Can you link us up a bit on that? I certainly wish I could be confident of such a bold move from Stockman, et al.
There are two elements:
(1) The "creation" of the document
(2)What's in the document (s).
The fact that the document is a forgery really has little to do with the information presented by it, which IMO, cannot be proven or disproven. That's OK. The BC forgery is enough. And now that Reggie Love has said that "Barry found his real BC," it starts to get surreal.
In the related "Constitutional Eligibility" matter, it is important IMO, to point out that the SCOTUS has no power to remove a sitting President.
IOW, if the SCOTUS should:
(a) shift its haunches and decide to rule,
and (b) if they find the guy ineligible, (which ain't a slam-dunk)
it would still be up to Congress to use the info to impeach and convict him. Or not. Removal is Congress' call, and with a short-timer to deal with, it may well not be worth the effort and upheaval.
That is why I have turned into an annoying one-trick pony on the issue of the SCOTUS accepting an appeal on Art.II eligibility. For them to answer the question they have been so studiously avoiding places very little actual onus upon them. And, with a definition in hand, we could consider the eligibility of other candidates without a long drawn out distracting series of brawls, which IMO, would guarantee a Democrat victory.
Recycled post.
It's a "Failure to qualify" issue under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. If there is no valid birth certificate upon which to prove eligibility, Congress has allowed a usurpation to occur by FAILING to enforce this amendment. If we are dealing with a usurper, there is no impeachment needed as we do not have a President to impeach. We simply have a usurper to arrest.
All of this can be acted upon the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three not being obeyed and proving it hasn't been obeyed.