The birth-certificater's 'means' of trying to cause trouble, but it's not in the constitution contrary to birth-certificater's daily claims. I bet many past presidents didn't have birth certificates at all. I know my aunt never found hers, it was a mystery all her life which was in the USA. Maybe you would send her out on a raft with sharks. Oh no, she is republican. If she were elected you would throw your high horse Constitution argument in the trash (where it belongs anyway) and be preaching ‘democracy’ and democratic process and elections.
Your argument is illogical. You’re suggesting that candidates for president should not have to show their birth certificate because many past presidents didn’t have birth certificates? Why don’t you try that argument today. If you live in California, try applying for a US passport and tell them that you should not have to show your long form birth certificate (as is required in California) because people generations ago didn’t have birth certificates and yet they could still get passports. Or when your child signs up for little league in San Dimas, just tell them that your child shouldn’t have to show their birth certificate because a hundred years ago hardly any one had a birth certificate and they could still play sports.
Logic tells a person that if you’re required to prove something, you should also be required to provide the best evidence. Today, a birth certificate is the best evidence of a person’s birth and in the special case of Obama, a person without a single parent who could legally confer US citizenship, it is an absolute necessity in proving not only that he’s a natural born citizen, but that he’s even a citizen at all!