There is a principle of law called the "presumption of regularity of official action"-- if a government body or officer does something within their official duties, the courts will presume it to be legal and the burden of proof is on the person challenging it. (That's why, for example, if the IRS assesses taxes, the taxpayer the burden of proving them wrong.) Here, the House and Senate met in Joint Session to certify the electoral votes, and determined that Obama is the president-elect, and Vice President Cheney signed that certification. So the burden of proof is on the person challenging that certification.
Lurking:”There is a principle of law called the “presumption of regularity of official action”— if a government body or officer does something within their official duties, the courts will presume it to be legal and the burden of proof is on the person challenging it.”
But isn’t the citizen Obama (not a govenment agent, at this point) responsible for submitting proof that he is elgible for the office of US President when he applies for the job (declares candidacy)? I do believe he has the burden of proof at this point. It seems to me that the legal process should be able to place burden on Obama retroactively since the governing bodies that oversee his candidacy appear not to have acted within the law.
Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications. There seem to be many various theories flying about on FR concerning who is liable.