Black Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, demands Obama's full birth certificificate.

[WHAMPOM]

Theys minds are made up, no facts will change them. LOL:beer:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: K3N
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts agrees to hear Obama birth case.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/200...upreme-court-john.html

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

A week or so ago, a private investigator stated that the divorce papers of Obama, could have possibly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

No one but conspiracy theory bums care.

Nope, you've got it backwards.

Only Obama fans don't care.

Fern

Wat?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: K3N
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts agrees to hear Obama birth case.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/200...upreme-court-john.html

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

A week or so ago, a private investigator stated that the divorce papers of Obama, could have possibly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

No one but conspiracy theory bums care.

Her name is Dr. Orly!!

OMG pure comedy you cant make this shit up:LOL D;

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: K3N
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts agrees to hear Obama birth case.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/200...upreme-court-john.html

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

A week or so ago, a private investigator stated that the divorce papers of Obama, could have possibly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

For the record, John Roberts did not to decide to hear the birth case. He only decided to submit it to the other justices to view and decide in conference if they want to hear it. A very important difference.

Just like how there's a very important difference between the divorce papers stating something and that the divorce papers could have possibly stated something. It's not hard to find the images of the papers out there and see that they don't say anything about Obama's birth place. They could have possibly also stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They could have possibly also stated that Obama was born on Mars. They could have possibly also stated that the tinfoil hat brigade is out in force.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: K3N
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts agrees to hear Obama birth case.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/200...upreme-court-john.html

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

A week or so ago, a private investigator stated that the divorce papers of Obama, could have possibly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

No one but conspiracy theory bums care.

Her name is Dr. Orly!!

OMG pure comedy you cant make this shit up:LOL D;

Yarly!

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can get my arms around the concept of Obama the fraud, who as an infant, only a few minutes old, said Mommy, get me a fraudulent US birth certificate so I can run for President someday.

And then Obama went on to engineer the suspicious death of his Mother from cancer, his dad in an auto accident, his grandmother of old age. Kill all that witnesses, is the standard MO of any conspiracy theory.

Very clever that Obama, incredibly sneaky in his first few minutes of life. Never trust anyone over 30 minutes old.

But not clever enough, because all we need is a seance, contact the departed soul of Obama's mother Ann Dunhill, and waterboard her until she fees up. Everyone knows that waterboarding is the swiftest way to get at the truth.

And if you beg me, I might give you the batteries for your sarcasm meters back, except for my suspicions that Alan Keyes's stole my stock pile of stolen batteries.

 

[Desturel]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Very clever that Obama, incredibly sneaky in his first few minutes of life. Never trust anyone over 30 minutes old.

They are even making a movie about his childhood. They are calling it "The Unborn".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets see if I can get my arms around the concept of Obama the fraud, who as an infant, only a few minutes old, said Mommy, get me a fraudulent US birth certificate so I can run for President someday.

And then Obama went on to engineer the suspicious death of his Mother from cancer, his dad in an auto accident, his grandmother of old age. Kill all that witnesses, is the standard MO of any conspiracy theory.

Very clever that Obama, incredibly sneaky in his first few minutes of life. Never trust anyone over 30 minutes old.

But not clever enough, because all we need is a seance, contact the departed soul of Obama's mother Ann Dunhill, and waterboard her until she fees up. Everyone knows that waterboarding is the swiftest way to get at the truth.

And if you beg me, I might give you the batteries for your sarcasm meters back, except for my suspicions that Alan Keyes's stole my stock pile of stolen batteries.

Damien Hussein, makes a lot of sense.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: K3N
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts agrees to hear Obama birth case.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/200...upreme-court-john.html

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

A week or so ago, a private investigator stated that the divorce papers of Obama, could have possibly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

No one but conspiracy theory bums care.

Nope, you've got it backwards.

Only Obama fans don't care.

Fern

Wat?

IMO, it's beome abundantly apparent that we do not have a system to verify that caniddates meet the Constitutional requirements for office.

After much checking, all anyone has found is that they sign an affidavit claiming that they do. There is no verification.

The burden of proof is on the candidate.

Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

So, contrary to you I'm saying a lot of people do care (and they are not conspiracy nuts - frankly I don't see how the topic of conspiracy is even relevant to the issue); the ones who don't care are Obama fans who don't want to see the question even raised.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

The burden of proof is on the candidate.

BULLSHIT! See the sentence at the bottom of this OFFICIAL copy of Obama's birth certificate:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS EE8-13(b), 338-19]

What part of that sentence do you not understand?

And FYI, the legal definition of facie evidence means that the certificate is presumptive evidence, and any court of law MUST accept it as valid barring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

The fact that you continue to pursue this lost cause despite the lack of ANY credible evidence that the birth certificate is not valid would tend to suggest you ARE a conspiracy nut. :Q

 

[DaveSimmons]

"Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence."

Isn't the quoted stuff about how easy it is to obtain a certificate true around the time of birth not 40 years later?

The conspiracy nuts were saying the certificate was not created until recently, and that some professor X can detect that the certs are really all forgeries?

Has the story changed now so they admit that the Hawiian certs are valid and did exist at the time of birth but that Obama was really born in Kenya despite that?

It's hard to keep up with all the goalpost shifting by the tinfoilers.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Fern
Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

So, contrary to you I'm saying a lot of people do care (and they are not conspiracy nuts - frankly I don't see how the topic of conspiracy is even relevant to the issue); the ones who don't care are Obama fans who don't want to see the question even raised.

No, they're saying people that ignore claims of the candidate, that ignore the state issued documentation provided, that ignore the multiple newspaper birth announcements (that came directly from the state back then), and that ignore the current State of Hawaii officials, only to believe online speculation with little or no evidence, are conspiracy nuts.

 

[Lemon law]

Fern asserts the absurd by claiming, " The burden of proof is on the candidate."

Obama has a valid US birth certificate, and then critics allege its faked while setting the bar of proof to prove it legitimate so high that no one in this country could prove they they are a US citizen either.

And under US law, Obama is innocent until proven guilty, and the conspiracy theory critics have nothing legitimate to even tempt a legitimate court to even consider it as anything but frivolous.

Maybe we will know more when Alan Keyes & fellow conspiracy nuts ever find a court willing to hear their claims.

 

[L00PY]

I'd actually agree with Fern with the point that the initial burden of proof is on the candidate. Of course, once Obama provided the state issued document that burden of proof (as it's good enough for the courts) was satisfied. For someone to claim otherwise, they need to discredit the evidence provided and provide new evidence proving otherwise. No one has done either. It's only the tinfoil hat brigade that's still in uproar.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

The burden of proof is on the candidate.

BULLSHIT! See the sentence at the bottom of this OFFICIAL copy of Obama's birth certificate:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS EE8-13(b), 338-19]

What part of that sentence do you not understand?

And FYI, the legal definition of facie evidence means that the certificate is presumptive evidence, and any court of law MUST accept it as valid barring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

The fact that you continue to pursue this lost cause despite the lack of ANY credible evidence that the birth certificate is not valid would tend to suggest you ARE a conspiracy nut. :Q

From HA law:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

I contune to assert that the burden of proof in meeting Constitutional requirements is on the candidate. If it wasn't they would even have to sign an afidavit.

The broader problem is we have no system of verification, and in this specific incidence Hawaiian rules (as you can see above) are wholly inadequate as any type of proof. Obama's mother meets the above quualifications for obtaining a HI BC for her son. However, those rules are neither in acordance with Constitutional requirements for presidents, or even US law on citizenship.

Yes, the copy is "official" but does exactly zip in terms of verifying Obama's (or anyones elses' for that matter) was actually born in HI. If you can get a HI BC even if you're born out state how can an "official copy" be proof of birth in HI? It can't. Period.

Now the rules/courts may say that the "official copy" is good enough under existing rules, but it's clear it doesn't take into account the unique and bizzare rules of HI and how they give BC's.

No, there's nothing conspiratorial about the matter. I've never heard of anyone saying there was any conspiracy involved. How could there be a conspracy as that term is understood?

