Yes, I’d agree that Obama’s “defect” has been at least suspected and not sufficiently demonstrated otherwise all along.
But as rolling_stone has pointed out, with a link, there has apparently been a doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court that still makes the act of such an illegitimate officeholder legitimate.
If you look back at my post, you'll see that I also posted the same link.
The part I put in bold as follows:
such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
The difference is between "unknown to the public, therefore not protested by the public" and "known to the public, protested by the public, but the ineligible office-holder refused to step aside and quit pretending to be legitimate".
Nothing this bastard has done is legitimate.
...... We therefore hold that the Court of Military Appeals erred in according de facto validity to the actions of the civilian judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Petitioner is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel of that court. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion......
they denied defacto officer doctrine