I would like to see/know some means or indisputable mechanism given by the Constitution as the ‘supreme’ means by which Obama could be removed from the office of POTUSA. I am wondering why the Founders used the word ‘under’ in Article III Section2 when addressing the power of the SC instead of a common word such as ‘concerning’. I can take such wording to have meaning that the Constitution is ‘over’ the SC and that takes me to the Preamble that says upfront ‘We The People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union........ do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’. Looking at it this way it seems Congress has to take an issue with POTUSA to the people. I think Obama and his enablers recognized a convoluted action would be necessary to remove him.
There was a guy named Charles Gordon who wrote an essay back in 1968 when Mitt Romney's dad was running for president that talked about how it would be nearly impossible to stop an ineligible candidate from getting elected (if popular enough) because of the legal standing hurdles and because of how the impeachment process is so political. It's almost like it was an Idiot's Guide for Ineligible Candidates, and Obama, the 'brilliant' law student at Harvard most likely read this essay and developed a plan to do just that. It certainly helped that Bush was so unpopular with liberals and that liberals are so easy to sway because they are so impulsive and irrational. This made that much easier for Obama to galvanize support to help overcome any questons about his ineligibility.