You should read Professor Chin’s brief and educate yourself on that point.
I would like references for this besides Arther who scammed the electorate by means of poor publicity.
Your opinion is simply not supported by our law Aruanan. There was a bill passed in 1790, a Nationality Act, which made such a claim, but had no authority to do so, and which was repealed in 1795. A child born overseas to citizen parents is born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. There is but one definition for natural born citizenship, that, as is every other term used in our Constitution, came from our common-law, affirmed by our greatest Chief Justice John Marshall, was “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Marshall cites Vattel’s Law of Nations, but the term, synonymous with "Native," was in common use along with its Latin components, jus soli and jus sanguinis. Different nations created variations too numerous to repeat here, but Vattel, our Nation's first law book, was, as Marshall said, the most concise.
Because the case, The Venus, 12 US 253, containing the statement did not depend upon that definition, it was properly called “dictum.” But Minor v. Happersett did depend upon that definition, because natural born citizens were the only citizens defined by our Constitution before 1868. Minor turned common law into positive law, precendt, so there is no other definition.
Citizens can be made by Congress, naturalized, and such a citizen, born overseas to citizen parents is so defined, based upon the 14th Amendment. All citizens defined by law, by US Code, are naturalized citizens. Barack Obama is a naturalized citizen because his mother was a citizen, and because he was born, like every anchor baby, on our soil. John McCain was not born on soil over which the US had soveeignty, whether in Colon Hospital, as the birth certificate posted on the Internet shows, or somewhere in the Canal Zone. A treaty was signed in 1938 asserting US sovereignty over The Canal Zone.
I believe, and would vote had I the authority, for an amendment to include the children of two citizens in the military born on foreign soil as "reputed natural born citizens" as the 1790 bill tried to do, but in which not one of twenty six or twenty seven attempts, has succeeded, amending Article II Section 1. McCain knew that only too well. We owe Obama to McCain's personal ambition.
McCain was not the only candidate who tried. Chester Arthur succeeded in hiding his father's British citizenship. Charles Evans Hughes tried in 1916, but was exposed by a Democrat attorney with a lengthy article in our most popular legal newspaper, for Hughes' having two British parents, and Hughes was a Supreme Court justice. Had he defeated Woodrow Wilson he certainly would have been challenged by Breckenridge Long, who was later in Roosevelt's State Department. We probably would have been better off with Hughes. Ironically Hughes later admitted Minor v. Happersett to the Perkins v. Elg decision, in which Marie Elg, born to parents who were citizen in New York, even though she was raised in Sweden by her parents who left the US repudiating their citizenship, could become president after returning to the US for 14 years and reaching the age of 35. Undoubtedly Hughes knew the law and decided he was above it. Our rights depend upon our being the first nation of laws, not a monarchy, even while the laws do not always impose a justice we prefer. That is why we can change laws. But men like McCain and Obama whom we allow to ignore laws which impeded their ambitions are dangerous, as we can plainly see.