The Constitution may not have specified to whom he had to prove his eligibility, but the answer is simple--all of us--his employers.
Most who want no proof are either Obama supporters (worshipers) who fear he is not eligible, or those who fear the potential civil unrest should he be disqualified.
If the latter is indeed the deciding factor, we have de facto mob rule, without even gathering the mob.
Except that the current law which allows that was passed in the early 1980's. What you need to look at is what laws were in effect in 1961.
The Constitution may not have specified to whom he had to prove his eligibility, but the answer is simple--all of us--his employers.
You cannot make things up as you go along. The fact, unfortunately, is that Obama has done no more or no less to prove his eligibility than any other man elected president. If you want to change that, and I agree it needs to be changed, then you're either going to have to do it at the state or federal level. The federal level is out because of the Democratic congress. Changes at the state level would no doubt meet legal challenges but I think they could be made to stand.
Most who want no proof are either Obama supporters (worshipers) who fear he is not eligible, or those who fear the potential civil unrest should he be disqualified.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I've been asking for proof all along. Any proof, any solid evidence at all that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. To date that has been met with silence. Or bogus, manufactured evidence. Or wild, unsubstantiated tales. But if you come up with solid evidence that Obama is lying and I guarantee you that you'll rip the cover right off the whole matter. And as for fear of unrest, I have no interest in that. I'm interested in the rule of law being upheld and if Obama is ineligible and was elected fraudulently then he needs to go and let the chips fall where they may. But in order to do that you need to prove your case.