Enough question exists to question his ability to hold office.
Obama has the responsibility to prove he is eligible to hold the office. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a any person who becomes POTUS must meet certain criteria, one being NBC. The Document also provides the means in which a person who does not qualify is handled. The proof is on Obama, not the other way - as so many want to contend.
Good point. The constitution says he must actually meet the criteria, not just claim to meet the criteria. The onus is clearly on Zero to prove his legitimacy.
This may just be the first trickle of what will become a large flood of military folks refusing orders until Zero breaks out the long-form BC.
That's not the way things work in civil law in this country. The onus operandi lays with the plaintiff, not the defendant. The defendant has the benefit of assumption. In other words, the court assumes that the president is legal invested in his office. Assuming that a district court entertains such a challenge, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, not the defendant - as always.
Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI. The evidentiary burden then falls to the plaintiff to prove that it's either fraudulent or invalid in some other way. That's a HUGE mountain to climb, probably insurmountable from a legal standpoint.