Although the headline of the FR link claims otherwise, there is a legitimate dispute about the phrase “natural-born citizen”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2785458/posts
The Federalist Society has had at least one debate on the subject.
Files of case law for the side Obama doesn’t like have disappeared from the Justia records.
Whichever side is right, is does not make sense for Republicans and others to bring this dispute into a very important election—to their detriment.
I can appreciate the antipathy towards Obama (which I share) and the need to remove him from office (which I also share), but the only forceful case against him is whether he was BORN HERE or not. A legitimate BC would prove that. Venturing into the “Natural Born” definition and how many parents were citizens, will get you nowhere. A complete distraction, waste of time, and providing more fodder for the ‘kook fringe’ narrative. You can talk all you want about “Constitution” “Patriots”, whatever, if you have to pull out ‘majority opinions’ from “infamous” Dred Scott decision to support your point, you are doing a disservice to the Constitution.