justiceseeker93 wrote:You are correct, I slightly overstated that part.
The certificate need not be proven fraudulent, i. e., that Pelosi signed it with the foreknowledge that it was false, but only need be proven false as to Obama's alleged qualifications.
The key is, someone with proof will have to establish that there are errors and falsehoods in the certificate that Pelosi signed. The burden of proof will be on whoever alleges that the certificate is inaccurate.
That point is lost on most of the people who are challenging his eligibility.
The certificate signed by Pelosi is adequate proof that he's eligible, unless someone else comes forward with compelling evidence to the contrary.
The certificate signed by Pelosi is adequate proof that he’s eligible,
***Yup. Trolls typicall have a high regard for the likes of Pelosi. The constitution? Nahhh, that old thing isn’t worthy of high regard.
While we’re at it, let’s see NP’s BC and proof that San Francisco is still part of the US.
A true Hawaii birth certificate created at the time of birth or a true birth certificate from another US jurisdiction would be a lot better proof. Yet he has not supplied that.
Do you really think that Pelosi or the other person signing that certificate vetted his constitutional qualifications before signing that certificate which you posted? Hell, NO. That certificate was used by the Democrats to merely rubber-stamp his nomination and get his name on the state ballots for the general election, whether constitutionally qualified or not.