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?????

If you were to accuse me of defrauding you of a million dollars, a court would demand that you document that claim after which I would be compelled to produce documentary evidence to refute your claim.

 

Obama is being accused of fraudulently claiming to be eligible to seek the presidency and the plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence to support that claim, including personal accounts of an alleged Kenyan birth. There does not need to be a specific requirement for Obama to produce a birth certificate. There is a legal eligibility requirement and once the plaintiffs meet the burden of casting reasonable doubt on Obama's claim, then this becomes a case that must be heard in court.

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.

Voters and plaintiffs also have rights and those rights have thus far been ignored.

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?????

 

For the record, my comment above was pure conjecture. I don't know why he's not provided it. I was just hypothesizing a potential reason. Obama hasn't responded at all, to my knowledge.

Voters and plaintiffs also have rights and those rights have thus far been ignored.

 

 

Ignored? A lawsuit has been filed. And, wouldn't you say at this point it's a "due process" issue? No one's been ignored. It's in the "system".

Ignored? A lawsuit has been filed. And, wouldn't you say at this point it's a "due process" issue? No one's been ignored. It's in the "system".

Obama is hoping to swear to uphold the US Constitution one day soon. I am suggesting that he get an early start by demonstrating that he intends to follow that Constitution himself.

If you were to accuse me of defrauding you of a million dollars, a court would demand that you document that claim after which I would be compelled to produce documentary evidence to refute your claim.

 

Obama is being accused of fraudulently claiming to be eligible to seek the presidency and the plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence to support that claim, including personal accounts of an alleged Kenyan birth. There does not need to be a specific requirement for Obama to produce a birth certificate. There is a legal eligibility requirement and once the plaintiffs meet the burden of casting reasonable doubt on Obama's claim, then this becomes a case that must be heard in court.

I'm on your side of thinking, I agree.

I've had to produce my kids birth certificates to allow them to participate in all kinds sports. Guess Obama never participated in select soccer:cool:

I've had to produce my kids birth certificates to allow them to participate in all kinds sports. Guess Obama never participated in select soccer:cool:

 

 

That's kind of a point of mine. Somewhere along the line he's had to provide his birth certificate to establish himself as a US citizen. I don't know...maybe when he got his passport????

That's kind of a point of mine. Somewhere along the line he's had to provide his birth certificate to establish himself as a US citizen. I don't know...maybe when he got his passport????

Then why not just produce it now?

On the other hand, there apparently is no legal or constitutional compulsion to produce the documents. One could argue he's fighting for his right to privacy. Not sure what his motives are, but I offer that as a possibility.

 

Right to privacy is a right completely made up by our supreme court to further at the time a liberal agenda. It's no where in the Constitution and when you have to imply things from the constitution to me thats the same as saying they were made up.

Then why not just produce it now?

He doesn't have to.

Maybe he is illustrating how ridiculous this whole concept of him "not being born here" is by choosing not to address it.

If someone takes me to court, I am not compelled to do anything in my defense. I can sit quietly and not participate or I can vigorously support my defense.

 

The proof lies with the individual who brought suit. He has to show proof that Obama is NOT a citizen and then Obama can refute that claim as he needs to. But until somebody provides proof that he was born somewhere else, there is no need to defend it.

 

Why this slippery slope. Prove to me that you quit beating your wife. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about people tapping your phones, etc. I thought the conservative bunch was supposed to be on the opposite side of this issue.

Right to privacy is a right completely made up by our supreme court to further at the time a liberal agenda.

Wow.

IMO, it'd be a pretty good chance to say, "You can't believe all of the negative stuff that's being said about me. They're even challenging my heritage. HERE!"

If someone takes me to court, I am not compelled to do anything in my defense. I can sit quietly and not participate or I can vigorously support my defense.

 

The proof lies with the individual who brought suit. He has to show proof that Obama is NOT a citizen and then Obama can refute that claim as he needs to. But until somebody provides proof that he was born somewhere else, there is no need to defend it.

 

Why this slippery slope. Prove to me that you quit beating your wife. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about people tapping your phones, etc. I thought the conservative bunch was supposed to be on the opposite side of this issue.

I agree with you on this post, especially that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

On one hand, I recognize that it is Obama's right to do what he pleases, and that he does not need to be forced to produce a birth certificate. I also really doubt that anything incriminating would be on there.

 

On the other hand, if he truly has spent a lot of money on resisting producing the birth certificate, isn't that a waste of resources? Like I said, it is his right, but what's the point? Is he going to use this whole process for some political advantage later?