Monte wrote:
He has already validated it.
Not in a court of law. The press doesn't validate such things/
Quote:
The constitutional question is moot. He is a natural born citizen. If someone has evidence that a fraud has been committed in regards to his citizenship, then they need to follow the due process of law. However, the proof is *not* his burden to bear. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The fact that he's a natural born citizen in no way makes the question moot, because it is a matter of precedent. The burden of proof is on him to establish that he is qualified. He is not charged with a crime; innocent until proven guilty is not relevant.
Quote:
You, and those of you who believe this is some sort of legitimate constitutional question, are trying to make a massive shift in the way the law works in this country. Just because a person levels a wild accusation does not mean there is suddenly a burden of evidence on the person who they accused. In other words, if someone stood up and shouted that obama was a wife beater, that person would need to present actual evidence. You and those of you making these arguments would say, in that case, that it would be on Obama's shoulder's to prove he was not a wife beater. You are demanding that he prove that he was not born in Kenya. Not only are you doing that, but the people who are pushing these laws suits keep raising the bar as to what constitutes satisfactory evidence. THey asked for a birth certificate, and he produced it. They tried to lie and claim it was a fake, and when *that* failed, they said the birth certificate he produced wasn't good enough. Now the Hawaii Dept of Health have confirmed his Vital records, and that he is a natural born citizen of the US. And *still* you think there is some sort of legitimate case here.
I really don't care what these people are doing, because I happen to think that Obama's birth certificate is perfectly valid. All you're doing here is attributing to me positions I haven't taken.
I just want him to produce it in court. Waving it around for the press isn't legally good for anything. All this nonsense about Innocent until proven guilty is irrelevant. No criminal charge is at issue. No one is trying toc hange the way the law works. You're just trying to create a catch-22 of wanting people to present their evidence against him in court, then when they try, claiming that there's not sufficient evidence to warrant presenting evidence. Now you've moved on to this silly "innovent until prven guilty" irrelevancy.
Quote:
He has already proven that he was born in this country. He has presented a short form birth certificate, and the Hawaii Health Department has confirmed the existence of his long form birth certificate. You don't get to demand that he produce something that Hawaii state laws says is private. You just don't.
Yes you do. Hawaii does not get to impose its privacy law on the rest of the country. **** Hawaii. He hasn't yet proven anything. Claiming you have a birth certificate, and even publicly displaying it do not satisfy anything.