Comment: Here's the way I look at it.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't think it is "over his head" (see in situ)

Here's the way I look at it.

If a person is willing to ignore one part of the Constitution for "pragmatism", then why not ignore the entire thing?
Either Obama meets the Constitutional requirements, or he does not.
It's not a matter of which parts of the Constitution somebody wants to ignore.
It's a matter of adhering to all of it.

Is it consistent do demand a Congressional declaration of war in order to commit troops to a military action, and then ignore the part where the Commander in Chief is determined to be legally qualified to serve as President?

This idea being floated about "we have bigger fish to fry" is very interesting indeed! What bigger fish are out there, than adhering to the Constitution? Is having an illegal occupant of the Presidency some kind of "minor issue" to you?
If so, just how much of the Constitution do you propose to ignore?