Sounds like an incentive to fraud and usurpation to me. At least as applied to this situtation.
Would you still say the same thing in a situation where an election was fraudulent, that ballot boxes were stuffed, or vote counts just plain made up in critical states? If not, how is the situation of a President who fails to meet the basic Constitutional eligiblity criteria any different?
I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time.
Well, depending on the particular elected office (and especially in state positions), the judiciary may have the power to review the election results and remove a fraudulently elected official even after his installation. But, that doesn't mean that the actions taken by that official prior to his removal would be nullified.
This particular case is problematic because the President has already been installed in office, and the judiciary has no constitutional authority to remove a sitting President, even if that installation was defective in some way. And, if they can't remove him, then they have no business examining his credentials ex post facto, or so they would argue. That's fine. That's why we have a Congress, who is Constitutionally vested to address such infirmities in the Executive via impeachment.
If Congress refuses to act, then the people have the power of the ballot box, and can replace those representatives with ones who are earnest about fulfilling their Constitutional obligations.
With respect to Lakin specifically (which is ostensibly what this thread is about), the judiciary to especially include the military judiciary has no authority to inspect the bona fides of the Commander-in-Chief. So long as the office he holds empowers him to issue orders, those orders are presumptively lawful unless they are plainly unlawful, facially.