"There hasn't been any proof offered that a constitutional violation has occured."
"That's why we are working on this. We already know he was not vetted. We are after the proof, one way or another."
Great. When you get something, that's when you can consider the question of going to court. Not before. There would still be other hurdles, but only a crackpot lawyer would go to court with only speculation.
"Did they even have "birth certificates" back in the time of our founding? Mostly not. But today we do, so let's see it."
No they didn't. At least as a universal document that everyone gets, they are a relatively modern invention. My grandmother didn't have one.
The fact that they are common today doesn't mean the requirement suddenly pops into existence in the text of the constitution.
"The constitutional provisions regarding election of a president have been followed."
"Except for the part of requiring NBC status, it went off without a hitch (other than ACORN fraud)"
That's got nothing to do with the CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. Those procedures were followed. And again, there's no proof that Obama is not eligible.
The procedures may have been followed, but the procedures have been found to be lackadaisical and allowed an unvetted man to be on the ballot.
Therefore the remedy is to vet him now and to ensure that proper vetting takes place going forward. You have heartburn with the attempt to vet him now. The idea that the citizenry do not have standing to have proof of eligibility is a gross misreading of the law.
But there are rumors! Lots of unsubstantiated rumors. Plus plenty of conjecture.
Lot of people lived and died in this county without ever having contact with a government official, or even voting, for one.
I knew many people who obtained birth certificates based on family Bibles, in which most families recorded births and deaths. Strange considering we were a Nation of heathens. </ Sarcasm>