Don't know why, but what the heck?
CBD wrote:
Gbaji says that Obama might not be a natural born citizen because Obama never had to show his birth certificate to anyone in order to get on the ballot. I'm saying "Should this be true, how do you, gbaji, know that he, Obama, never showed his [Obama] birth certificate to get on a ballot beforehand?"
I don't. But that's irrelevant. That's like a store clerk defending not carding someone buying liquor because he didn't know whether or not someone else had already carded him. If you don't know, you card the person, right? Heck. Even if someone else says they carded him, but you haven't, you card him, right?
Past claims and assumptions don't matter.
Quote:
I would assume that one must prove they are a US citizen in order to run for many of the offices Obama has held. Presumably he [Obama] didn't apply to be a citizen, or that would have been found by now, so he [Obama] most likely showed his [Obama] birth certificate (really the only other way to prove citizenship) in order to get on the ballot.
You're assuming that though. No amount of your assumption proves that he has. Maybe at every single step along the way, each person just assumed as you did that he must have already shown his birth certificate, so there's no need to check...
I'm just not sure how your assumption provides proof of a constitutional requirement. The burden should go the other way. I don't have to prove he's not a natural born citizen. He has to prove he is. So far, he has not done so. I just don't see how this is even a matter to debate.
Hawaii's own state government does not accept the form of certification Obama submitted as proof of being born in the state (there's a homestead status for people born in Hawaii which has more stringent requirements). It requires a copy of the full document. Yet we're supposed to accept this when it's the US presidency at stake? Why not just take a gander at the original document? Why is this even an issue?