There’s no proof that would convince you; of that I’m certain. After all his twisting and gyrations trying to avoid releasing any proof for the last 4 years? Yeah, you are probably right. Had he simply came out with it in the summer of 2008, it would likely now be a non-issue, but he behaved like someone who had something to hide, and so now the presumption of trustworthiness is gone. I wouldn't say "no proof", but I would say that it would have to be very convincing.
But Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that he’s eligible.
He doesn't have to prove he's eligible NOW. He DID (past tense) have to prove he was eligible, but because all 50 states (and DC) have INCOMPETENT election officials, they let him onto the ballot because they didn't do their jobs.
"You don't need to see his Identification." 
Why do you keep misstating my point? My point is, and has always been that 50 state election officials DID NOT DO THEIR JOB COMPETENTLY. They simply accepted the word of this stupid hag that he is qualified.
You can go on talking about how this court, or that body did this or that, but it continues to dodge my point. My point is simple. We have yet to see any proof that the man is qualified to hold the office which he is currently holding.
After the fact pronouncements by sundry officials do not constitute PROOF. Your argument keeps boiling down to "He got away with it, so there!" Please address my point, and stop gleefully posting all the examples of ex post facto people saying he doesn't have to prove his credentials.
As long as scores of actual, real life, official, statutory Triers of Fact are satisfied with the proof that they’ve been shown, that’s what matters. The Obama campaign posted a Hawaii birth certificate to the Internet in June, 2008. The state of Hawaii issued two confirmations of that document in October, 2008 and in July, 2009.
Obama then posted a copy of the long form birth certificate to the Internet in April, 2011. Three Certified Letters of Verification for that document were issued for the Arizona Secretary of State, the Kansas Secretary of State, and a Mississippi federal judge.
“The state of Hawaii has said that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Speaker John Boehner.
Rhodes v. MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
Your personal belief that there hasn’t been proof is irrelevant.
My point is also simple, as long as those with standing: the losing candidates in an election, don’t challenge the eligibility of the winning candidate, no court, no legislative body and no state election official is going to overturn the results of an election. If a voter didn’t believe that Obama was eligible, they had the option of voting against him.
To date there have been ZERO statutory, official criminal investigations looking into forgery, identity theft, document tampering or any other alleged CRIME associated with the publicly available vital records for Obama.
There have only been allegations and press conferences by a volunteer posse’ in Arizona.