I'm trying as best I can not to get dragged into the BC/HI birth morass. I'm just trying to explain the judicial/punitive complexities of a decision to refuse a military order.
"You said, that all Obama needs is a sworn affidavit of those in Hawaii who have supposedly seen it to provide the court, but, that has not happen .. YET ?? So ? if you and others, and Obama believe it's legit ? then ?
I was answering a hypothetical question, "What if this case is ever heard on it's merits (in a civilian court). I outlined the evidentiary importance and weight of prima fascia evidence, and the challenge that would present to the plaintiff - in short, it would be most substantial.
why ohh why spend $ 2.5 million to squash any plaintiffs arguments to bring this to court for discovery ?
.... I have no idea how much he's spent, but if that's true, it probably means he hiding something. But, to a sitting judge hearing a case, whatever the defendant spent pre-trial wouldn't be germane, material or relevant, in any way. It has no legal bearing, at all.
Wouldn't him just showing the original birth certificate be sufficient ? ... after all ? the US Constitution requires it.
I'd have to skim the USC again, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about "showing the original birth certificate". Art. II, Sec. I states..
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
What it doesn't state in that Article, or anywhere else for that matter specifically who is to verify that information, nor what would pass for verification of those requirements. It was never addressed in the Constitution, and apparently it was never addressed legislatively. That's why we're in the mess that we're in today. That's not the "courts" fault, that's the fault of the framers, and every subsequent session of Congress.
Shouldn't this be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ? .. because many folks still have huge doubts whether he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States."
Courts don't (or shouldn't) worry about what should happen. Courts are concerned about the application of current law in the case that's before them - nothing more.