[OldDeckHand]

"Wrong. If there were challenges to McCain’s eligibility in the courts ( if he had been elected ) then the Congressional Record could be entered as evidence." What part of "non-binding resolution" don't you understand?

Can a congressional record be entered into evidence in a civil or criminal tribunal? You betcha. Which is exactly why so many people who testify in front Congressional sub-committees during a scandal demand, limited, full or use immunity. But, NON-binding resolutions carry NO weight in a courtroom - none whatsoever. They literally aren't worth the paper they're printed on, legally speaking - of course.

[DJ MacWoW]

I know you'd like to gloss over it but your post isn't the point. Cyropaedia was answering curiosity's assertion in post 684 that McCain showed his birth certificate, in private, to a Washington Post Reporter and no one else.

Cyropaedia challenged that in post 692 stating: McCain also showed his BC to the members of Senate Judiciary committee and that fact was entered into the Congressional Record as evidence

And THAT is the point. McCain produced his long form BC.

[Cyropaedia]

Not necessarily. McCain's eligibility, it could be argued, remains somewhat of a "gray area", in Constitutional terms, and the High Court would want to hear all arguments from both sides.

A resolution by the U.S. Senate, drafted after being given testimony from legal scholars and approved by members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle, could help sway a judge's decision. It could even help sway a judge's decision not take a case challenging McCain's eligibility.

And, again, that was part of its intended purpose.