That's why we are working on this. We already know he was not vetted. We are after the proof, one way or another.
The constitution doesn't require production of a birth certificate.
Did they even have "birth certificates" back in the time of our founding? Mostly not. But today we do, so let's see it.
The constitutional provisions regarding election of a president have been followed.
Except for the part of requiring NBC status, it went off without a hitch (other than ACORN fraud)
"There hasn't been any proof offered that a constitutional violation has occured."
"That's why we are working on this. We already know he was not vetted. We are after the proof, one way or another."
Great. When you get something, that's when you can consider the question of going to court. Not before. There would still be other hurdles, but only a crackpot lawyer would go to court with only speculation.
"Did they even have "birth certificates" back in the time of our founding? Mostly not. But today we do, so let's see it."
No they didn't. At least as a universal document that everyone gets, they are a relatively modern invention. My grandmother didn't have one.
The fact that they are common today doesn't mean the requirement suddenly pops into existence in the text of the constitution.
"The constitutional provisions regarding election of a president have been followed."
"Except for the part of requiring NBC status, it went off without a hitch (other than ACORN fraud)"
That's got nothing to do with the CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. Those procedures were followed. And again, there's no proof that Obama is not eligible.
Did they even have “birth certificates” back in the time of our founding? Mostly not. But today we do, so let’s see it.
So you are advocatong a living Constitution?