I’m not normally one to argue that there should be requirements on who can run for office. Shoot, I’d like to see the House of Representatives run like jury duty. You vote, you have a chance of being picked to serve.
But it’s things like discovering that four of our state representatives have so little a grasp on how our system works that makes me think that maybe you ought to have to be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of how things work before you can run for office.
I mean, shoot, on the one hand, I don’t care if you want to file eight million lawsuits against the President (though, when you do, don’t expect me to have a whole lot of sympathy when you come back later and piss and moan about frivilous lawsuits). I don’t believe anyone is angry at you, so much as laughing at you and trying to prevent you from making bigger fools of yourselves.
On the other hand, I do expect that you, as an elected official, in charge of making laws, understand what GoldnI points out here.
If you file a lawsuit against someone else, that makes you the plaintiff. That means you have to prove something to the court. You cannot simply walk into the courtroom and say, “Hey judge, we have a suspicion that Obama’s birth certificate may not be real, make him show it to us!” You have to show actual evidence that it may have been falsified, and at that point the judge can decide whether or not to compel Obama to show the birth certificate.
And it is scary to me that these state legislators don’t get that. Jeff, if you do requests, I’m begging you, could you ask them what evidence they have that the birth certificate has been falsified? Because it’s sounding like, from what you report that Glen Casada says, they don’t think it has been. So, maybe a follow-up question should be whether they know what their roles as plaintiffs are and, if they don’t, whether their constituents should be worried about their abilities to understand, make, and pass basic laws.