Let us agree for the sake of arguing the point that Congress did not confirm the two status requirements written in section three. This would still not make a person who is ineligible to serve as President "eligible". The requirements in Article two are not confusing. They plainly state that No Person can serve as President who fails to meet the eligibility requirements for the position. I don't see how anyone who "fails to qualify" due to the negligence of Congress can ever say that such negligence equals "qualification". In my opinion, if Obama has not proven to Congress that he "qualifies", he is still not a legal President.
I also don't see a time limit for establishing his legitimacy because the beginning of a President's term can only begin with a Constitutionally legal President. The Constitution via Section Three says exactly this because it is a requirement demanded of Congress. Why have the requirement if someone can sneak by it? No sneaking allowed. Except for Usurpers. Usurpers can be arrested.
>he is still not a legal President. <
I agree
>I also don’t see a time limit for establishing his legitimacy because the beginning of a President’s term can only begin with a Constitutionally legal President.<
By the exact wording I see what you are saying. But again, remember the intent. They are talking about the time period that the person holds office. No there is no time limit, especially since he usurped. But I think that the original intention was that it should be done in succession of steps.
the steps were outlined by yourself (again excellent work there BTW) and they were carried out.
certainly the founders NEVER imagined that anyone would usurp and get away with the charade as long as obama has. But then again, they also figured that the press would keep american politicians honest.
I think that they clearly had a short time in mind for these issues to be resolved.