Very nice - just because the court cases have not got off the ground means there are no good convincing argument!
Obviously you have not followed the cases since 2007!
Donofrio, Appuzo etc. have argued the cases brilliantly.
But they are no match to the judges who hold the power to dismiss them on account of made-up excuses because every one of them is afraid to rule on the merit and determine obama ineligible.
Case in point - in Feb., GA judge Malihi judged in favor of obozo who didn’t even show up for the hearing and did not submit evidence for his argument -
who has ever heard of a judge ruling the defendent born in USA without any documentary proofs from the defendent, and based on his baseless assumption that obozo was born in Hawaii he determines that obozo is a natural born citizen elig to be in the ballot! Whereas he ignores the plaintiff’s argument and proof that obozo was born to a foreign father, therefore has dual citizenship/loyalty, not a nbc and not qualified to be on the ballot!
It might be true that as long as obozo is in power no one will rule that he is ineligible...
We just might have to vote the usurper out, but he can steal another election!
We have to fight him from all directions!
Your point is well taken. Courts should be able to deal with all sorts of complicated legal arguments that surround this issue.
However, I was looking at it from the point of view of the "court of public opinion". The public doesn't do well with complicated legal arguments. The arguments for ineligibility need to be simple and convincing. They aren't, and that's why this doesn't fly.
“Whereas he ignores the plaintiff’s argument and proof that obozo was born to a foreign father, therefore has dual citizenship/loyalty, not a nbc and not qualified to be on the ballot!”
He did not ignore that argument, but he rejected it - based on the WKA decision & Ankeny. Had he done otherwise, he would have been promptly overturned as an incompetent judge for ignoring the law.