Do you believe Barack Obama has been honest and open about his past?

Oh really?

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents.

The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

http://nativeborncitizen.word...

...birthers are funny.

Not according to the url you listed.
The MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case applies here in that it does not affect the 14th Amendment (like Kim Wong Ark) but strictly follows article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

"But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1."

The Court clearly defined the natural born citizen statuses and the ways to attain citizenship. The reason it's important is that the POTUS is also the CIC and his allegiance must be irrefutable.

"1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not."
http://naturalborncitizen.wor...

"One case is regarding the 14th Amendment and the other is based on the article2 section 1 clause of the POTUS requirements."

...actually one case where the very nature of citizenship was specifically being addressed, and another whose central focus was on a woman's right to vote (the issue of citizenship only arose in establishing that Minor was indeed an American citizen, and granted all the rights defined by the constitution).

This is all that Minor v. Happersett has to say about citizenship...

The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

----

"Just because you want this case to be the legal precedent in the POTUS argument, it does not it merely corrects an immigration status under the 14th amendment."

Not just me, but the Supreme Court clearly establishes who is eligible to be President by this ruling...

"If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

No American president has been lied about more than Barack Obama since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936. FDR was called every name under the sun, including socialist and liberal -- two labels with which Obama is being tagged now by Republicans, who seem determined to outdo their forbears of the 1936 campaign.
Both Roosevelt and Obama inherited a colossal economic mess created by their Republican predecessors, and both worked to bring the country back. In doing so, both men made significant progress and, in addition, gave us two landmark legislative achievements -- Social Security for Roosevelt and the Affordable Care Act for Obama.
Many of us are grateful for both achievements, but not so the Republicans. They want nothing to do with progressive reform or a president who fulfills his constitutional duty by promoting the general welfare, as is prescribed in our Constitution. Nor do they want any regulation of Wall Street bankers or a sensible tax policy.
Besides the Republican candidates for president, who constantly lie about Obama, we have U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, who "fights Obama at every turn," calls the Affordable Care Act a "socialist policy," gives it the false label of "Obamacare" and vows to fight to repeal it.
Many compromises -- too many to suit me -- had to be made to enact the Affordable Care Act. Only some of Obama's ideas were incorporated into the bill he signed into law; others were advocated by none other than Richard Nixon back in the 1970s. "Obamacare" is a misnomer -- a Republican lie.
Yet, Bachus, who is seeking re-election to Congress for the 11th time, plays on the irrational fears of his constituents by harping on "Obamacare." History will be kind to Obama for signing the Affordable Care Act into law, for saving the American auto industry, for taking out Osama bin Laden and for keeping our country from plunging into an economic abyss. If Bachus gets a footnote, it will surprise me.
David T. Morgan