Produce some he is eligible, and we just might shut up.
Burden of proof should lie with the applicant, not the burden of proof of a negative with the employer. We use the same standard with people who employ anyone. The applicant is required show documents indicating (and the employer to verify) that the prospective imployee is a citizen or otherwise qualified for the job.
Obama is not our ruler, he is our employee!
Burden of proof in any legal proceeding lies with the plaintiff, doesn't it?
You said — “Burden of proof should lie with the applicant, not the burden of proof of a negative with the employer. We use the same standard with people who employ anyone. The applicant is required show documents indicating (and the employer to verify) that the prospective imployee is a citizen or otherwise qualified for the job.”
That’s not a good argument for *your position*...
You see, the “employer” is a “collective” — it’s called the American Voter. That’s the employer. I qualify it down to the American voter, and not everyone, because only the ones who *voted* can be considered “involved” in the employment contract.
So, the “collective employer” has accepted Obama’s information as valid and as qualifying under the Constitution. Therefore, the “employer” (that you refer too) says, “You’re hired!”
—
On the other hand, if it’s not an “employer” argument, but a “legal argument” — then that’s okay, too. In that case all you have to do is come up with some legal evidence that a court of law will accept and use, and “you’ve got your case”.
It’s just too bad that no one has been able to come up with it yet. Once January 20th comes around, then the only “legal remedy” is Impeachment and Conviction by Congress — which I don’t hold out much hope for (especially when we consider Clinton’s experience...).