Alternate interpretation: after a century of no fraud, the "system" fell asleep and no one bothered to ask the question, opening the "system" up to fraud. When the fraud was committed, the "system" went into denial because no one thought such a fraud could be committed.
Some people even looked at the "system" and said "no one has proven he's not qualified," when "he" controls the proof and refuses to produce it.
Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we'll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.
You said — “Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we’ll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.”
And if they don’t then does that settle it?