[Star Traveler]

She probably saw the following document, below and also -- basically knows it's not legally required for Obama or any other candidate to show his birth certificate. What is legally required is for Obama to swear, under oath, that he is a "natural born citizen" and that he meets the qualifications for the Office of President of the United States, per the Constitution -- which he has done, about 50 times in 50 different places...

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703

[john mirse]

I'm looking at Obama's signature on his Arizona eligibility form. He signed it in Nov. 2007.

Selective Service form: To me, Obama's signature on his Selective Service form is very different from his signature on the Arizona form from about 25 years later.

To me, it is as if two DIFFERENT people signed the two legal documents.

Myself, I didn't realize a person's signature could change as much as Obama's signature seems to have changed in the past 25 years.

I would like to see an example of Obama's signature from 25 years ago---like a signature from his days at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard---so that I can compare it to his signature on the Arizona eligibility form that I see on the internet.

[jblann1]

How did this document get released like this? Any signature forgerers out there, you now can copy the president’s handwritten signature...

[firebrand]

The argument that proof is not legally required does not make sense, as many things are not legally required but if the issue arises, people want the truth. To insist that the Constitution must cover everything is ridiculous; it doesn’t and it shouldn’t.

[scott7278]

I wonder if a notary public would have standing? After all, their primary purpose is to prevent fraud in legal transactions by promoting the integrity of signed documents, and to make sure that the transactions are properly executed.

It could be argued that they need to maintain the integrity of notaries public, especially since the oath was sworn to them.

I’m just thinking out loud.