You are wrong. The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
Secondly, the Courts have jurisdiction over fraud in the election process.
Thirdly, even an elected President can be removed by Quo Warranto in the DC Court. That was set by Congress, so they can’t argue about the Courts interfearing.
Just needs someone with standing to do a Quo Warranto in DC.
The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.
I am not a lawyer, but that appears to be a matter of some dispute. That statement appears to depend on whether the Founding Fathers depended on Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns, as the source of their thinking. That document was written in French by a Swiss philosopher, and was not part of English common law. It has been cited frequently as part of the "just war" doctrine, but, AFAIK, has never been used as a precedent for a US Supreme Court decision. It was cited in the dissent in the case of The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. The majority decision cited English common law as stating that, "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject," and held that to be the controlling precedent for US common law.
There is also the obvious precedent of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President. There is some similarity to Obama's situation, since there was a dispute at the time of his election to the Vice-Presidency regarding his place of birth. There were rumors that he had actually been born in Ireland or Canada rather than in Fairfield, Vermont. The fact that his father was a British subject from Northern Ireland, and not naturalized as a US citizen until 1843, was undisputed and did not appear to be an issue to the electorate of the time.