You are frothing at the mouth and sounding really stupid. You started out arguing that you had a "legal right" to know certain things that 0bama refuses to disclose even though he has no obligation under the law to disclose the information in the first place. Now you are arguing that 0bama has a legal obligation preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (which he does), but that is different from you earlier point.
What does not change, however, is that neither you nor anyone else has the legal standing to seek his removal from office for failing to uphold his Constitutional duties. Your only rights are to (a) petition the House to initiate articles of impeachment; and/or (b) vote the Big Zero out of office in 2012. These are political remedies not judical remedies. And yes, I am willing to take your "bet."
Nobody is frothing here but you... as you essentially call me stupid (a typical leftist tactic, btw). What I'm getting at, which whooshed over your head, apparently (and you insinuate that I'm stupid?), is that there are actually TWO points, not one.
1. Yes, I do (and yes, we American citizens do) have legal standing re: the question of Obama's eligibility, since every single bill he signs into law would have to be thrown out as unlawful if he were, in fact, ineligible to BE President. As mentioned already in many other posts, it would be a constitutional nightmare/crisis of mega proportions. So yes, we DO have standing to know and or see proof that he is legally in office.
2. The FACT that Obama has failed to uphold the oath he took re: the constitution is grounds alone for impeachment. The founding fathers would probably have already tried and hung him (and half or most of the DemocRats) for treason by now.
I can always tell when I'm talking to a leftie by how they always resort to the insults and patonizing bs. They just can't help it.