Since you're still entranced by Blackstone and feudalism, I want you to consider the hereditary nature of the British monarchy. I also want you to consider again that first, great Constitutional question taken up by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, in Chisholm v. Georgia.
Justice Marshall famously determined that sovereignty of necessity devolves upon The People in the absence of a monarch. Yet, you have a clear parallel in the Presidency, so there was still an ultimate leader, an Executive, in the republic as constituted.
Return to heredity. How can the sovereign, which is The People, remain sovereign under a powerful Executive? The Executive himself must acquire sovereignty via heredity.
How, again, is sovereignty determined in a constitutional republic? By being indisputably born to The People. So, by law and heredity, one sovereign citizen may lead a sovereign people.
By the law of the land, jus soli. By blood, jus sanguinis. There you have the rationale for the natural born citizen requirement in order to be eligible to lead The People and the military as Commander-in-Chief, under the law and by heredity, with popular sovereignty as first defined by the first great Constitutional question heard, and with accomodation of problems created by the "missing" English monarch via precedent for determination of that monarch applied to the new sovereign.
“How can the sovereign, which is The People, remain sovereign under a powerful Executive? The Executive himself must acquire sovereignty via heredity.”
Um...the People remain sovereign via elections, and the checks and balances provided by a three-fold government. We do NOT remain sovereign by right of having a President born in the USA.
“The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state’s sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country. This amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
You have explained this issue so well! I really appreciate post #339. There can be no doubt, simply given facts that were provided by Obama himself, during the campaign, that he does not meet eligibility. It is so unfortunate that most American’s, myself included, did not understand this, and the IMPORTANCE of it, at the time. I am sick for my part in it! (being uninformed that is...I did not vote for Obama) How will we prevent this from happening in the future when there are those who will site this election as evidence that the rule has changed by virtue of the American people and their willingness to elect someone who was not Natural born?