Beyond his case, the courts have made it clear that they won't get involved in any of this. I don't think they believe that the Constitution empowers them to determine qualifications of presidents.
Clearly, however, no one disputes that the people as voters have a right to decide upon a candidate's qualifications. No one can question their power in that regard and that may be where we have to win those arguments.
And, then there is the power of impeachment. There is no doubt about that power.
But, the courts won't play.
Denise Lind would not accept any argument regarding the eligibility of Obama.
So you are wrong. Lind specifically told him he does NOT have a right to present his evidence. She called it irrelevant. The CENTRAL POINT she made in order to keep Lakin from presenting evidence was that EVEN JOSEPH STALIN COULD BE PRESIDENT AND COULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE. This in spite of the 20th Amendment saying that if the POTUS failed to qualify he could not “ACT AS PRESIDENT”.
The Authorization to Use Force specifically required the PRESIDENT to decide where, when, and to what extend force should be used in foreign countries. Their legal consent was conditional upon that. If Joseph Stalin was President and forbidden by the 20th Amendment to “act as President”, then the terms for legal authorization to use force would not have been met, and the entire combat operation would be unlawful.
Lind knew that, and her claim that the SecDef or anybody else could decide on a “surge” in Afghanistan without the consent of a lawfully-acting President is a travesty. The only LAWFUL authorization for those guys to even fly to Afghanistan is because Congress said it’s OK as long as the President says it’s OK.