. . . . # 47, too.
A more important point than is generally recognized.
Lawyers deal with a proposition called "burden of proof"--who needs to make a specific factual showing to establish a basis for their case.
Most commentators (read Bill O'Reilly) believe that the burden of proof will be on the party asserting that Obama was born outside the United States--to show he was born somewhere else. That is probably not going to be the case.
To some degree, this is likely to depend on the legal action--the substance of the case; the parties; and the forum in which the argument takes place.
In an ultimate challenge on the merits to the military to show that its Commander in Chief in fact exercises the authority of the office of President, the challenge to the order is simply a request to show the authority.
However as a practical matter, the court is going to hear this kind of argument only in a context where the challenging party is able to start with the proposition "here is why it appears that he was not born in the US" with some reasonable description of its position.
So when counsel gets his client into court with one of these arguments, he needs to have thought through how he gets this entry position in place. Sure the burden ought to be on Obama to show where he was born but to effectively get the question in place, the moving party needs to make some kind of first showing about why the issue is presented.
Here, much of the work has been done. Personally, I see Smith's affidavit and birth certificate as probably being enough to get over the hurdle.
. . . . # 47, too.
Which came first, Smith's footprint or the child care site's blue footprint and is it Hussein's footprint?
Really.
I have to say I have been reading your posts on this for what seems like a couple of years. I can honestly say I wish you were on Lakin’s team.