“Obama should be the one who should have proven that he is eligible for office because credible and a overwhelmingly preponderance of evidence say he is not.”
The clear majority of the people and the Electoral College disagrees. Congress disagrees. And the courts haven’t found merit in a single case.
The LTC doesn’t get to decide who is President. That is reserved for the people of the USA acting thru the Electoral College.
The only evidence they had to go buy was a fraudulent certification by pelosi.
Your argument means nothing.
Ignorant of the facts. The Electoral College of Democrat partisans doesn't override the US Constitution or any other election. The Democrat Congress is not being truthful with the American people, and the courts are hiding behind "standing" issues and none of the court cases have been adjudicated on the merits.
The LTC doesn’t get to decide who is President.
He gets to choose to whether he believes the orders he receives are lawful.
If the clear majority voted to make Buddhism illegal would a court overturn that vote? Why or why not?
If the clear majority voted to make an ineligible president the president would a court overturn that vote? Why or why not?
Now what’s the difference between those two cases?