The concern is about HI's rules (and some have claimed more questions of a technical nature - defacto denouncement of US citizenship by acquiring other passports etc). We're not talking about any conspiracy here, rather a single (US) mother's understandable desire to have her newborn son recognized as a US citizen and registering his birth in HA as Hawaiian statute 338 (even as revised and made modern) clearly allows even if said child was not born in HI.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: L00PY
I'd actually agree with Fern with the point that the initial burden of proof is on the candidate. Of course, once Obama provided the state issued document that burden of proof (as it's good enough for the courts) was satisfied. For someone to claim otherwise, they need to discredit the evidence provided and provide new evidence proving otherwise. No one has done either. It's only the tinfoil hat brigade that's still in uproar.

Well yes, it's obviously on the candidate to prove their eligibility. Obama provided this proof in the form of an official birth certificate that acknowledges that he was born in the United States and is over the age of 35 years. Obama met the burden of proving he was eligible for office. If the conspiracy theorists want to continue, the burden is now on them to prove that the evidence Obama has submitted is fraudulent. That's how courts work in our country, and have since the country was founded. Anyone claiming that Obama needs to submit further proof is off their chump.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Fern
Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

So, contrary to you I'm saying a lot of people do care (and they are not conspiracy nuts - frankly I don't see how the topic of conspiracy is even relevant to the issue); the ones who don't care are Obama fans who don't want to see the question even raised.

No, they're saying people that ignore claims of the candidate, that ignore the state issued documentation provided, that ignore the multiple newspaper birth announcements (that came directly from the state back then), and that ignore the current State of Hawaii officials, only to believe online speculation with little or no evidence, are conspiracy nuts.

Well, maybe they're saying that.

But I'm not ignoring the state issued documentation. Rather questioning the validity of HI's documents in terms of proving US Constitional requirements because the HI rules are much different than those of the constitution.

If HI != US Constitution, then meeting HI rules can't prove US Constitutional requirements are met. It's really quite simple and rather straight forward.

Edit: LINK to Hawaiian statute 338 If anyone wants to look over the (revised) Hawaiin statutes use this link (use "pervious" and "next at the bootom to scroll through the entire statute. As you can see from reading the whole thing, there are numerous ways to obtain a BC with very little documentation. And these are the new updated rules. Only God knows how lax they were back then.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

The burden of proof is on the candidate.

BULLSHIT! See the sentence at the bottom of this OFFICIAL copy of Obama's birth certificate:

This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS EE8-13(b), 338-19]

What part of that sentence do you not understand?

And FYI, the legal definition of facie evidence means that the certificate is presumptive evidence, and any court of law MUST accept it as valid barring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

The fact that you continue to pursue this lost cause despite the lack of ANY credible evidence that the birth certificate is not valid would tend to suggest you ARE a conspiracy nut. :Q

From HA law:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

I contune to assert that the burden of proof in meeting Constitutional requirements is on the candidate. If it wasn't they would even have to sign an afidavit.

The broader problem is we have no system of verification, and in this specific incidence Hawaiian rules (as you can see above) are wholly inadequate as any type of proof. Obama's mother meets the above quualifications for obtaining a HA BC for her son. However, those rules are neither in acordance with Constitutional requirements for presidents, or even US law on citizenship.

Yes, the copy is "official" but does exactly zip in terms of verifying Obama's (or anyones elses' for that matter) was actually born in HA. If you can get a HA BC even if you're born out state how can an "official copy" be prof of birth in HA? It can't. Period.

Now the rules/courts may say that the "official copy" is good enough under existing rules, but it's clear it doesn't take into account the unique and bizzare rules of HA and how they give BC's.

No, there's nothing conspiratorial about the matter. I've never heard of anyone saying there was any conspiracy involved. How could there be a conspracy as that term is understood?

The concern is about HA's rules (and some have claimed more questions of a technical nature - defacto denouncement of US citizenship by acquiring other passports etc). We're not talking about any conspiracy here, rather a single (US) mother's understandable desire to have her newborn son recognized as a US citizen and registering his birth in HA as Hawaiian statute 338 (even as revised and made modern) clearly allows even if said child was not born in HA.

Fern

Let's play this out to a logical conclusion. Foreign born babies can get Hawaiian birth certificates, and the notice in the paper can say whatever the person requests it to say. We know that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate and a notice in a paper. Neither is conclusive proof of his place of birth, agreed?

