For PJ, having introduced us to Thomas Paine, there is another answer, and it may be the one of the few peaceful ones. It is that we educate citizens who have been intentionally confused by ‘agitprop’ - political operators who plant all sorts of rumors, and whose purpose is to confuse.
Barack Obama never told us, or anyone, that he is a natural born citizen. Obots would like people to remain confused, and cite Supreme Court cases which they know most won't read, and make assertions that they know most won't, or can't, take the time to research.
Obots use sophistry, telling people there was never a Constitutional definition for the phrase ‘natural born citizen.’ That is sophistry because there was never a Constitutional definition for any phrase or term, unless you want to call the restriction on 'Treason' a definition. In that case, there is but one definition. Our framers did not want the Constitution's value, which is its ideas, to change as language changes over time. They created the document to be understood by any literate citizen. Madison specified that it is to be understood, as Chief Justice Waite explained when he confirmed that common-law definition for natural born citizen, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” Justice Waite was establishing the initial conditions for turning “born on the soil to parents who were its citizens” into positive law.
The reason political parties, neither one, will touch it is because both concealed the illigitimacy of their candidate. The Democrats went to remarkable trouble to cover up McCain's ineligibility, with two senate actions in two months, S.2678 in Feb 2008 and Sen. Res. 511 in Apr 2008. S. 2678 is called the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, and was sponsored by Clare McCaskill and Barack Obama. Sen. Res. 511 was sponsored by McCaskill, Obama, Leahy, and Clinton, and said ““Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.” It was unanimous, and Obama, who has never claimed to be born to citizen parents, was one of those signing. Both parties are complicit. Both are filled with career politicians for home the gravy train takes precedence over law and the Constitution, and who hold the public in such small esteme they both play the Alinsky games, calling anyone questioning their re-definition of who is eligible, from those born on our soil to citizen parents, to anchor babies, born on our soil, and potentially born to Al-Queda Jihadists, living in a cave in Arizona until their order eliminate the nonbelievers arrives. Our framers were not stupid enough to allow such and interpretation, but both political parties don't think you'll notice. They'll call you 'birthers' if you even ask, and authorititavely mis-cite case law, most recently, pretending that State courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution, citing Ankeny, an error-filled Indiana decision which contracdicts Suprme Court precedent.
PJ, your discovery of the remarkably elegant summation of why we require, but only for our president, someone, ”of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, as 14th Amendment author Bingham put it. Our orators have been silenced for fear of the mob, or for their incomes, but we have the words of many orators, such as Tom Paine. Part of the Paine quote from his response to Edmund Burke in 1790, from “The Rights of Man” is worth repeating:
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.”
Obama was born a British Subject. He told us he was a 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen. To be president, according to Bingham, Chief Justice Waite, Chief Justice Marshall, and Chief Justice Hughes, in 1939, citing the difference between a native-born citizen with alien parents and one with citizen parents, determined that Marie Elg was a natural born citizen, not just a native-born citizen, because her parents had naturalized before she was born in New York.
Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen as the Supreme Court defined it in Wong Kim Ark. To satisfy the subject clause, one needs to be born to resident aliens. Obama Sr. was never a resident alien and his wife could NOT be because of the law of nations, as quoted by Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont:
The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. These political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.
The political rights (such as losing national character) of married women (and children) do NOT stand upon municipal law, but stand on the principles of the Law of Nations. At best, the only thing Obama can claim is statutory citizenship through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.