So he could properly take the oath. It has nothing to do with the birth certicate claims. Nobody in authority is taking any of this seriously. Not the court, and not Obama.
So, it is absolutely essential that Obama meet the requirement of having taken the oath prescribed by the Constitution, but you don't believe that there is a similar absolute requirement that he be a natural-born citizen? By what logic is Obama's authority in question if he doesn't take the oath, but that authority is not in question if he is not a natural-born citizen?
Please don't confuse the issue by telling me what the courts are doing. We need to be talking about what the courts should be doing.