November 1, 200817 yr The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff but the burden to obtain a trial on an issue of fact is not the same as winning such a trial. I do not know the specifics about the other trials but Berg has cast enough doubt on Obama's eligibility that the judge should have allowed discovery to proceed. What is nuts is Obamunists insisting that he should not prove that he is eligible to be president, as McCain has done voluntarily. Why should he feel he does NOT have to prove that he meets the qualificiations? And I renew my request to know who is responsible for making sure all the candidates meet the qualifications.
November 1, 200817 yr Author Why should he feel he does NOT have to prove that he meets the qualificiations? And I renew my request to know who is responsible for making sure all the candidates meet the qualifications. I think that you are misreading my post. I believe that Obama should be required to respond to the questions about his eligibility and the absence of a legislative requirement to that effect does not matter. Any American citizen who is eligible to vote should have standing in federal court to challenge any candidate to prove that they meet the meet the minimum eligibility requirements that are clearly stated in the US Constitution. Ideally, Congress would have created a system that required candidates to establish their eligibility but the absence of specific legislation does not give any candidate to ignore the constitutional requirements for eligibility to serve.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.