Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

I don't know of one reason why the Obama campaign should expend
energy to satisfy the curiosity of those who would not vote for him
under any circumstances. If some rightie has *proof* Obama was not
born in Hawaii, let him come forward with it. Proof, mind you, not
speculation.


Isn't that cavalier attitude representative of the complaints many
have of GWB?

The guy is soliciting votes to be elected POTUS. To request
documentation proving his Constitutional eligibility to hold that
office isn't asking much and should be done as a matter of course in a
basic background check. Obama did not respond, causing some
legitimate questions. Even his family members have offered
conflicting accounts of his place of birth. Add to that his refusal
to release college records and transcripts further begs questions.

It is my understanding that the "birth certificate" electronically
posted on the Obama website is suspect by many experts. Why not
produce and submit a certified original or copy to a judge?

Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court
system to dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents. That's scary
to me. The liberal media has put this issue in a filing cabinet,
preferring to focus more on proving that Sarah Palin can't see Russia
from her house.

I just want some honesty. At least McCain has released all requested
documents, warts and all.


Again, to me, it's the sum of the details about Obama that leaves me
questioning who the heck he really is.

Eisboch






Once again, unless it is legally required, I see no reason to satisfy
the curiosity of those who will not be voting for Obama, no matter what.

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

Beyond this discussion, the "born in the USA" requirement is a stupid
one, anyway. Any citizen, born here or naturalized, should be allowed to
seek this nation's highest elected offices. A lot of voters at one time
wanted to see "the Arnold" run for the nomination but, of course, he
could not because of an "accident" of birth. No one questions his
loyalty and devotion to this country. I wouldn't have voted for the guy,
but I sure would have supported measures to make it possible for him to
run.

If you feel that way there is a method to get the Constitution changed.
Let us know how you make out. Or, are you just passing gas orally again.

BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of the
US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied requirement
that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?



Common sense.

It's an old concept that has been falling out of favor.

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker, a
U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination in
1980. He was a born abroad, too.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker, a
U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination in
1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the words
any way you want.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the
documentation you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker,
a U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination
in 1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the words
any way you want.


Yeah? Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have
provided "proof."

On Nov 4, 7:16*am, Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the
documentation you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof..

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker,
a U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the nomination
in 1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the words
any way you want.

Yeah? Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have
provided "proof."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Harry, Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have had
their place of birth questioned, and if so those who haven't provided
"proof"

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the
documentation you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker,
a U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the
nomination in 1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the
words any way you want.


Yeah? Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have
provided "proof."

The question on the table is where was Obama born? All we want to see is
a copy of his original birth certificate, not a printout from a database.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the
documentation you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen
of the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?


Article II, Section 1.

Wrong, Palin-breath. There's not a word in there about providing proof.

Further, there are questions over the term "natural born." George
Romney, for example, sought his party's nomination in 1968. He was a
citizen of the United States born abroad (in Mexico). Lowell Weicker,
a U.S. Senator from my home state, made a brief run for the
nomination in 1980. He was a born abroad, too.

What's your point? Article II, Section 1 states the requirement.
Implicit in the requirement is providing proof. You can parse the
words any way you want.


Yeah? Please provide us with a list of those Presidents who have
provided "proof."

Wouldn't it be easier if you provided a list of the presidents who
couldn't or wouldn't provide proof of natural US citizenship? I'm having
a hard time thinking of any right now.