Over the last six years there have been more than 200 original jurisdiction court rulings on Obama’s eligibility, there have also been close to 100 state and federal appellate rulings and there have been 25 denied appeals to SCOTUS. No court ruling has found him to be ineligible.
Congress voted unanimously to certify Obama’s electors in January, 2009 and again in January, 2013. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the president.” Obviously the clock runs out on challenging a candidate’s or a President-Elect’s credentials BEFORE the certification of the electoral vote.
Since 2009, Congress has sent Obama hundreds of bills to sign into law (as recently as this week’s continuing resolution on appropriations) and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of Obama appointees including 280 federal judges, many of whom have been confirmed unanimously. In my humble opinion, nearly six years in is a bit late to challenge eligibility.
While the issues concerning Obama’s past that you listed and are concerned about are interesting, they have little relevance at this point in time to his eligibility. He can’t run for another term and he already received 332 electoral votes.
Since you place such a premium on the validity of court decisions, you’ll no doubt be pleased & eager to weigh in on a closely related question.
Namely, the courts have overwhelmingly found that the Constitution is more concerned with redefining ‘marriage,’ so as to establish and protect the right of two homosexuals to legally marry in a manner identical to that of a man & a woman, than it is with respecting States’ Rights. Do you agree that the vast majority of decisions on this subject have been correct? If so, why?