[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

He may have had the burden of proof before January 8, but once Cheney signed the certification of electoral votes, Obama is presumed to have met that burden, becuase the people constitutionally charged with vetting him said that they were satisfied. The burden now shifts to whoever chooses to challenge Cheney's certification.

[El Gato]

He may have had the burden of proof before January 8, but once Cheney signed the certification of electoral votes, Obama is presumed to have met that burden, becuase the people constitutionally charged with vetting him said that they were satisfied.

What Cheney signed was just what you called it, a "Certification of the electoral votes" not a certification of eligibility of the person who got the majority of the votes.