Yes, it is a separation of powers issue. No law as of 2008 required a Presidential nominee to produce a birth certificate.
No law now requires the production of a birth certificate for a President. However, there are many laws that provide for an accused to do exculpatory discovery. That sort of thing has been around from before the creation of the Constitution. It is a primary right, a preexisting corollary to the Declaration’s assertion of a right to life and liberty. The accused in a court-martial is at risk of losing both. The entire reason for our system existing is to prevent this kind of thing from happening *without due process.* Due process means if he can show his act, including his mental state, doesn’t line up with the formal elements of the crime by evidence, he has a *right* to that evidence. We fought all our wars to defend this principle. Don’t be telling me that this is separation of powers, not when exculpatory discovery is used *all the time* in cases of individuals pitted against the executive in both criminal and civil cases. It’s how the system was designed to work, *by the Founders!* It’s called accountability, it works, and it’s the right thing to do.
It’s not “just” a birth certificate. It is any kind of proof that proves whether the guy in the White House is actually eligible or not.
And if there had been such questions with previous presidents, the situation would still have been the same.
This “there was no law in 2008” means nothing.
The 20th Amendment says that a President elect who “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th cannot act as President.
Obama doesn’t even have any legally-determined birth facts. How could he possibly have “qualified”?
Presuming he actually is ineligible, Pelosi, on behalf of the Democratic Party, provided false and fraudulent information to one or more states certifying the he was eligible.
That should be enough to get over "separation of powers", which would be nice if the courts actually applied it any time it wasn't convenient for them.