I mentioned “law enforcement” and “legislative” remedies in my post, not JUST the courts.
Now you’re arguing in circles, just for the sake of being argumentative. If courts ruling Obama to be Article 2, Section 1 ineligible are “irrelevant,” why have challengers to Obama’s eligibility filed 207 civil suits, 90 appeals and 26 applications and petitions at the Supreme Court of the United States? Obviously you are out on a limb all by yourself in thinking that the courts are “irrelevant” to resolution of this issue.
One more time, my position comes from actual rulings on this precise constitutional point. I am not making this stuff up as I go along.
Barnett, Keyes et al. v. Obama, et al. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not ALREADY WON THE ELECTION AND TAKEN OFFICE. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through IMPEACHMENT or THE SUCCESSION PROCESS set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of CONGRESS, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Which societal institution(s) do YOU think can effect the removal of an ineligible president? And who gets to make the definitive ruling on ineligibility.?
Focus.
The point is: an ineligible person can not be impeached.
Whether a court rules Obama Article 2 eligible or not is not relevant to the point, it has no effect on the point.
As pointed out the case cited is political and absurd on its face.