[Uncle Chip]

Because, as a matter law, that question is no longer relevant to Obama's current term, at least from the perspective of the Judiciary. This is the concept birthers cannot wrap their heads around, but that doesn't mean the concept is legally defective.

That's fine if that's your opinion for what it's worth.

So given that opinion, the answer to the question won't hurt anything for you or them, will it???

Then we can start with you answering that "meaningless" question:

Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President? Yes or No.

[OldDeckHand]

"Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President?"

Presuming he was born where he says he was born, without question he satisfies the requirements set-forth in Art. II.

[Mr Rogers]

“Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President? Yes or No.”

If he was born in Hawaii - Yes.

He was placed on all 50 state ballots, elected by a majority of voters and the Electoral College, certified by Congress without a single member raising objection, including his opponent in the race.

I would have preferred for the Congress or Courts to define NBC differently, but there you have it. And I understand the arguments that favor interpreting NBC in a way that Obama would qualify, and don’t have a strong objection to them. They strike me as a reasonable interpretation, and certainly strong enough that no court will now define it differently.