It would seem that if the constitution requires the candidates to be qualified and the president was not required to prove his qualification, and his campaign posted a fraudulant document, that would constitute enough for a judge to grant discovery so that the best evidence of his qualifications could be presented.
My theory of standing is that all Americans have a right to an honest election. The allegations of fraud, as I mentioned above, means that our rights have possibly been violated and their may be a fraud sitting in the Oval Office. That right and those allegations should give every voter standing to present their case in court and have the defendant present their records.
It might, if the court has first judged that the case has standing, and you could prove that the document is fraudulent. So far, no one's presented proof that it is fraudulent -- just a whole of lot of accusations from anonymous internet sources.
You will probably argue that no one's proved it's authentic, based on the fact that the document has only been presented as an internet image. But why is that? Why didn't Berg, who was actively gathering "evidence" at the time, ask to have a certified document expert examine the certification photographed by FactCheck at Obama's campaign office? Why hasn't Orly Taitz requested that a certified document expert be allowed to examine the physical evidence?
Apparently “simple, obvious truths” and “simple Consitutional truths” are now trumped by lawyerly legalism and precedents which are based on conniving legalisms.
It’s Alice through the looking glass time. Truth? Facts? Honesty? Means nothing now.