See:
advisory opinion
n. an opinion stated by a judge or a court upon the request of a legislative body or government agency. An advisory opinion has no force of law but is given as a matter of courtesy. A private citizen cannot get an advisory ruling from a court and can only get rulings in an actual lawsuit. State attorneys general also give advisory opinions at the request of government officials. These opinions are often cited as the probable correct law on the subject but are not binding.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2358&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
actual controversy
n. a true legal dispute which leads to a genuine lawsuit rather than merely a “cooked up” legal action filed to get a court to give the equivalent of an advisory opinion. Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will only consider an “actual controversy”, on appeal, since they will not give advisory (informal) opinions or make judgments on “friendly suits” filed to test the potential outcome.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2319
Leo Donofrio thinks only Quo Warranto action brought by the US AG or the DC Circuit Court could be successful now that Obama has been sworn in, absent impeachment. Quo Warranto, unlike a civil or criminal lawsuit, puts the burden of proof on Obama to show that he is eligible. See Leo’s site for details:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Why not challenge him on publicly admitted "facts?"
Why, then, not ask a court how he could be US NBC based on public admissions of being governed by a foreign power?
On the contrary, virtually all other cases HAVE been "fishing expeditions" so far as I can tell (being a non lawyer).
What would be your recommendation as to how a case should be brought forward?