I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's a little awkwardly phrased. There is a legal precedent for defining presidential eligiblity. What we don't have is specifically defined process for enforcing Constitutional eligibility ... other than to keep ineligible candidates off of ballots at the state level. Courts have been involved in nullifying ineligible candidates and office holders before, but never at the presidential level. Congress is too partisan or too chicken to take matters properly into their hands, and courts obviously are just as hesitant. But there should be no reason for any state or court to hestitate about leaving a candidate off of a ballot if there's ANY doubt about that person's eligibility. If that candidate doesn't like it, he or she can sue for reinstatement on the ballot, which puts the burden of proof COMPLETELY on that candidate. If that were the case with Obama, he'd be gone yesterday because the Kenyan Coward™ cannot legally prove he is a natural-born citizen.
Going around the barn to get to the hen-house keeps the chickens quiet till the fox is at the door.
Using BO lack of producing a legit/certified birth document in a court of law to trigger the desired outcome.
Let him sue the State of Indiana for ballot access after we've thrown his sorry donkey off.