Because he’s fooled a lot of very gullible people. We’ve been over this several times. You’re trying to make a circular argument that being president means you must be eligible. The premise is false. Don’t make this so easy.
There is nothing the least bit “circular” about historical fact. There are two constitutionally mandated steps to being the duly elected president: (1)certification of the winning candidate’s electoral votes (12th Amendment); and (2) taking the oath of office at the swearing in ceremony o (Article 2, Section 1). With regard to Barack Hussein Obama II, Vice President Cheney fulfilled requirement one and Chief Justice Roberts fulfilled requirement two.
The Constitution says not one word about removing an allegedly ineligible person once their Electoral College votes have been certified and they have been sworn in. The constitutional process to remove a president is impeachment by the House and conviction in a trial by the Senate for high crimes and misdeameanors.
There have been 74 legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility thus far. None has succeeded and the vast majority have been dismissed on justiciability grounds for lack of standing. The fact that no plaintiff who might possibly have standing has bothered to sue, enter any existing suit as co-plaintiff or even file an amicus brief in support of any lawsuit says it all to me.
The legal brief focused on standing not eligibility. They know better than to make a claim they can't support.