No it hasn't. It's been deflected all the way to the supreme court. It has never been addressed on the merits. It has been pushed off because of one technicality excuse or another, and the legal system has simply brushed it off because they don't want to deal with it.
We aren't impressed by legal procedure, we are impressed by reason, logic and actual facts. We have long mocked the Judiciary for their nonsensical rulings and methodology. They would be a comedy act if the consequences weren't always so dire.
On two occasions in 2009 and again in 2013, both Houses of Congress certified Obama’s electoral votes without a single objection from any of the 535 members. By law it only takes one Representative and one Senator to submit a written objection to the President of the Senate for both Houses to adjourn to separate chambers and consider the objection.
That so many people were wrongly taught, and therefore believe something, does not make them correct. You are pushing the fallacy of popularity.
But then you always have.
Nice try at pulling a slick one but most folks lurking or posting here will know that appellate courts don’t deal with merits. The facts are argued in original jurisdiction courts and appellate courts, including states’ and the federal Supreme Court address errors of law and lower court legal and constitutional interpretations exclusively.
Appellate judges assume that everything the appealling party alleges is factually true. Should they overturn based on original jurisdiction court error?
It is a FACT, an undeniable fact that Congress unanimously certified Obama’s electoral votes in 2009 and in 2013. Once they did that, according to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, Obama became the President of the United States. The 12th Amendmnt says: “...shall be the president.”
No civil lawsuit can remove a president from office. A president can only be removed from office via conviction in a Senate trial on the guilty votes of two-thirds of the Senators present for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, or via resignation or if his cabinet deems him incapacitated/unable to serve and he fails to submit a letter stating that he is fit to serve.
Yes, but cut the Birthers some slack. They read it on the Internet.