The story is not quite over because there are still lawsuits against BHO’s eligibility. The Quo Warranto provisions apparently can take care of the situation you cite as closure in that these apply to situations where office holders hold office because of fraud. I would guess that in case of Quo Warranto an issue might well be why were the facts about BHO not questioned or debated; granted such an issue might be so troublesome that courts will comtinue to stay far away. Perhaps Dr.Taitz’s Quo Warranto along with other’s pleadings will be a new story in USA history.
Oh come on!
There were rivers of ink (or electrons) spilled before the special joint session that certified Obama's election.
Almost every Member of Congress or Senator had at least HEARD of the controversy. President of the Senate Cheney, who signed the papers, knew all about it. President-Elect Obama had an unprecedented meeting with the members of the Supreme Court prior to his inauguration.
If one Member of Congress and one Senator had signed an objection, there would have been a floor debate. None did so.
If Vice President Cheney had objected, there would have been a floor debate. He did not do so.
If Chief Justice Roberts had been concerned, he could have demanded documentary proof. He did not do so.
This question is, at its root, a nonjusticeable political question. ALL of the political branches, including the Electoral College, the Congress including ALL Republicans and the Republican Vice President/President of the Senate had the opportunity to object to Obama's certification and they did not do so.
The doctrine of nonjusticeability of political questions is fundamental to a Republic. The breach of this doctrine in Bush v. Gore was a serious error, which will not be repeated. This question has been over for more than a year, and I see no possibility that an Article III court would intervene at this point.
It's over.