OK, so in this scenario, Obama could have been born anywhere on Earth. We have no explicit proof that he was born in Hawaii, but we have zero proof that he was born anywhere else (outside of hearsay). This makes it impossible to determine his actual location of birth. In the event that it is impossible to prove that he was born inside the United States or outside of it, we have to go with the side with more evidence. And there is more evidence that he was born inside the United States than not. After all, you can't prove he was born in Kenya, or Jakarta, or Reyjkavik, or wherever else people are claiming he might come from. He may have been hatched in another dimension and warped onto this planet through a rift in the space-time continuum, we don't know. But the evidence we have suggests that he was born in Honolulu. So that's what we have to use.

-EDIT- Oh, and the symbol for Hawaii is HI, not HA.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

I contune to assert that the burden of proof in meeting Constitutional requirements is on the candidate. If it wasn't they would even have to sign an afidavit.

And I continue to assert that the words," prime facia" on a genuine certificate signed by the competent authority of the state of Hawaii means that the birth cerfificate is proof, ON ITS FACE, that it is genuine and legitimate evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii. By definition, that means, without concrete evidence to the contrary to refute such proof, you are welcome to your concerns, but they have absolutely NO standing in any court of law in this nation.

Barring any such evidence, you're pissing into the wind.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let's play this out to a logical conclusion. Foreign born babies can get Hawaiian birth certificates, and the notice in the paper can say whatever the person requests it to say. We know that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate and a notice in a paper. Neither is conclusive proof of his place of birth, agreed?

Agreed (and the idea that anyone would find a newspaper announcement to be conlusive evidence is amusing)

OK, so in this scenario, Obama could have been born anywhere on Earth. We have no explicit proof that he was born in Hawaii, but we have zero proof that he was born anywhere else (outside of hearsay). This makes it impossible to determine his actual location of birth. In the event that it is impossible to prove that he was born inside the United States or outside of it, we have to go with the side with more evidence. And there is more evidence that he was born inside the United States than not. After all, you can't prove he was born in Kenya, or Jakarta, or Reyjkavik, or wherever else people are claiming he might come from. He may have been hatched in another dimension and warped onto this planet through a rift in the space-time continuum, we don't know. But the evidence we have suggests that he was born in Honolulu. So that's what we have to use.

As a person whose profession deals extensively in "proof", I can't agree that there isn't any way top prove actual HI birth. The first and most obvious place to start is with the actual BC. I think this matter would largely be settled if it were shown that his HI BC was a 'regular" one from a Hawaiian hospital birth, as opposed to one of the many others (out-of-state rules, or mother's affidavit etc

-EDIT- Oh, and the symbol for Hawaii is HI, not HA.
Thanks

See bolded above

Fern

 

[WHAMPOM]

N

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: Fern
Whenever this issue comes up, the Obama fans claim everyone who is concerned about this situation is a conspiracy nut.

So, contrary to you I'm saying a lot of people do care (and they are not conspiracy nuts - frankly I don't see how the topic of conspiracy is even relevant to the issue); the ones who don't care are Obama fans who don't want to see the question even raised.

No, they're saying people that ignore claims of the candidate, that ignore the state issued documentation provided, that ignore the multiple newspaper birth announcements (that came directly from the state back then), and that ignore the current State of Hawaii officials, only to believe online speculation with little or no evidence, are conspiracy nuts.

Well, maybe they're saying that.

But I'm not ignoring the state issued documentation. Rather questioning the validity of HI's documents in terms of proving US Constitional requirements because the HI rules are much different than those of the constitution.

If HI != US Constitution, then meeting HI rules can't prove US Constitutional requirements are met. It's really quite simple and rather straight forward.

Edit: LINK to Hawaiian statute 338 If anyone wants to look over the (revised) Hawaiin statutes use this link (use "pervious" and "next at the bootom to scroll through the entire statute. As you can see from reading the whole thing, there are numerous ways to obtain a BC with very little documentation. And these are the new updated rules. Only God knows how lax they were back then.

Fern

Now Fern show us the "Certificate for child born out of state" for Obama, 'cause that is how the document would be titled. Not the certified document he provided with a newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii to back it up.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Now Fern show us the "Certificate for child born out of state" for Obama, 'cause that is how the document would be titled. Not the certified document he provided with a newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii to back it up.

