My judgment on this topic is somewhat clouded by the fact that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.
The "natural born" requirement has its roots in ancient Common Law and Continental and Roman Law doctrines. There is in fact, significant Common Law authority on the issue which in my view is likely to be viewed as controlling.
As a theoretical proposition, there is significant support for the Father citizen rule and perhaps even for a Two Parent rule. And I don't think subsequent US Citizenship statutes would necessarily overrule these doctrines.
However I am also convinced that in Obama's case, even though you ought to be able to find him ineligible, if the Court concludes he was born in the US, he is almost certainly likely to win. And, on the other hand, if the Court concludes he was born in Mombasa, he is almost certainly likely to lose.
There are in fact also reasons to examine the outcome on the born in the USA facts.
Consider this hypothetical. A current citizen of the US was born in the US. Both parents are US Citizens. The paternal Grandfather was an immigrant and naturalized US Citizen. However under the law of the country of his origin, the current person is also a citizen of that country. Is there an argument the current person is not eligible to serve as President? If so, having reached a signficant age of seniority, is such an argument enhanced by the fact that the current person also holds a Passport from the country of his grandfather's origin?
Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations.
If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC.
I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.
bump to mark the thread
Pinging The List.
I only wish that your dream comes true!
No, some other country's law does not matter. What matters is the citizenship status, as recognized by the US, of the parent or parents, depending on wether you are talking about the "Two parent" or "patrilinal" rule. The fact that both parents of the current person were citizens, even if one was a dual citizen, and that the current person was born in the US, makes that person a natural born citizen.