That's not the way things work in civil law in this country. The onus operandi lays with the plaintiff, not the defendant. The defendant has the benefit of assumption. In other words, the court assumes that the president is legal invested in his office. Assuming that a district court entertains such a challenge, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff, not the defendant - as always.
Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI. The evidentiary burden then falls to the plaintiff to prove that it's either fraudulent or invalid in some other way. That's a HUGE mountain to climb, probably insurmountable from a legal standpoint.
What “prima fascia evidence” “document” are you referring to?
I know of no document Barry has shown or turned over to any legal authority.
If you know of this “document”, please enlighten us all on its contents.
Defendants are allowed to put up a defense in court. Even a military court.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance of these type of cases.
Would that not cause the state of Hawaii to open the sealed "birth certificate" for examination?
If I remember my 3rd grade civics classes correctly, and I know I do, the Constitution is the law of the land and supersedes any laws where there is a conflict.
To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify.
The very opposite of that is the case. The qualifications to be elected POTUSA are clearly defined as are the provisions t be taken if a person fails to do so.
We see judges fail to follow the Constitution, that it happens does not mean the judge is correct, what it does mean is that they are not following the very document they take an oath to uphold.
Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI.
Is he going to show it online?
***prima fascia evidence ***
Sounds like lawyer-talk.
Just exactly what is this “prima fascia” evidence of which you speak?
Does he?
No one who is not FIRMLY in his camp claims to have seen the actual document. Even his political supporters have never claimed to have seen the full birth certificate.
All we peons have ever seen, all a "neutral" judge has ever seen, all any federal government official has seen is a few images on a computer screen.
And each reissue an image of the several versions of that alleged document 'magically' filling in details that someone (usually Polarik or Beckwith) pointed out were missing in the latest version.
Don't you think that it's the teensiest bit suspicious that the second version at 1/4 the resolution of the first version shows the impressed state seal (wrong version for the date issued, btw) while it was invisible on the high rez version????
Posters like you are the reason I monitor FReep. Thanks for the excellent clarification.