I would also say that ANY voter, anywhere in the country should be able challenge his eligibility (in Hawaii for example, plus other states). Case in point, the language in the Hawaiian procedure says "any party [or] individual".
(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.It does not say Hawaiian individual. And rightly so... Even though I am not in Hawaii, Obama's being determined eligible has a direct effect on MY candidate winning or losing the overall election.
So just at Hawaii alone, there should be MILLIONS of eligibility challenges! Ditto for other states with similar rules!
Also, since no one will know if the election committee will accept an argument that the 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett is the official definition of a "natural born citizen" (ie, born on US soil to TWO citizen parents), then it is also necessary (and you would have a direct tangible interest) to obtain for this legal proceeding a copy of his original birth certificate from the month of his birth. A 'copy' from the white house is not evidence in any legal proceeding. Plus even WITH acceptance of Minor vs Happersett, the original LFBC is needed to prove who were his parents on the day of his birth.
“(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding,”
Um...the qualifying phrase for “individual” in this sentence is “with a candidate on the presidential ballot,” so only an individual “on the presidential ballot” (presumably in HI) would have standing to contest the eligibility of another candidate on that ballet, IMO.
Any HI FReepers in HI inclined to run for POTUS in HI?