Where the entire subject of constitutional eligibility slides into a gray zone, is over the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen".
People who want to view this issue through a lawyer's lens come down on the side that Obama is natural born, simply on the strength of his alleged COLB. They insist that because his mother was an American citizen, then Obama is too, and that he is thus "qualified" to be our President.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Although the Framers didn't include a glossary with the US Constitution, they spoke and wrote at length about what they considered a natural born citizen to be, and why it was important for our Chief Executive to be a natural born citizen. The concept is clearly spelled out in their utterances on the matter.
The question we have before us now, is, does Barack Obama meet the Framer's standard for being a natural born citizen?
I posit that he does not, by the most basic facts of his birth. He was clearly born to parents of two different countries. The Framers created the natural born citizen description precisely to avoid ever allowing someone like him to ever assume the office of President.
We can continue to look at this issue through the lawyer's lens, and allow this man to continue as Chief Executive, noting all the time what damage he is (predictably) doing to our republic - or we can look to the thoughts of the Framers for guidance. Their guidance on this issue is clear, and calls to us across more than two centuries of history, loud and clear.
Barack Obama is not qualified to be our President, and should be removed before he causes everlasting damage to our country.
Too late to do anything besides stop further lasting damage. He's already caused plenty of that.