Because he was elected by a wide margin. Because the constitution says NOTHING about the long form, contrary to the daily claims of birth-certificaters here.
B) The Constitution says nothing about proving natural-born status at all, so your "long form" saying here is meaningless.
C) In the absence of any constitutional specifics, a challenge to the status of an individual (for any reason) would be adjudicated via statutory law. The posts here show that for much less important and weighty purposes applicants are required to show original long form birth certificates. The real question is why this man refuses to do what any ordinary citizen does as a matter of course when asked, and provide his original long form birth certificate?-
Well, the Constitution says nothing about the long form, that’s true. This is a moral argument. Does anyone have a moral right to hold the highest office in the land while concealing about 20 kinds of vital records, and fighting efforts in court to reveal them? (Especially in a case where one parent was a foreign citizen and international travel prior to the birth was not unlikely.) If no court compels it, I hope that at least by 2012, several states will have passed laws requiring documentation of natural-born citizen status with a long-form birth certificate.
So if he was 32 years old, and had only lived in the US for 8 years, as well as having been born in Australia of Australian citizens, that would be OK with you, just as long as he was elected by a large margin.