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".
Sorry, you don't get to make it up as you go along. Obama has no burden to prove anything at this point in time. If someone wants to go to court to sue him, that person has a burden to present facts to prove their case. It doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't work that way, it does.
"Nonsense..."
Nope. Nobody produced evidence that Obama wasn't eligible because none existed. None exists now.
"As for "there is sufficient legal proof that he was born in Hawaii. That's enough.", that's not "enough", that's "the question"."
It is enough. Being born in Hawaii would make him eligible.