Replies

"To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify."

First, I apologize for the delay in my answer, somehow I missed your post.

When I say, "That's how it works", I'm speaking about our adversarial system of justice, and specifically the burden of proof as it pertains to that system. When you file a civil action, you - as the plaintiff - have what's known in law as onus probandi, or the burden of proof. It's your responsibility to prove what you're alleging in your action - that you are entitled to remedy or relief from the court. It is not the defendants burden to prove that your allegation is wrong. The defendant enjoys what is known as the benefit of assumption.

To put it as simply as I can, if this Obama eligibility case were ever to be heard on the merits, Obama would begin with the presumption that he is eligible to be president. It's entirely up to the plaintiff to prove that he isn't.

I understand your frustration. Obama, in your opinion I presume, doesn't qualify to hold the office. You want some relief, or justice. The problem is the courts don't distribute justice, they settle arguments based on the application of US law, nothing more. In this instance, most of the law and rules of trial heavily favor Obama.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we have. Sometimes, it falls short.

It appears that the courts are probably not going to entertain Obama's eligibility at this time without any other concrete evidence besides the common knowledge of Obama once holding a foreign citizenship and having a foreigner as a father. It becomes apparent to search documents for evidence that Obama controls access to that are held by various government agencies. If you were the plaintiff's lawyer, how would you convince a presiding judge to grant you motion for general discovery? Any ideas?

Funny though it doesn't work quite that way when it's the state that has "suspicions", but not proof. If a federal agent "suspects" that you have committed some crime, he runs to a judge and gets a warrant, which can be issued on the flimsest of evidence, to allow him to get the proof, or not as the case may be. But in this instance, the very thing that would provide a large measure of proof or which would refute the charges, is denied to those seeking it.

If that is indeed the state of the law, then as someone once said, "the law is an ass" and it should be changed, sooner rather than later.

Isn't the standard in a civil case, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt"?

I would think that would mean that the standard for TRO's and just getting into court to allow discovery, would be a bit lower as well. There is of course a competing privacy interest, but public figures, generally have a higher hurdle in that regard.

Isn't it also true that even though the TRO was denied, the basic case goes forward?