Here ya go...
AP, NYT AND POLITICS.CO.UK MISTATE LAW AND FACTS IN DEC. 1ST REPORTS
The truth of law and history is, however, that a natural born citizen, according to the manner in which this term was intended in the U.S. Constitution, and in 4 Supreme Court Cases ("IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN"), is one who is born in the U.S.A. of two parents, each of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Obama, by the very public fact that he claims a British subject, as his father, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he is a citizen thereof. This legal and historical fact makes his presidency invalid, all his presidential acts unlawful, and his entrance into the office unconstitutional and a usurpation.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
I like this one the most...
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Yet despite my giving these excellent links and articles I get the feeling that you'll find some more ice to skate on, even if it's thin.
BTW, before you go there...I can’t find that any of the cases have been overturned.