I think you are forgetting that no court decision and no action by Congress has determined that the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1 haven’t been met. I believe the issue was "what if they did" and your contention was that they couldn't remove a "Sitting President".
There has been no such finding regarding Obama in 71 judicial attempts including 8 rejections of eligibility appeals by the Supreme Court of the United States.
How many of those looked at real evidence, or took sworn testimony?
None. At best they referred to unsworn "official" statements.
It's all been a sort of Kangaroo Court in reverse.
“I believe the issue was “what if they did” and your contention was that they couldn’t remove a ‘Sitting President’.”
It wasn’t a “contention” it was from the decision of a US Federal District Judge in an eligibility lawsuit.
===How many of those looked at real evidence, or took sworn testimony?
None. At best they referred to unsworn “official” statements.
It’s all been a sort of Kangaroo Court in reverse.
It is the responsibility of plaintiffs’ attorneys to present plaintiffs who are eligible to sue. The first motion of the defense attorneys in ANY lawsuit is a move to dismiss the complaint. Thus far in 71 attempts, that move to dismiss has been successful; no legitimate plaintiff, no trial, summary dismissal...71 times.
Calling totally different courts in totally different jurisdictions “kangaroo courts” just shows your ignorance of the judicial system. Is the Supreme Court of the United States with a five justice conservative majority a “kangaroo court?”