Oh, not this sh*t again!
You post: "the President-elect MUST present evidence..."
Now, AFAIK, NO President-elect, from Washington to little Bush has done this. It's never been asked for, and it's never been voluntarily presented.
There is no specification in the Constitution, as amended, and there's no enabling legislation in the US Code.
So how on Earth can you possibly sustain the claim that Obama MUST do what you want him to do?
This is a good point that a lot of people have missed.
The US Constitution is an "enabling" document. Think of it as a "requirements statement" -- if you are familiar with contracting.
Laws must be separately enacted to achieve the requirements set out in the Constitution. And the judicial branch is suppose to determine the Constitutionality of a particular law by whether it meets or conflicts with the requirements in the US Constitution.
The US Code doesn't say that the President has to present evidence of being a natural-born citizen, mostly because it's never been an issue until now. There are some efforts to rectify that before the next Presidential election.
It's a bit complicated because the Electoral College effectively creates 51 different elections, and the results are combined. So, each individual state has to enforce this requirement. Theoretically, a few states could enact the requirement into law and be ignored by an ineligible candidate -- because he doesn't need their electoral votes to win.
It's not "me" wanting him to do this. It's the Constitution DEMANDING that he do this. Read it again. It CLEARLY refers to the "president elect" and that "qualifications" be met. Since he is "president elect", these "qualifications" cannot be whether or not he has enough electoral college votes. The only "qualifications" remaining that are not health related are the eligibility requirements found in Article two.
The term "shall have met" at the end of section three in the twentieth amendment clearly places the burden of meeting these requirements on the person seeking to serve as president. If the Constitution itself isn't good enough to force this action, then there is no law at all.
The fact that this has never occurred before is irrelevant. The fact that "qualification" is REQUIRED before being a legally serving president is.
We, the people are in charge, according to the constitution and we have a right to demand that it's rules are obeyed. Breaking an oath to defend and protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic by violating it's requirements is grounds for impeachment.