[Lurking Libertarian]

Interesting that any defendant in a federal case brought under new Obama-signed legislation could demand the birth certificate as a defense move! Brilliant.

No way. Google "enrolled bill doctrine."

[silverleaf]

Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama.

Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court."

So the lawyer who stated this doesn't know what he's talking about?

[silverleaf]

That is, "[i]f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials the court treats that document as properly adopted."

So a constitutionally ineligible President would be an "appropriate official" ?