Understand your comments. But I have a different view of the situation. There appear to be two items at work here whose application I do not agree with; Standing, and Burden of Proof.
With regards to the first, Standing; several courts are dismissing cases demanding Obama prove eligibility based on lack of plaintiffs' standing. This outrageous! Each and every citizen has standing to demand through the courts that a candidate prove his eligibility for elected office. For any court to rule otherwise is a travesty!
And for the courts to suggest that The People must go through Congress or the Secretaries of the Several States to force production of proof of eligibility smacks of obstruction of justice. Remember, these are the same courts which do not hesitate to manufacture "rights" out of whole cloth. So far the courts are only manufacturing the "right" for Obama to be an illegal alien!
Regarding the second item; Burden of Proof; quite simply, burden of proof is always on the candidate...for any position. For the courts and Congress to suggest otherwise is to require The People to prove a negative. And this is preposterous! The Burden of Proof regarding citizenship has always been on Obama. And he has never met it.
Yes, Congress and the courts need to become acquainted with "the fear of the pitchfork". And they need to be forcefully reminded that they do not have the authority to withhold Obama's Constitutional qualifications. By the Tenth Amendment it is a right reserved to The People to demand to see a Presidential candidate's qualifications.
We, The People have not given the Congress, the Judiciary, nor the Several States the power to withhold this information! We have reserved it to ourselves as an individual right. Then again, I'm still thinking of the United States as a Constitutional Republic.
Silly me!
Your post is the substance of the letter I’m writing this evening, to be mailed to Justice Thomas at SCOTUS tomorrow morning. Thank you for stating the two issues so succinctly! If this is a Constitutional Republic still, then these people work for me and 299,000,000 other sovereigns of the Republic. We ought have the right to assurance that this Chicago thug is at least eligible to run for the office.
“Standing, and Burden of Proof.”
Thank you for your comments. As we try to find the best thinking, let me put a finer point on my view.
A single Senator and Representative on Jan 6 can challenge O’s eligibility. He and his handlers have thought this through and we can expect he will present documentation that tends to qualify him. In effect he will shift the burden back to the Republicans to disprove the authenticity of that documentation. Developing such proof could require more time than is available between Jan 6 and Jan 20, in which event he is sworn in and the matter becomes even more political. We have already seen a President screw a young woman out of her day in court, and walk.
As I mentioned earlier, it seems far better to present a formal objection on Jan 6 that is supported by convincing evidence of his ineligibility in order to forestall the swearing in.
One may have standing but any claim has to be timely brought. It is certainly too late to contest his place in the primary election, and any legal action prior to Dec 15 or Jan 6 may well be premature.
It seems relevant here that we did not elect O, we elected electors.