Where this may not work, is the military cases were thrown out or dropped pretty much based on the same principle that obama has no right to send them to Iraq or wherever.
I have said this several times. But all this represents is a description of a person who might become a party who would have standing to assert the claim. The military guys who challenge an order are the classic case.
And then, Obama has responded in the military cases by simply dismissing the basis for the claim. Same would happen in the case of breach of a federal law.
The real case is legislation where someone has an affirmative duty that they don't want to perform (pay taxes or fees etc.) and which the President doesn't really have any capability to withdraw.
Then you get to the real problem. You have identified a plaintiff who has standing; he has a claim which would work if Obama is not eligible; we know Obama is in fact not eligible because he was born in Mombasa--the result is not automatic. Because when you get to the courthouse with those conditions, you will be met by some of the highest powered lawyers in the world to resist. And unless you have the same quality of legal help, you lose anyway.
I still think that the “birthers” are going at this all wrong. Instead of trying to find ways to have the sitting President prove that his is eligible, we should be focused on making sure that no one is ever able to get that far in the next round of elections.
We simply need one state to pass a law requiring that every candidate for Federal office be able to prove that they are eligble. The state could specify what documents should be presented in order to prove it.
Pretty simple, yet I have heard nothing about any state doing that.