Warren County Judge to Decide Obama Birth Lawsuit

[formerkywrestler]

If it's not a requirement it is his right to not have to show it. It's un-American and an invasion of his privacy.

[Hoot Gibson]

Once again, you're spinning the original statement, and my response. We are a nation of laws. There apparently is no law that requires anyone running for president to produce a birth certificate. There is no attempt to flout a constitutional requirement, because other than saying that one must be born in America, there's nothing that says they have to prove it.

 

I have already agreed that I think there should be a requirement. But I do have to defend an American's right to not provide something that is not required of them.

 

Make it a requirement for all, not just one individual.

A birth certificate may not be required but the Constitution does require one to be a natural born US citizen to serve as president. Are you saying that an American citizen does not have the right to challenge the eligibility of a person to serve who has refused to establish his eligibility. Would you feel the same way if the Governator tossed his hat into the ring in 2012?

[stickymitts]

If it's in the constitution, how is it not a requirement?

[rockmom]

A birth certificate may not be required but the Constitution does require one to be a natural born US citizen to serve as president. Are you saying that an American citizen does not have the right to challenge the eligibility of a person to serve who has refused to establish his eligibility. Would you feel the same way if the Governator tossed his hat into the ring in 2012?

 

 

Again, I've already agreed that I believe there should be a requirement to produce such documentation when declaring oneself a candidate. What more do you want?

 

The fact, though, is that there ISN'T apparently such a requirement, so while you may think he SHOULD, there is nothing to say that he MUST.

[Hoot Gibson]

If it's not a requirement it is his right to not have to show it. It's un-American and an invasion of his privacy.

Natural born citizenship IS a requirement. Let Obama establish that status however he wants to do so but any US citizen has the right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate to serve.

[rockmom]

Natural born citizenship IS a requirement. Let Obama establish that status however he wants to do so but any US citizen has the right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate to serve.

 

 

Any citized does have the right to challenge, but he also has the right to refuse to take the challenge. He doesn't give up his rights just because he's running for president, unless something is implemented that requires such proof.

[Hoot Gibson]

Again, I've already agreed that I believe there should be a requirement to produce such documentation when declaring oneself a candidate. What more do you want?

 

The fact, though, is that there ISN'T apparently such a requirement, so while you may think he SHOULD, there is nothing to say that he MUST.

There is a requirement contained in the US Constitution. REPEATING your claim that there is no requirement to establish natural born citizenship will not make your assertion true. It is very common for courts to compel defendants and plaintiffs to produce documentation to justify their claims. Obama is not above the law and a judge needs to compel him to prove his eligibility because that eligibility has been challenged by an eligible American voter and citizen. Whether Obama chooses to establish his eligibility through the production of a valid birth certificate or through other documentation, he must be required to establish his eligibility to serve as president.

[formerkywrestler]

Natural born citizenship IS a requirement. Let Obama establish that status however he wants to do so but any US citizen has the right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate to serve.

Producing a birth certificate ISN'T. Plain and simple.

[rockmom]

There is a requirement contained in the US Constitution. REPEATING your claim that there is no requirement to establish natural born citizenship will not make your assertion true. It is very common for courts to compel defendants and plaintiffs to produce documentation to justify their claims. Obama is not above the law and a judge needs to compel him to prove his eligibility because that eligibility has been challenged by an eligible American voter and citizen. Whether Obama chooses to establish his eligibility through the production of a valid birth certificate or through other documentation, he must be required to establish his eligibility to serve as president.

 

A judge, at this point, has not compelled him to do so. Therefore, my assertion stands, until he his compelled to do so.

[Hoot Gibson]

Any citized does have the right to challenge, but he also has the right to refuse to take the challenge. He doesn't give up his rights just because he's running for president, unless something is implemented that requires such proof.

Obama has no right to be president if he cannot prove that he is eligible to serve. The US Constitution requires that of him. This seems like a really simple concept to me. I cannot believe that people are arguing that Obama should not be required to prove his eligibility to run for president. What other parts of the Constitution do you believe Obama should be free to ignore with impunity?

[Hoot Gibson]

Producing a birth certificate ISN'T. Plain and simple.

What is plain and simple is the constitutional requirement.

[3wishes]

The fact that there is no law requiring proof is just a loophole and it needs to be made into law that one must provide proof. I'm sure that over the past 200+ years it was just assumed that the person running wouldn't have an eligibility question in terms of being born American. On the other hand, I had to turn in my college transcripts for my job as proof of graduating college. He should have to show his birth certificate for his job as proof as well.

True, lawfully, he doesn't have to. But why wouldn't you and there is a difference in being lawful and ethical and people should know the difference and press him to show his proof. Has anyone ever asked him why he will not?

Does he seriously say, because I'm protecting my privacy, because what is there to hide that may be private, his weight at birth?????

[Hoot Gibson]

A judge, at this point, has not compelled him to do so. Therefore, my assertion stands, until he his compelled to do so.

My point is that a court should compel him to do so and I believe that one eventually will. This issue may ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court after the election but Obama could spare himself and the American people a lot of grief if he would simply do the right thing now.

[rockmom]

Obama has no right to be president if he cannot prove that he is eligible to serve. The US Constitution requires that of him. This seems like a really simple concept to me. I cannot believe that people are arguing that Obama should not be required to prove his eligibility to run for president. What other parts of the Constitution do you believe Obama should be free to ignore with impunity?

 

 

You're right, it is a simple concept. Yet, there is nothing that anyone can find that says that when declaring for presidential candidacy, one must submit one's birth certificate.

 

I'm not saying he should be free to ignore any constitutional requirements. But, by law, the "accused" has rights, also guaranteed by the constitution.

[formerkywrestler]

You're right, it is a simple concept. Yet, there is nothing that anyone can find that says that when declaring for presidential candidacy, one must submit one's birth certificate.

 

I'm not saying he should be free to ignore any constitutional requirements. But, by law, the "accused" has rights, also guaranteed by the constitution.

Agreed!

Edited October 31, 2008 by rockmom
fixed quote