I think that you are confusing several things.
1. Note that I said “without a legal judgement”. We do not have established law on the meaning of “natural born” in this case. All the stuff cited on every side is tangential, vague, supeceded, or all of the above. Its your opinion vs every other opinion, all worth precisely nothing.
In that case, what is our legal authority ? None, it is merely the de-facto acceptance by the people. We are left with that. The rule of law is not perverted, it is just a vacuum.
2. “The root concept of legitimacy is the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, not consensus”
That is incorrect. We are speaking of political legitimacy here. You see the problem when you must ask whose concept of right and wrong applies. Mine, yours, your cousins, Al Sharptons ?
If there is existing law we can, most of us most of the time, agree that the law is the law, our agreement is automatic if we value the law itself. But if there is no law ? Then the legitimate ruler has always been he who can command the most supporters, or at least obtain the aquiescence of most. In this case, concerning the meaning of “natural born”, we have a consensus permitting Obama his qualification.
In the face of that, its very unlikely that any court is going to take this case. And even if one did, to define the law, they would still not find against this consensus.
3. The public has the basic facts, sufficient to this case - mother American, born in the USA. You can attempt to re-educate the public if you like with additional facts, but you are unlikely to get far.
4. You hold that this situation is unconstitutional. That is your opinion, but that opinion is not relevant to anyone else until the proper authorities declare that it is unconstitutional. They have declined to even take the case.
5. The South’s practices were legal.
All legal authority in this country is derived from the Constitution, not de-facto acceptance by the people. The people will accept many things if they are uninformed about the constitutionality of such. Acceptance, or rather inaction, doesn't provide legal authority.
In this case, concerning the meaning of “natural born”, we have a consensus permitting Obama his qualification.
There was no consensus that permitted Obama's qualification. The failure of public officials to demand and examine Obama's credentials does not constitute a consensus. The failure of law enforcement to catch a criminal and the lack of public outcry regarding the crime doesn't constitute a consensus that there was no crime.
In the face of that, its very unlikely that any court is going to take this case.
If and when the courts are presented with a properly constructed case that presents a question of first impression and meets the legal requirements of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, they'll hear the case. To date, no such case has been presented.
And even if one did, to define the law, they would still not find against this consensus.
There is no consensus. The courts will rule according to the proper interpretation of the law, not according to popular opinion. If the courts ruled according to consensus, they either wouldn't have intervened in Bush v. Gore or they'd have ruled in Gore's favor.
The public has the basic facts, sufficient to this case - mother American, born in the USA
Those are hardly the basic facts and they are less than sufficient to make a determination regarding Obama's natural-born status. Those are simply the facts on which Obama wants the discussion to be focused.
You hold that this situation is unconstitutional.
Wrong. I hold that this situation is unsettled in the law and therefore requires a SCOTUS ruling. Yes, it is my personal opinion in light of my own research on the issue that Obama is ineligible, but if the SCOTUS ruled that he were eligible, I would accept the ruling. Likewise if we held a Constitutional Convention to remove the natural-born requirement and the states ratified the amendment, I would also accept that decision.
The South’s practices were legal.
Yes, until those practices were seen as immoral and unethical and ultimately overturned. Consensus didn't make those practices right.