The point of my brilliant, yet humble analysis is that Scotus and precedent have nothing to do with the election of our President, no matter where he was born, or to whom.
In “practical terms” any person born on US soil will never be dis-qualified in future to run for president/vice president. That precedent has been set with Obama signing all the bills passed into laws.
No official group will ever go there because it will null and void every law signed into law by Obama. Never happen in a million years. You can take that to the bank.
I will give you chops for your defense of a federal court reluctance to rule on “political questions.” It is crucial that separation of powers be maintained.
But I believe that SCOTUS has a legal right to and did in fact define natural born citizen in the Minor v. Happersett case. So far federal courts seem to have ruled that the eligibility of a candidate and even an elected candidate can be challenged by a secretary of state at their option or by another candidate (subject to limitations) before he/she is sworn in, but not after.
You do not touch on one way in which Obama could be vulnerable in federal court and that is if Obama gets indicted for criminal fraud for falsifying identity documents prior to being sworn in...documents on which the “political question” of his eligibility was decided.
Donofrio has raised the possibility that agents of Obama conspired criminally to remove citations to Minor v. Happersett intending to materially obstruct vetting by citizens, candidates and secretaries of state.
Here is a hypothetical. Arpaio’s posse investigation concludes that there is sufficient evidence to indict Obama for forging his LFBC .pdf image. This triggers discovery of Obama’s 1961 HI BC which is found to have been forged and that Obama knew fully well that he was born in Kenya.
Given that set of facts it has been argued that because of the fraud, Obama was never actually POTUS and thus not eligible to be impeached under separation of powers. There is precedent in one state of a governor being removed, not impeached, due to never having been eligible to be governor. Bottom line is that the federal courts might not be violating separation of powers if they ruled to uphold simple removal of Obama without impeachment and only they could ultimately approve their authority to do this, if it came to that.
Yes, your analysis is indeed brilliant in OP. And you are also right that SCOTUS has nothing to do with who is natural born citizen (NBC).
Since congress has not passed any bills defining explicitly what constitutes a “NBC” and no president has signed it to make it an official law, it is still an open question.
Should congress pass such a bill, it can still be litigated in the SCOTUS for constitutionality since the CONSTITUTION does not explicitly define NBC. And SCOTUS will never retroactively void Obama election, JMHO. So, from here on any one born on US soil will be NBC. And unfortunately under current system that includes anchor babies.
The only thing for certain from constitution is that NBC is different from naturalized citizen, the only other kind of citizenship available, to my knowledge.