If he's allowed to successfully usurp the office, there sure is a precedent.
A future court challenge can simply point to the fact that everyone knew Barry was born a British subject...yet the country did nothing to stop it (or to "fix it" in place). Precedent set.
No, that wouldn't be true. For the sake of argument for this assertion, let's make the assumption that a crime is being committed and that Obama is not qualified and "he gets away with the crime"...
Okay... you've got a crime, no one prosecutes the crime, thus -- the argument you're making is that if a crime is not prosecuted and everyone "knew" that a crime was committed -- then this sets a precedent for someone else being able to commit the same crime... i.e., another candidate could do the same thing and no one could stop him using the requirements of the Constitution, because someone else did it and "got away with it" without anyone doing anything about it.
Well..., you could apply that to murder and say that if someone is not prosecuted for murder and/or they get away with it and nothing is done about it -- then this sets a precendent for murder to be done in the future and using the "precedent" of saying that "someone else committed murder and got away with it and no one did anything about it" so I should be able to now get away with it, because of the "precedent that was set" (from before)... LOL...
I would like to see something try to get away with murder in the future, using that legal argument... :-)
You know it would be precedent setting. Since you could care less about the office being usurped, you’ve been trying since the beginning to dissuade people from taking notice and/or work to expose the usurper.