when the govt (or you) take me to court, the burden to prove me guilty is not on me, but on you?
im innocent until proven guilty.
until proven fradulent, the burden to prove he is is not on BHO, but on the “BC movement”.
its as simple as that. and that is the law my friend.
until proven fradulent, the burden to prove he is is not on BHO, but on the “BC movement”.
That's only for criminal cases. Ever tried to get a job without supporting documentation?
If thegovernment is accusing you of a crime, yes, the burden of proof is on the State.
Obama is NOT being accused of a CRIME. The question, and I repeat for your benefit, is one of whether he meets the qualifications for the job. If there was doubt over whether he met the age requirement, wouldn't he have to show he was old enough? Well, now, the age requirement is specified in the Constitution too, right along with being a Natural Born Citizen.
This is not a criminal trial, but a finding of fact.
Any allegations of criminal behaviour would have to be dealt with separately. In short, Obama is not on trial, here, but the responsibility for vetting him in re his Constitutional qualifacations for the job has been passed from court to court and has ended up at the US Supreme Court.