I haven't been able to find anything that would indicate one of these "official copies" would be titled differently depending on the type of BC originally issued.

If you have some information to the contrary - that the certified copies indicate the type of original BC - please link it up.

That would satisfy me at least that the original is NOT one of those 'born-out-of-state' or 'based on mother's affidavit' etc type BCs.

I've searched quite a bit and haven't been able to find anything other than all copies look the same. I.e., can't tell anything based upon examining a copy.

----------
Should add that based upon my review of the statutes I linked above, the person requesting the copy can ask to have more or less data included on the copy. If correct, presumably the Obama people could have requested that data (type of original BC) be included on the copy. Nevermind, here's the statute:

§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

Fern

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let's play this out to a logical conclusion. Foreign born babies can get Hawaiian birth certificates, and the notice in the paper can say whatever the person requests it to say. We know that Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate and a notice in a paper. Neither is conclusive proof of his place of birth, agreed?

Agreed (and the idea that anyone would find a newspaper announcement to be conlusive evidence is amusing)

OK, so in this scenario, Obama could have been born anywhere on Earth. We have no explicit proof that he was born in Hawaii, but we have zero proof that he was born anywhere else (outside of hearsay). This makes it impossible to determine his actual location of birth. In the event that it is impossible to prove that he was born inside the United States or outside of it, we have to go with the side with more evidence. And there is more evidence that he was born inside the United States than not. After all, you can't prove he was born in Kenya, or Jakarta, or Reyjkavik, or wherever else people are claiming he might come from. He may have been hatched in another dimension and warped onto this planet through a rift in the space-time continuum, we don't know. But the evidence we have suggests that he was born in Honolulu. So that's what we have to use.

As a person whose profession deals extensively in "proof", I can't agree that there isn't any way top prove actual HI birth. The first and most obvious place to start is with the actual BC. I think this matter would largely be settled if it were shown that his HI BC was a 'regular" one from a Hawaiian hospital birth, as opposed to one of the many others (out-of-state rules, or mother's affidavit etc

-EDIT- Oh, and the symbol for Hawaii is HI, not HA.
Thanks

See bolded above

Fern

But what about Atomic Playboy saying that the only evidence we have is that he was born in HI? What else can you go with at this point? Time is of the essence.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

But what about Atomic Playboy saying that the only evidence we have is that he was born in HI? What else can you go with at this point? Time is of the essence.

Since you can obviously get an official HI BC without being born in HI, I don't see how it is evidence at all (assuming a copy can't be used to differentiate between types of HI BCs). [shrug]

I don't think time is of the essence at this point. IMO, the proper time to resolve this was back when a candidate files before the primary starts. At the very least should have been done before the party's convention.

At this late point if it's determined Obama somehow isn't a qualifying US citizen (and I'm NOT saying he isn't - just that we don't a verification system for candidates), I think the damage is already done. I don't think the world will end if Obama serves as President even if not meeting Constitutional requirements. Disqualifing him from office and installing Biden is a whole other matter though. Frankly, I wouldn't like to see that.

Fern

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

But what about Atomic Playboy saying that the only evidence we have is that he was born in HI? What else can you go with at this point? Time is of the essence.

Since you can obviously get an official HI BC without being born in HI, I don't see how it is evidence at all (assuming a copy can't be used to differentiate between types of HI BCs). [shrug]

I don't think time is of the essence at this point. IMO, the proper time to resolve this was back when a candidate files before the primary starts. At the very least should have been done before the party's convention.

At this late point if it's determined Obama somehow isn't a qualifying US citizen (and I'm NOT saying he isn't - just that we don't a verification system for candidates), I think the damage is already done. I don't think the world will end if Obama serves as President even if not meeting Constitutional requirements. Disqualifing him from office and installing Biden is a whole other matter though. Frankly, I wouldn't like to see that.

Fern

Call it evidence or not, but the only information so far that we have is that he is a citizen. Also, how can you say that 'time is not of the essence, but then say 'at this late point'. That's my point, he is almost ready to take office and the only info available says he is a citizen.