The headline is idiocy. Lawyer said no such thing.
Read the story:
(Obama lawyer) Hill repeatedly explained to Judge Jeff S. Masin that, “We do not believe the president’s birth certificate is relevant to this case.”
Agreeing with Hill, Masin ruled in a written opinion the same day that New Jersey law does not require Obama to produce any proof he is eligible to be president in order to be placed on the primary ballot.
Noting that New Jersey law allows a nominating petition endorsing a particular person for president to be filed without the consent of the person endorsed, Masin said “There is no obligation upon the person endorsed to prove his or her qualification for office.”
This is a totally correct legal ruling. A nomination, filing or election can be challenged AFTER THE FACT, but there is no U.S. constitutional legal requirement for “proof” to be filed before an election can be held.
This is an excellent provision. Can you imagine every Dem county JP in the country ruling Ronald Reagan had not submitted “sufficient” proof of qualification?
Lawyer never said there was no BC. Conservatives should check facts before they believe every stupid internet post.
President Obama’s birth certificate “was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law,” the Tea Party Tribune quoted Hill as saying.It's hearsay until I see an actual court transcript. But if the quote is accurate, that sounds to me like an assumption of forgery.