This “demand” has no meaning. Legally, the writer has no standing or authority to make such a demand of the sitting Governor of Nevada.
While I agree that the Governor and State AG’s have numerous grounds to challenge the Constitutionality of ObamaCare, they don’t have to resort to the birther issue to make their case. SO many obvious problems exist to attack, why pull in one that, whether one likes it or not, will get them labeled as kooks, and their arguments ignored, ridiculed, or worse?
What kind of patriot dedicated to defending the constitution and confirming Obama’s eligibility would have the slightest concern about name calling? Well, now that you mention it, nearly 100% of elected officials so far...
Yet this bill will screw so many people personally providing them standing under the “particularized injury in fact” requirements potentially supporting quo warranto claims not unlike Donofrio’s Chrysler dealers, should he get around to it.
If Obama has nothing to hide, what is the harm in submitting to discovery and why the ridicule of those who demand it?
Obama has pissed off so many powerful people that birtherism could suddenly become very appealing to at least some of them.
Most recently a whole lot of Jews including Jewish lawyers who voted for Obama have become enraged at his treatment of Israel and may be desperate to remove him before the end of his term before Iran gets the bomb or Israel has to cede huge chunks of Jerusalem to the PA. I guarantee you that some of them have begun to research quo warranto as I type this, judging from Ed Koch's scathing denunciation of Obama in an editorial today!