Yet, you pretty sure of saying the system worked, yet here you admit there are obvious flaws. So how can you have certainty about the system??
I don't agree with your suggestion that we can avoid all possible mistakes by entrusting the Supreme Court to measure the qualifications of our presidential candidates.
I never said we could avoid "all possible mistakes" nor did I say anything about "entrusting" the Supreme Court. I gave what the Constitution says about the powers of the judicial branch, and I followed with citations on state laws that allow eligibility to be reviewed by someone other than the electors or by the voters through by way of a process other than casting a vote.
After four years of very public "birther" investigations and legal research, Chief Justice Roberts accepted an invitation to administer the oath of office to Obama less than two months ago.
This doesn't mean anything other than what I said: a protocol exists, and Roberts understood he cannot unilaterally do anything to interfere with or go ouside the legal process.
I also believe that if the other justices had agreed with your two premises, they would not have showed up at all. I think you ought to consider the implications of their conduct.
This is a ciruclar premise. That conduct doesn't make Obama eligible for office. It shows that these people have respect for protocol and the presumed responsibilities of their public offices.