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

Well, not necessarily.  First, I do not know if any of the previously
mentioned things would matter for "natural born" citizenship, the presidency
is the only one I know of.

Second, this issue was initially raised by Hillary's campaign, so the
democrats originally raised it on their own.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of pcg
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:08 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

> 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.

Perhaps. The thing is, Obama's citizenship had never been called into
question throughout his entire academic, professional, and political career,
and then suddenly certain parties, who had a vested interest in him *not*
being a natural-born citizen, and for whom and for whom standard legal
documentation isn't good enough, started claiming that he *wasn't* a citizen
-- based on nothing more than speculation. While I appreciate your ability
to see both sides of the argument, I think it's fair to say the burden of
proof rested with them. :)

--
-pcg
 [email protected]

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


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