OK, I read Perkins v Elg, the syllabus as well as skimming the decision.
Where do you get from it that Obama doesn’t qualify as a natural-born citizen?
My reading is that it supports his claim to be a natural born citizen.
In fact, the court approvingly cites an Attorney General’s ruling with regard to the son born to a German citizen who was naturalized as an American, then returned to Germany and resumed his German citizenship. On reaching the age of 20 the son attempted to refuse service in the German military on the basis that he was an American citizen.
The court cites, “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States...”
From what I can tell, there is absolutely no distinction in US law between the terms “native-born citizen” and “natural-born citizen.” They were used interchangeably in common law and in other Supreme Court decisions.
If you have some portion of this decision that invalidates Obama’s qualification, please point it out.
Personal opinions on what “natural-born citizen” SHOULD mean don’t count.
I added that post from Saloon letters because that just shows how stupid these lefty’s are!