It would change everything, but there is no proof, never mind "irrefutable proof," and it's not the Court's job to find proof.
That's what Orly, and many people who follow this issue, refuse to understand.
If you think he's not eligible, first you have to present some sort of verified, substantiated, certified proof of ineligibility to get the court, or Congress, to act.
Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.
I hope it turns out that you’re right, browardchad, but I remain skeptical. The ruling elite has demonstrated its disdain for the Constitution to the point now that they don’t even try to sugar coat it. And, for the most part, the American sheeple cower in fear of being accused of racism, that being considered now the most egregious of sins in the Universe, and anyone who suggested Obama be deposed would be called a racist, proof of his foreign birth notwithstanding. I just don’t see, given the present climate of PC we live in, that “[I]t would change everything...” For one to “...get the court, or Congress, to act” one blithely assumes a court that unwaveringly adheres to the rule of law (a foolish assumption) or one trusts Congress—and we should all by now know what a den of jackals Congress is.
You mean proof that Mr. Obama seems to have gone to rather ridiculous extremes to deny the various plaintiffs in these cases? Sorry, it seems your argument is getting a bit circular here.
So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?
Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.
Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.
No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.
What is the Constitutional Natural Born Citizenship requirement for? Who would it bar from office?