No. The burden is on the one bringing the suit.
Given the effort, attention and funds available during the election, if nothing was uncovered that showed Obama to be ineligible, there's a *reason*. You can't find something that doesn't exist. That's the point.
As for proof, there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.
No, the burden of proof was always on Obama. Before or after the fact.
Given the effort, attention and funds available during the election, if nothing was uncovered that showed Obama to be ineligible, there's a *reason*.
Nonsense. You could have 100 lawyers backed with billions of dollars, and as long as Barak refuses to sign the form, all of the "available resourses" and "grueling" arguements mean nothing. And we are not lookiing for something that "showed Obama to be ineligible , we are looking for something that showed Obama to be eligible. As for "there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.", that's not "enough", that's "the question".