The "birther" issue has not been tried. To the extent it has even been introduced, the response from the WH was to issue a patently defective document. That was in a real sense another wagging of a finger.
I think it to be more prudent to focus on the one with the highest probability of success.
The removal ssue will only be resolved via impeachment and conviction. During the 2009 Joint Session of Congress each and every member of Congress had full knowledge that he was reported to have a foreign father and they gave him a pass. Do you expect them to now reverse themselves with the excuse the issue was not legally settled in 2009, when it in fact it was? Would that not be similar to arguing "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"?
Do you not agree that if a non-domestic birth is established, it is immediately game over?
We are not talking about impeachment here. We are discussing the possibility of challenges to placing his name on ballots for 2012. I do not think this was done in 2008, as it should have been.
Court after court has thrown this issue out based on lack of "standing". but my reference to "lost" was actually in reference to the court of public opinion.
Birthers are now considered by almost all to be whack jobs along the lines of 911 truthers. Having the birth issue as a focus will be a distraction that the press will be all over.