[atomicweeder]

They acknowledged that they were inelegible to run for president because of that BRITISH citizenship, and lack of natural born status

That's because they were in fact British citizens (not dual citizens) prior to the founding of the United States. Obama is a different matter. Naturally born in the US (we assume) and also possessing of British and/or Kenyan citizenship which he later lost.

The fact that he never acted upon his Brit citizenship and let it expire is irrelevant

It's very relevant. If BO was born on US soil, and no longer has Kenyan or British citizenship, then USSC will comment that he has no split loyalty, and will rule in his favor.

[Mashood]

Donofrios arguement has nothing to do with Obama, it was the status of his father. Since Obamas father was a British subject, Obama is not considered natural born per the Constitution.

[Girlene]

It's very relevant. If BO was born on US soil, and no longer has Kenyan or British citizenship, then USSC will comment that he has no split loyalty, and will rule in his favor.

I'm not so sure. Here's an interesting argument by Judah Benjamin, Divided Loyalties, Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 1. Her line of reasoning goes along with Donofrio's case that Obama is not elegible due to his British citizenship (through his Kenyan father). It is quite long, but has some interesting points about the framer's intent with regard to allegiance and loyalty to the US vs. Britian (or any other country). She also has a part II.