Every state has in its election laws a procedure for challenging a candidate's eligibility for the office he is seeking. In some states, any voter can bring the challenge; in others, only another candidate on the ballot for the same office can bring the challenge. But in every state there is a very narrow window when such challenges can be heard (usually from the time the candidate files for the office until the date the ballots are printed).
In 2008, no one used any of these election laws to challenge Obama's eligibility. Instead, lawsuits were filed after the election. But once Obama was elected, only Congress could challenge his eligibility (when it counted the electoral votes, or thereafter via impeachment); the courts no longer had any role.
Pesumably, someone will mount an election challenge to Obama in 2012; if they follow the proper procedure (not likely if they're represented by Orly Taitz), they will get a definitive court ruling.
“In 2008, no one used any of these election laws to challenge Obama’s eligibility. Instead, lawsuits were filed after the election.”
There was a lawsuit filed by a Dem, and was told that he had no standing due to obama had not been elected yet. (I’m working from memory here, the reasoning could be wrong).
It is a sad commentary on the state of "Justice" when procedure is regarded as having more importance than our rights or our laws.
Justice should not be a function of "procedure" but the result of a reasonable weighing of the facts.