Here's what I get:
It is not specifically stated anywhere what the POTUS requirements are AND what the terms mean. You have to collect the data from multiple sources.
If you are interested in intent, you have to consider Vattel, the extra loophole they added(...or a citizen at the adoption of this constitution...),etc.
But,
I believe it is a Separation of Powers issue. The SCOTUS, as a co-equal power, does not feel they have the power to remove POTUS. If they rule on the definition, POTUS might tell them to go pound sand. If he does, a bunch of men and women in our military have to decide who they are following. Some will say they are sworn to protect the constitution. Some will say they are sworn to follow orders. This could not be good for the US. We would be instantly vulnerable.
I believe all of those in power know this. That is why this stuff goes nowhere.
Furthermore, the Constitution has a protocol for removing a president: elections or impeachment. Scotus isn't in there. They will never take the case.
Thomas intimated all of this in private talks. He knows it, Obama knows it and so do I.
They were afraid to take it up during the election because everyone was afraid of being called racist.
They are afraid to take it up now because it might destroy the country.
I believe you are correct in everthing you have said.
The problem is, if they do NOT take it up now, we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law, and have already been destroyed.