[edge919]

The Courts have said, it is Congress that has a statuatory process. Its not our job to rule on this issue.

This makes no sense. Since when do courts not rule on statutory processes?? Second, what you cited says nothing about eligibility.

[jamese777]

This makes no sense. Since when do courts not rule on statutory processes?? Second, what you cited says nothing about eligibility.

---

What can I tell you? In lawsuit after lawsuit, courts have dismissed the claims of plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility because “plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The “...relief can be granted” section means courts can’t overturn the results of elections.

The stauatory process of challenging the certification of the electoral votes in Congress is available for any and all objections including eligibility. Any two members of Congress could have triggered an investigation in each House of Congress into whether Obama was eligible to receive Electoral College votes from any state or not.
Since Congress and the chief election official in each state, usually the Secrtary of State didn’t do their job, the courts have been reluctant to step in and do the job for them.
If a paleo-conservative Secretary of State were to file suit saying that Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic National Committee and/or the Obama campaign submitted forged or fraudulent documents to get on the ballot, that state’s chief election official MIGHT have standing to sue in a court, but none have taken that step.