Since the argument is that he needs to release various documents to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency, what else could be at issue? The only other qualifications are age and U.S. residency.
And I presume no one is asking Obama to prove that he is over 35 and has lived in the U.S. for over 14 years. Citizenship status is all that's left.
You are both a little short sighted on what we are after.
So I ask again:
Do you care that Barry O. has had his entire record of life activity lost or sealed and does his unexamined life arouse any curiousity in you?
Funny you should ask that. I posted this on 17 December of last year:
2. Fourteen years a resident of the United States??? The Constitution requires that the President have been a resident of the United States for the past fourteen years. But BO has, for the past four years, been living in no state at all, but in the District of Columbia. And before that? Texas has people who think that, because of some paper work foul up in the Annexation in 1846, Texas is not a State, but still an independent republic. What of Illinois? Maybe there was some paper work foul up with the Treaty of Pairs in 1763, and Illinois is still a French Colony. Has anyone looked into that?
Are either of these issue meritorious? No. But they aren't much worse than the birth in Kenya, or Canada, or wherever argument. And at least they make for a change of pace.