[fireman15]

Very good! I appreciate your efforts to show the kind of slippery tactics that lawyers are currently using to prevent the citizens of the country from being shown the documents that all of us should expect our president be willing to share. Would you like to argue the meaning of the word “is” with me also.

Quoting from the constitution,”No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

I doubt whether the founding fathers imagined that appologists for a presidential candidate would have the audacity to argue that a person would not be required to provide verifiable documentation to prove his eligability. The question that I have for you is... why should the president not provide a copy of his long form birth certificate? Any documentation that would help prove his legitimacy as president could only increase his stature and authority both here and abroad. To not do this if such documents exist is counter-productive.

Your claim that there is no proof that the Obama and his representatives have spent no more than a couple of thousand dollars on this matter is simply laughable and undermines your credibility.

[EnderWiggins]

"I doubt whether the founding fathers imagined that appologists for a presidential candidate would have the audacity to argue that a person would not be required to provide verifiable documentation to prove his eligability."

Well, that's an interesting thought. I have to ask you... since birth certificates were not required by law in this country until about 1915, and since only 8 of our 44 Presidents ever had one in the first place, exactly what do you envision the founding fathers would have accepted as proof of eligibility?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know what you think. What would say... Grover Cleveland have used to "prove his eligibility?"

"The question that I have for you is... why should the president not provide a copy of his long form birth certificate?"

To who? You? Who are you?

"Any documentation that would help prove his legitimacy as president could only increase his stature and authority both here and abroad. To not do this if such documents exist is counter-productive."

That's one possibility. Another is that he has already proved his legitimacy according to the standards of law and those who don't believe it won't believe anything he provided anyway. So any "increase in stature and authority" is doubtful.

"Your claim that there is no proof that the Obama and his representatives have spent no more than a couple of thousand dollars on this matter is simply laughable and undermines your credibility."

Oh... you misread my comment completely. I didn't say there was no proof. I said there was not even any evidence, let alone proof. The actual facts show that the claim is quite absurd. Orly's sanctions will add up to many times the entire expenditure of Obama on this issue.