1) To be president requires jus soli - born in the country - and jus sanguinis - born of citizen parents.
2) Obama told us in two books and on his website that he was born to a British subject - not a citizen - and was thus himself a British subject by the British Nationality Act of 1948. That event makes him a natural born subject of the Crown.
QED (That is what was to be demonstrated) A natural born citizen is “born in the country to citizen parents.” Every senator assented to that definition in 2008. Judge Michael Chertoff made the "two citizen parents" statement when he signed a supporting statement to Senate Res 511. Legislators will cover their behinds, but are protected from lies - unfortunately. Obama and Bob Bauer (Anita Dunn's husband) can delay release of documents for ever, or until the public doesn't care. We have the most important Constitutional information we need, from Obama himself. Chasing documents is a dead end.
There does not need to be the discovery of a birth certificate. It wouldn't hurt, but it isn't necessary. Reaching discovery can be stalled by complicit (frightened) district judges. Obama told us he was in violation of the Constitution. Just because McCain is suddenly uncertain about the meaning of natural born citizen doesn't mean Tea Party members, or Hillary supporters (Berg), or even libertarians need be. This is government "by the people" as our legislators are finding out.
If Obama doesn't immediately resign, which is what I anticipate, the demand for documents will come out. If there are other criminal charges the demand for documents will come out. If he suddenly discovers that his father was not Obama I, the demand for documents will come out. But Obama himself provided the direct path to his removal, perhaps presuming that he and his supporters had already so weakened constitutional interpretation that people would say “Oh, OK; perhaps one citizen parent is enough.”
Not only is natural born citizenship defined in Vattel, the most cited legal reference during the writing of our Constituion, and until after 1821, it was a standard introduced to Parliament in 1580 and confirmed by Lord Coke in Calvin's case in 1608 “...any person born with the king's dominion beame the king's subject at birth, provided that his parents were at the time under the actual obedience of the king.” This was English common law when our Constitution was written. Our founders cited Vattel because, I believe, it was a more general statement and our nation would elect its kings, requiring particular scrutiny of a candidate's allegiances. But don't bother with the wild goose chases suggested by Obots based upon our presumed adherence to Blackstone - English common law.
Impressive knowledge of history and law you have there. Are you an attorney, a historian?
I agree with you but there is a populist political component to the ‘contest’. You mentioned a weakening resolve to strictly interpret the constitution. Donofrio I believe is still pursuing your angle of attack but there is enormous populist political weight in the fact that Obama is delaying that simple document.
With Climategate, Obamacare, Government Motors, deflation, high unemployment and a slew of other painful developments culminating in a resultant anger I have not witnessed ever, I think the public boiling over to this issue is emminent. The history and law here seems as vapor for now, but the weight of public anger can catalyze recognition of history and application of the law.
Look how many scientists have come out in the open against AGW since the unauthorized release of the East Anglia emails, documents and data.
So it is with this ineligibility issue. Judges, politicians snd media pundits are ‘afraid’ to talk of the BC or of the Kenyan-born/British subject revelation and relevance.
But as soon as the BC is pryed out from the vault, the cowards of today will be bold legal warriors.
Hence we need the drama of the BC played out.