2.) Ah, so what happens when the aforementioned state elections officers are corrupt and/or willing to overlook election laws?
3.) Granted, but do you find Obama's behavior suspicious when you know that he could save all of this time/energy/money by producing some simple documents?
Surely even you understand that this colossal waste of resources could be avoided if he coughed up a few simple documents. The fact that he and his army of lawyers are avoiding this simplicity at all costs certainly must make you wonder WHY he is acting the way he is.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Re: #1 - Yes, morally and ethically we have the right to question his eligibility. However, when Obama became the President-Elect, we no longer had access to the courts as a means to question his eligibility. (The POTUS doesn’t control our money, the Congress does.)
Re: #2 - You file suit in your home state outlining the corruption and or laws broken by those officials. (That’s where I am pursuing this issue. The Texas Democratic Party broke numerous laws in nominating Obama. I don’t expect a reversal of the 2008 nomination because it simply won’t happen. What I expect to accomplish is to force the legislature to mandate a process by which candidates must prove their constitutional eligibility and I expect to force the TX SOS to seek legal guidance from the SCOTUS regarding Obama’s eligibility since the definition of NBC is unclear and unresolved.)
Re: #3 - Yes and no. Since there are no laws establishing how he must prove his eligibility, I expect his defense team to do their jobs in disputing the validity of eligibility lawsuits. I would expect an eligible and honorable man to hand over proof without being sued, but clearly Obama is neither. He’s behaving like the thug he is. That in itself is not unexpected.