Re: Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, [email protected] wrote:
> No other President has had to prove citizenship against such flimsy 
> evidence (the Birthers never had compelling evidence).

The burden of proof rests on the one who makes the assertion.  If Obama is 
the one asserting that he was born in the U.S., then it is up to him to 
prove it, and no one is obliged to believe it just on his say-so.  (Of 
course, we then get to the question of *standards* of proof...)

By the same token, of course, if anyone was asserting that Obama was born 
in a specific place that was *not* the U.S., then the burden of proof 
would be on them to prove *that* assertion, too.  And I guess Obama had to 
be born *somewhere*, so maybe *everyone* had a burden of proof to meet.

> It's demeaning that the previous certificate of live birth was not good 
> enough.

I agree.  As I've said before, if it was good enough to get him a passport 
or a driver's license, etc., I don't see why it shouldn't have been good 
enough for this.

> And now that this is settled, Trump wants to go after Obama's education.

You mean, "Obama never finished university, where's his diploma"?  Trump's 
saying something along *those* lines now?

But even if he were ... so what?  Since when does the Constitution require 
a certain level of *education* for the presidency?

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot