[normanpubbie]

Your point is well-taken. But note that the Constitution lists requirements to be President, Senator, and Representative but does not explicitly require candidates for these offices to prove that they are qualified.

As I understand civil and criminal jurisprudence in this country, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof. So I agree with the judge here.

I also agree with the judge's complaint about Taitz's grandstanding. Calling Obama a 'usurper?' He may be, but does conduct like that have a place in any court of law? Taitz may get headlines, but she doesn't get results for her client, which is what an attorney is supposed to do.

[Uncle Sham]

"But note that the Constitution lists requirements to be President, Senator, and Representative but does not explicitly require candidates for these offices to prove that they are qualified."

See post #115 which refers to the twentieth amendment, section three. It explicitly requires that the "President elect" must "qualify" or not be allowed to serve as President. Your Congressperson is not doing his job.