The Obama birth certificate was a defeated cause from the beginning because it lacks the "beyond any reasonable doubt" proof that the man is not a natural born citizen. It has consumed a lot of energy, time, and bandwidth on this forum but the results were known from the beginning, i.e. this was going nowhere.
Now I hope that people on FR who have invested so much time and energy on this will move on and focus on defeating Obama socialist and defeatist policies.
What’s the initial plan? Who’s the torch-bearer?
Which is why it shows up as "pending" on the SCOTUS web site, right?
/sarcasm!
“Now I hope that people on FR who have invested so much time and energy on this will move on and focus on defeating Obama socialist and defeatist policies.”
Okay. I am now lookin ahead the 2012 Presidential primary because it’s never too soon to prepare.
Let’s see, for the Dems: We have Obama and no one else. So there will be no primary for them.
For the Republicans: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Martinez and please feel free to list anyone else you think might qualify for this primary.
For the Independent parties: Hugo Chavez, El Presidente of Mexico (can’t think of his name), Roger Colero and anyone else you think might qualify for this primary.
Oh yes, I quite agree with you. We should move on and dream of candidates for 2012 who will lead us to victory or at the very least defeat the policies of Obama.
Thank you for your civil reply. Not that I expected any less from you.
This man has shrouded his past deliberately, two hagiographic books by him notwithstanding.
This should have been a SIMPLE matter to resolve. Release the necessary documentation and it is over and done with.
People are treating this as if the burden of proof is on all of US as American citizens to prove he is NOT a citizen, when in actuality, the burden of proof his on HIM to show he is eligible for office as described in the Constitution.
It is the job of the GOVERNMENT to assess the legitimacy of citizenship. Our government failed us in this.
The “beyond any reasonable doubt” standard of proof would not apply to these cases.
The burden of proof in civil (not criminal) cases is a preponderance of the evidence- a mere tipping of the scales.
In some cases, depending on the nature of the claim, the standard is “clear and convincing” evidence.
Both of those standards are less burdensome than “beyond any reasonable doubt”.
A couple of questions for you...
I understand that, in a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, just as in a criminal case the burden lays on the prosecution. In the case of an applicant for a position, isn’t the burden on the applicant, and not on the employer? I’m not a lawyer, nor well versed in legalese, so I ask out of simple ignorance.
Also, in a civil case, isn’t the burden the “preponderence of evidence”, as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt”? In this specific instance, there is no evidence presented in the affirmative for Obama (IMO), because he refuses to provide any.
Thanks in advance for any answers you may be able to give.
Since today's ruling was about a case that had nothing to do with his BC your comment makes no sense.