Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those making the accusations and not on those being accused?
There is one simple way to put it all to rest. Provide evidence that Obama wasn't born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961. Unless someone can do that, then we can quibble over pictures of documents all day long and that won't change the fact that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Nonsense. The ‘accusers’ have already shown his BC on his website to be a forgery. He has some splainin’ to do.
“Provide evidence that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961. “
Actually, you must prove your citizenship. But you are still missing the point. This document is from the Barack Obama campaign website. If it is a forgery, that’s a really big deal.
This isn't a criminal case. The man needs to prove he is eligible to become your President. He can't smirk, put his hands in his pockets and force you to prove he ISN'T a US citizen.
The article is excellent: here is the money quote IMO:
Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.
At some point, the burden of proof must be on the person seeking the office to prove to the US Department of State that he is qualified to hold that office. Just like you have to prove you are qualified to hold a driver's license. It is not up to the state to issue you a driver's license unless they can prove you are unqualified.
By your argument, anyone could adopt an identity, say they’re a natural born citizen, but have lost their papers.
That’s absurd.
If the guy has a passport, he has an official birth certificate.
The most interesting point I’ve read is that his mother, Ann Dunham, took him to visit her high school friends in Mercer Island, Washington, when he was less than a month old. Honolulu to Washington state is a mighty long trip for a teenage mother with a newborn in the era before disposable diapers. ;-)
There’s no evidence of where his mother was living while pregnant. The father was living on campus in Honolulu. If the parents were married, it was a bigamous relationship for him, since he already had a wife and children in Africa.
Since Ann’s parents disapproved of the relationship, it’s entirely possible that she was “sent away” for the final months of the pregnancy.
She may well have given birth in Canada. Are there relatives there who would take a pregnant teenager in? That would explain the visit to Mercer Island.
Check his mothers passport records for the dates she claims she is in hawaii.
We're not trying him for murder.
It is the candidate's responsibility to prove his citizenship, and eligibility. The FBI crimnal identification division will have to determine if he is a fugitive or felon.
So it is incumbent on the citizenry to prove the negative rather on the candidate to prove he was born here. That is profoundly inverted logic.
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on those making the accusations and not on those being accused?
***No. It’s a requirement for being eligible to be president. The burden of proof when we want to VOTE is on US to prove we qualify, so likewise the burden of proof on who we might (sic) vote FOR is on the recipient.
No. When somebody runs for public office, the burden of proof that he/she is qualified is on him/her. This applies to the official qualifications—and should apply to the unofficial qualifications.