Our current leader does not meet this requirement. Not only did his father never hold allegiance to the United States, his mother spent most of her working life in the Middle East, almost two decades in Indonesia and Pakistan. About this there is no doubt. How could her son have the bond with the United States our founders thought so important as to require it for just the President and Vice President.
Everyone is afraid, or misinforms of the true significance and meaning of “natural born”. It is not an antiquated notion. Men's allegiances are not easy to ferret. This was the best effort of the founders. We have ignored it, potentially at our peril. I fault Levin for not explaining this subtle constitutional principle with the passion he has shown for our liberty in both of his books.
The complexities of who should have asked, and who now has the legal window to question Obama’s qualifications. Separation of powers was designed for good reasons, and is probably what Obama’s team counted on keeping him in office for a while.
The best analysis I've seen is by a very liberal former lawyer, Leo Donoffrio, who has given up trying to fight the legal system. He does not impugn justices. They no longer have a remedy, and thus cannot take the case except on appeal. If anyone failed, it is probably Congress, which addressed McCain's non-natural-born status last year. The cost of giving up is too great for us; the least we can do is to clarify the issue - removing it from the realm of conspiracy theorists. One doesn't need to find a birth certificate. The importance of allegiance for our leader couldn't be more clear. The president wants another country, and was not born with an allegiance to the one his mother left as a young woman.
Mark quickly blew off the “natural born” issue as a nonstarter and it got no life support cept on blogspot radio and a few tenacious attorneys.
Huge point worth repeating bump, one that the 'RatMedia are at pains to suppress by all means.