It seems to me the more effective argument at this point is that any burden Obama had expired once he was crowned (at least in his view) during the January, 2009 Joint Session. Clearly, up to that point, as a function of the entire election process, he had the burden of providing evidence of his qualification that was of such quality as to satisfy any request of state election officials and, until the conclusion of the Session, members of Congress.
Once crowned, in IMO, the burden of proof and certainly the burden of going forward shifted to the Congress. I say the Congress because IMO that is the only body with authority to now challenge and act on his qualifications. Free of the burden, Obama can now flip off with impunity, and delay his response to, any Congressional request for documentation and attempt to serve out his term.
At least until Congress goes forward. It, of course, has the inherent power and ability to obtain convincing evidence of a non-U.S. birthplace – if such evidence exists. The effect of any USSC opinion of the two-parent NBC requirement that is unfavorable to Obama seems problematic inasmuch as Congress took no action on the public issue in the first instance. Nonetheless, with either in hand, Congress could impeach and convict with little or no response from Obama.
Further, and the most disgusting aspect, it does not appear he has failed to meet any burden he may have once had, simply because there was no request that he do so.
Your thoughts?
What about the Fact that his Father was Not an American Citizen. That alone Makes Him Ineligible
I understand what you are saying, but we are in uncharted waters here. I bristle somewhat at your use of the word “crowned,” as it reminds me of those old movies where they must expose the imposter before the crown is set on his head, else all is lost. A transference of practical authority certainly occurs at inauguration, but unlike a monarchy, “We the People” never fully surrender control of the “crown,” neither to any imposter, nor even to the whims of a Congress lacking the political will to do their duty.
Which is why in my original post I posit a practical, political burden, if not necessarily a formal legal burden, remaining on him. Yes, I agree that once he is inaugurated there is no obvious practical mechanism apart from either Congressional action or elections to fix the problem, and the judicial avenue has, through defect, been unable to confer standing to any individual located outside of those two processes. But pragmatically the burden has not left him, because deliberate impostiture, if true, would imply an exigent circumstance of the very kind “we the people” ought to be able to resolve despite failure of all other firewalls.
This is not to discredit your analysis. I have read your earlier posts and find them depressingly well-grounded in fact and law as it is widely practiced and understood. That is not a concession that modern practice is correct, but it does put limits on feasible solutions.
Which is why I remain committed to highlighting the uniqueness of the situation as a way to keep the burden on him despite the failure of the system. The Founders worked within the assumptions of the times in which they lived, and as much as I respect their work, I do not believe they fully accounted for this set of circumstances. I see this as a deliberate hack that is exploiting a weakness in the design. The hackers (plural intended) are a step ahead of us and we have complicated our response by allowing the overgrowth of judicial supremacy to disrupt our ability to bypass a malfunctioning Congress. The doctrine of standing in particular has evolved pathologically, from a guardian against an overly ambitious judiciary to a guardian against a defrauded citizenry.
So now we have a “constitutional virus,” and as anyone who has dealt with viruses knows, the best cure is prevention. That of course is why we have elections. They are the soft reboot that theoretically prevents a disruption of the system from becoming permanent. But well-written viruses are designed to survive reboots by hiding and reinfecting. So sometimes more draconian measures are required.
Short of such measures, the best solution now appears to be a combination of quarantine and future prevention. The prevention of future impostiture can be effected by legislating higher standards for qualifying candidates at the state level. But quarantining the present infection, IMHO, consists mainly in keeping the infection exposed and on the defensive by whatever in or out of the box methods may present themselves, including keeping the public mind focused on that which makes the infection alien and suspect, which must include fanning the flames of doubt concerning eligibility until it becomes natural to see him as under a burden of proof he owes the public, if not the state legislatures, which burden he has not met.