Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.
As Ronaldus Maximus used to say, there ARE simple answers just no easy ones.
"Legitimate" (from the Latin lex, legis meaning law) would be grounded in, well, law! Likewise "legitimate grievances."
"National security provisions of the constitution?????" Show me that one as well in the specific language of the constitution. I believe it provable from public documents that Obozo's buddy Bill Ayres and his wife, the former Bernardine Dohrn (whose actual name was Ohrnstein) were born respectively in Illinois and Wisconsin.
He is the son and namesake of the man who became the very wealthy and quite left-wing Chairman or CEO of Com Edison, Illinois's major supplier of consumer electricity and, among the very many valid accusations against Mr. Ayres and and even more against Ms. Dohrn, I have never heard it said that either was not legally a citizen by birth and/or parentage.
Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn WERE founders of the quite criminal Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society and were apparently involved in and responsible for a wide variety of quite serious crimes for which I do not believe either was ever brought to justice. Keeping the two of them out of the country and away from its officers and facilities WOULD be a matter of national security and a great improvement in that security since neither has apparently abandoned the wild-eyed and ultra-radical and ultra-violent intentions of their respective misspent youths. Check them out and I bet you will agree.
Alexander Hamilton (not a particular favorite of mine) was born out of wedlock to a British subject mother resident in the Bahamas and I believe a Scottish merchant father who also resided long enough in the Bahamas to impregnate his mother. He participated notably as an officer under Washington in the American Revolution, as the apparent chief ideologist of the Federalist Party and as one of the major proponents of the constitution. By virtue of the exception contained in Article II, paragraph 5 of the constitution he would have been eligible for the presidency. Now, Marco Rubio, for example, was apparently born in Florida to parents who were not yet citizens. He is no more a threat to "national security" than was Hamilton unless you know something I don't know. McCain is certainly an eccentric excuse for a GOP senator and candidate for POTUS but, whatever his corncucopia of drawbacks, is no national security risk just because he was born in Panama. And so forth.
What is at stake here is not my opinion or thine but the relevant words of the US constitution on eligibility and what the constitution actually says rather than what folks may wish it means. The Founders are entitled to the judicial presumption that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When we deviate from that standard as a society, we join the Elena Kagans and the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the Herod Blackmuns and like in regarding our constitution as being "what the judges say it is" and regarding the SCOTUS as an ongoing self-annointed constitutional convention (see Roe vs. Wade) without any need for ratification by the Congress or by the respective states.
As I have said, my definition doesn't matter and neither does yours. I have no interest in an irrelevant exchange.
My opinion is the Supreme Court owes us a definition of NBC and Congress owes us some legislation that will require eligibility authentication and open documentation of that eligibility to challenge by any registered voter.
Again, the issue is not about what FReepers think, but the fact that our elected officials are sweeping a crucial, yet unresolved Constitutional issue under the carpet.
Everything else is for windbags obsessed with gratifying themselves.