laying off 1/3 of the company (roughly 267 lay offs) and the rest who keep our jobs will have to take a 28% pay cut.

Our CFO did the math on the taxes and that's how we get to stay profitable and the owner gets to see a paycheck. Since we've grown during the "Bush years" from $5.8 M to $38M over the last 36 months, I'd say that the owner knows a bit about what he's doing. Though the company will now shrink, his income will remain the same or increase. I guess that's why he started his own company: to be in charge of his own destiny. Kinda like assisted suicide (so popular here in the Pacific Northwest), but in reverse.

Anyway, I'm convinced that Democrat is the way to vote. Change for its own sake really is a worthy goal. Change away from something I really don't like towards an unproven promise probably makes the most sense. After all, if Hamas can say that they look forward to the change that they believe Obama will bring to America, then I should like it too.

Thanks, DP for the advice.

From what I can determine, there is no law that requires his compliance. There is only the Constitutional requirement, and of course the diligence of his own party chairperson to validate his ability to run. Since there is no law against not meeting the requirement, then he has broken no law in not doing so. Since he has broken no law, there in no government agency empowered to investigate him. Amazing, but apparently true. This appears to be the reason that the federal judge in Philadelphia, reviewing the case that has been brought to the courts in August, has yet to throw it out as being frivolous and having no merit. It seems that the courts in all this time have so far been unable to discover a valid birth certificate to nullify the claim, even though Obama's lawyers have petitioned four times to have the suit thrown out of court, though never brought a valid birth certificate to allow the courts do so.

Its really more fascinating to watch than a good horse race. From what I've been able to glean, the rule is that if BO wins and is then discovered to have been ineligible to have run, the only remedy is for the Democrat congress to impeach him, which is most unlikely. The downside is that, should he be proven ineligible after being sworn in, no laws that he signed would be valid. Same goes for any treaties that he may sign. Never having had this occur in our short history, the outcome should prove fascinating, for sure. Talk about your American Idol suspense!

As it was explained to me, the only other alternative outcome would be that he does get elected but then the case in Philadelphia is decided that he is disqualified after the election, but before January 21 when he is sworn in. Then the other candidate wins by default. And this might be exactly why the federal judge in Philly is taking so incredibly long to rule on a case which should be cut and dried: he either is or is not eligible. It's so easy to say that he is or isn't eligible: a valid birth certificate is all it would take to end it. And yet so far... silence from the judge. Fascinating!

There goes credibilty right out the window

indeed, the New York Times, though not necessarily the most reliable source, has a long history of being incredibly pro-Democrat, left wing and liberal, for sure. So I , too, am amazed that they would see the failure of our present economy as having its roots in Democrat-based economic policy from the Clinton years. Will wonders never cease?

Provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.

LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

You (or someone else) said "the founding fathers never" so I used a quote from Thomas Jefferson to cover this one.