There certainly was.
But ALL of it had to do with his birthplace -- a reasonable speculation that he was not born in a Hawaii hospital, but in Kenya, or Canada, or someplace else.
NONE of it had to with his not being a "natural-born citizen". That didn't come up until after he was already elected.
So, my question remains "Why was there no static raised by anybody -- among the hundreds of thousands of lawyers, jurists, political observers and self-described constitutional experts, such as yourself -- regarding his known-to-be Kenyan father?"
If it was such a clear breach of the constitutional specification, why did nobody broach it until after the question was moot?
You are completely missing the point.
Obama and the Democrats have successfully re-defined the NBC eligibility requirement as one of Jus Solis in the minds of the American public. Even you have bought into that to some extent.
A canine born to poodle parents is a poodle. A canine born to a pug and a poodle is a mongrel/mutt. Both Obama and Cruz lack the pedigree necessary to meet the eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution no matter where either of them is born.
Because the Democrats and Obama got away with it, does not mean that Cruz should also. In fact the Democrats are ready to challenge Cruz on this issue and will win assuming a timely challenge.
The Democrats are much more bold in twisting the law to their advantage while denying the Republicans......read “Rules for Radicals” its their “bible.”
as to your questions, as I have said, I’m not about to defend the Republican (stupid) Party to you. The RNC is one reason Trump is so popular across America. The other is the lawlessness of Obama nd the Democrats.