The primary case is that we have a constitutional requirement and it is clear from the failure of the parties, secretaries of state, congress and courts to do their duty to uphold the constitution that the issue needs to be addressed to ensure that the person in office actually meets the qualification.
Reason 3 is because I said so and I'm the dad. LOL!
Don't you watch TV? :-)
"Probable Cause" is what police need in certain circumstances in order to gather evidence. It isn't what courts use to decide to have a trial.
"The primary case is that we have a constitutional requirement and it is clear from the failure of the parties, secretaries of state, congress and courts to do their duty to uphold the constitution that the issue needs to be addressed to ensure that the person in office actually meets the qualification."
That's not a legal argument, it's a political one. Again, don't expect the courts to address your concern.
There seems to be probable cause.
To many that maybe true. But so far the courts haven’t agreed that there is probable cause and neither has the Congress taken action via the impeachment route. Now maybe enough filings in each state to review the state certification maybe one route and if and when enough states found a lack of proper certification then there maybe standing at the Federal level. Who knows at this juncture.
Taken one at a time:
His father was a British citizen and that may make him unqualified.
That argument doesn't seem to hold water. It's well known that his father was a British citizen - Obama has said so himself in writing - yet no judge has acted on it. Why would you say that is?
There are allegations that he wasn't born on US soil
You need more than mere allegations to win in court. You can allege that Obama is a shape-shifting reptile from Mars. That doesn't mean he has to prove he isn't.
Anyone can allege anything about anyone. Our system of justice protects defendants against having to answer frivolous or malicious suits by requiring the accuser to bring valid evidence to court. This is not new - this has always been the way the US system of justice has worked.
Allegations don't cut it. Hunches don't cut it. Guesses don't cut it. Evidence is the only thing that has ever cut it.
Why would you want Orly Taitz or anyone anywhere to be held to anything less than the standards of evidence?
I want to see the law of the land prevail. Don't you? The law requires proof.
false documents posted by his campaign.
Which were those?
Where are the document experts, willing to testify publicly in court and allow their own qualifications and educations to be judged? Who are the experts Taitz is relying on?
Going to court and saying that "some guy on the Internet who doesn't want to be named but who is a document expert, we really really really promise" is not evidence.
Going to court and saying "this other guy who has a lengthy criminal record has the One and Only birth certificate. Really!", is not evidence.
Qualified document experts exist.
Qualified legal minds exist.
If this is really what you believe, why don't like minded people band together and start from there? Why rely on unsubstantiated rumors, people on the Internet, and lawyers who "forget" to sign documents? Why spend money putting up billboards, when you could be hiring competent legal council?