Obama has not shown his birth certificate because he does not want to.
Why not? A good question to think about.
Because all they have is wild conjecture and conspiracy theories. He's taking a long term approach to viewing this situation. In the short term people may feel unsure of him and his approval ratings will drop. However, the charade can't continue forever, because the accusations are completely unfounded and can never amount to anything. So eventually, the Republican Party is going to have to back off and say "We were wrong. Sorry for wasting your time."
At this point, some people who bought into this will think that the "truth" was silenced. However, most will realize it was all a big political game. They will feel betrayed by the Republican Party, which commonly says that the Democrats waste everyone's time and money to further their own agenda, something it will be blatantly obvious they were doing all along.
On top of that, Obama does have access to his own birth certificate. If at any time the rumors go too far, or he needs to drum up his popularity before an election, he can choose to reveal it. No court is going to force him to because of the lack of proof. He can pick and choose when revealing that knowledge would be most beneficial to him and his party.
In short, he is giving the Republican Party enough rope to hang themselves. They say he has staked everything on healthcare, whereas they have staked quite a bit on bull$#!t. They have challenged him to a fight they cannot win, and which he can choose the time, place, and severity of their political destruction. The Republican Party has started to realize this, which is why they are now trying to separate themselves from such organizations as World Net Daily, which started these rumors, before the other shoe drops.
Obama has all the power in this situation, and he is savvy enough to know he can sit on it and employ it at his discretion. I think the Republicans bought into their own campaign hype on this one, when they tried to say Obama had almost no political experience. Who would've thought that the rookie junior citizen from Illinois would turn out to be a better politician than the rest of them?
No court has required him to because he had some very talented lawyers getting cases thrown out - not on merits - but technical issues such as standing.
Some courts have not required him to based on what appears to be some kind of bias towards Obama (Judge Land).
Standing is not really a technical issue. It is a requirement to bring a
tort case to court, since you have to prove you were harmed directly by the action in order to seek damages. The problem with this is they are trying to accuse him of being guilty of
criminal law in a courtroom for
tort cases. They are accusing him of breaking constitutional law. But this is criminal law, and carries with it a set penalty which is not determined by a plaintiff, it is determined by a district attorney. It was worth noting that the only people who would have been able to legitimately sue under tort law, his political rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have resources and connections vastly superior to those who have tried to bring the case to court. They both had the matter heavily investigated beforehand, and neither of them found any merit to the claim.
Obama is not in criminal court accused of a crime.
He is being asked to prove he meets the requirements.
There is a difference.
And burden of proof?
You are accused of a crime.
You have evidence that will prove your innocence.
You fail to provide it?
Proves you are an asshole.
All those people getting out of jail after decades due to advances in DNA technology.
If they had that evidence would they have sat on it?
FUCKING HELL NO!!
Criminal and Tort law are two entirely different beasts, with different rules and regulations. They cannot be mixed. If they could people would be suing each other all over the country for the murder of Michael Jackson.
The difference in your exmple is that the prosecution had enough evidence to convince a jury that the defendent had committed the crime. This goes well above and beyond a simple accusation. As such, they would have needed the additional evidence to prove otherwise, because the prosecution actually had a strong case. If you walk into any courtroom in America (or pretty much the entire western world for that matter) and make an unfounded accusation, you get nothing. The defendent has to try to prove his case only so far as the prosecution is unable to prove theirs "beyond a reasonable doubt." Innocent until
proven guilty. Anyone that wants to accuse him has to first provide adequete evidence that such a thing is true.
You are accused of a crime.
You have evidence that will prove your innocence.
You fail to provide it?
Spending large sums of money.
You rely on the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
You take the thing through the court till the final verdict?
Defendants usually try to exclude evidence that proves guilt.
Obama is a smart lawyer.
Maybe that is what he is trying to do here...
You've never taken a class on Law have you?
Motion for a directed verdict
A "
motion for a directed verdict" asks the court to rule that the
plaintiff or
prosecutor has not proven the case, and there is
no need for the defense to attempt to present evidence. This motion is made after the plaintiff has rested its case, and
prior to the defense presenting any evidence. If granted, the court would
dismiss the case.
Important parts in
italics. Note also that the use of both plaintiff and prosecutor in the legal explanation means it is equally applicable to Tort or Criminal cases. Conjecture has no place in the courtroom. This makes it quite clear that the prosecution
must provide evidence of wrongdoing, because if they don't they can expect the defense to file the motion, and walk out of the courtroom. The prosecution
has no such evidence. Every piece they have presented in an attempt to get the case taken to court has been immediately shown to be a forgery. They have no proof of anything. With no proof, there is no case.
