Rorinthas:

The problem is that it's not a dead horse. Regardless of where he was born or when (and I really have little if any reason to believe he was not born in Hawaii), Obama's legal response to this situation has created a few horrendous precedents.

To be perfectly honest, this is the courts' fault, not Obama's. Obama and/or his lawyer's number one priority is to get the case dismissed with a minimum of time and expense. If you can get a summary dismissal by claiming the plaintiff has no standing, you'd be an idiot not to go for it. Why should you expect Obama to voluntarily spend time bogged down in court, deliberately handicapping his own trial defense?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It is only the courts that get to make such determinations, because it is the same courts that would try people for violations of the Constitution. Since they're the only ones with the authority to actually punish anyone for violating the Constitution, their determination is the only one that matters.

Sure, you can feel free not to vote for Obama because he made that motion. But he's not violating the Constitution, or at least not doing so in any way that matters in the real world.

Bare assertion. What is the purpose of the oath if the oath isn't relevant to anything?

The oath has whatever meaning the courts say it has. That's just how it works. Any promise is just meaningless words until someone with authority decides to hold you to them. if you want to hold him to a different standard and not vote for him, then that's your choice. But you can't say he violated the Constitution, when the courts, whose job it is to police this, say he hasn't.

Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:
be a natural born citizen of the United States;[8]
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
A person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no eligible person can be elected president more than twice. The Twenty-second Amendment also specifies that if any eligible person who serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once. Scholars disagree whether anyone no longer eligible to be elected president could be elected vice president, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.[9]
Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[10]
Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution prohibits an otherwise eligible person from becoming president if that person swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States. However, the Congress, by a two-thirds vote of each house, can remove the disqualification.

Appeal to authority. No. It doesn't. Do you have any arguments not rooted in logical fallacy to make?

No DE, truth is not determined by authority - it is determined by what is.

When that authority was usurped, and is illigitimate, they are not.