He's done that, you won't accept it. He's provided what he claims is evidence he was born in Hawaii, you call it a forgery. No law requires he do any more than he's done so far. An unfortunate fact but a fact never the less and one that will continue unless changed at the federal or state level. The problem is that you refuse to believe him, and I've read the Constitution forwards and backwards any number of times and nothing in there states that the president must satisfy mkjessup's demands.
There is a loophole in the law that no presidential candidate is required to prove his or her qualifications to any one person or agency. That's the unfortunate fact that we're currently facing. The solution is to close that loophole - probably by legislation at the state level since the Democrats control Congress. Why aren't you pushing for a solution instead of trying to twist existing laws to suit your desires?
And if the Kenyan Usurper is unable to establish his eligibility, then he must resign or be removed from Office by any means necessary.
I'll take that to mean any means, legal or illegal. That's where you and I part company.
Your way of thinking does nothing except to empower and enable an illegal Usurper, aka one Barack Hussein 0bama.
And if you ignore the law in you haste to bring down someone you claim is ignoring the law, then where does that make you any better than him?
You prattle on about the 'Law' but you mock and ridicule those who seek to see that Law upheld.
No. You want the law to be what you want it to be. You want a trial regardless of whether Taitz's plaintiffs meet the qualifications for legal standing or not. You want a trial regardless of whether there is evidence or not. If the judge does grant the motion to dismiss you will be the first one out there on your hind legs screaming 'Conspiracy" and claiming the judge is crooked or an idiot or an Obama supporter or some such nonsense. You don't want the law upheld. You want your way regardless of what the law says.
>> He’s provided what he claims is evidence he was born in Hawaii, you call it a forgery. No law requires he do any more than he’s done so far.
Why would it be necessary to provide any evidence at all if the claim of legitimacy is paramount to concerns of criminality?
FWIW, I’m not a birther, nor an anti-birther - just lurking the issue.