[Raider Sam]

Yes, and until it is proven that something has been violated, there is nothing you can do Constitutionally.

But to the point I made, it does not address who is responsible for determining the President’s eligibility.

[edge919]

But to the point I made, it does not address who is responsible for determining the President’s eligibility.

You didn't read the 10th amendment??

[philman_36]

Does the Constitution lay out the requirements for someone to run for the office of President?
Yes...
So does Obama meet all of those requirements? And with what evidence have you used to make that determination?

...and until it is proven that something has been violated...
Well public admissions as to your Father being a British citizen proves that something has been violated, doesn't it?
...there is nothing you can do Constitutionally.
I'm assuming you can back up your assertion with something more substantial than just "take my word for it", correct?

But to the point I made, it does not address who is responsible for determining the President’s eligibility.
You've made an assertion, not a point.

If the Constitution doesn't address who is responsible for determining the President’s eligibility then who is responsible for ensuring that any office holder is eligible? Members of Congress have requirements too so somebody has to determine if someone running for that office is eligible, don't they? Do they just assume that responsibility of their own accord?
Is it the political parties who bear the responsibility that their candidates qualify or is it someone else?