No, it’s not. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
while the burden of proof is on the accuser in criminal cases, I’m not so sure that applies here. he is, after all, running for President - should HE have to prove eligibility? or is it up to us to do the impossible, and prove a negative?
Don’t be ridiculous. When you apply for a job, you’re required to provide certain documents to prove who you are. The prospective employer is not required to provide documents to prove who you are. The burden of proof is on the job applicant, not the prospective employer. Osama is trying to land the job of President of the greatest nation on Earth. It’s up to him to prove who he is and where he came from. If he can’t or won’t do that, he’s not legally entitled to the job. He’s been caught providing a forged document as proof of his identity and place of birth. No prospective employer would give you a second chance if you did that. Yet we’re giving him the opportunity to clear his name, and he refuses. So how do we solve this dilemma? Elect him, and let bygones be bygones?
Gee, it seems as if the burdon would reside with Obama filling out the appropriate forms with the Federal Election Commission which ‘kick-starts’ his run.
Tell that to the DMV when you try to get your first driver's license. lol