A federal court ruled on the question regarding Obama’s status in 2009. The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and then again at the Supreme Court of the United States and it was not reversed, so it stands.
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
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Did that court find him to be a “natural born Citizen” as required by the Constitution?
After the ruling of the California Supreme Court, which is quite well reasoned and substantial, I fear we can forget about "Constitutional Eligibility" as a prime mover in getting this guy out of office.
Judge Carter, who does not strike me as an enemy, said that the courts have a role in determining Constitutional Eligibility BEFORE an election. AFTER the election, he tells us, an electorally certified and sworn-in sitting POTUS, eligible or not, falls under the jurisdiction of Congress, and Congress alone. OTOH, as Ray points out, document forgery, fraud, etc, are criminal acts. A person committing these acts is liable for prosecution; holding Office is no shield, these are not Official acts which would be shielded.
Should the evidence ever make it to Congress and he is impeached by the House for the 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' of presenting forged documents, then that for which we have devoutly wished will be accomplished. Removal and disgrace.
That still leaves us with the unanswered question of Constitutional Eligibility in the case of others. In the meantime FRolks, we gotta win an election in 2014. Where's the Program? The Plan? The Leader?