“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
Parent's is PLURAL, not one BOTH. Obama's father was NOT a US citizen, so no, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Obama's father's allegience was to a foreign country.
| Office | Citizenship | Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| Commander in Chief | natural born Citizen | 35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator | Citizen | 30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative | Citizen | 25 | 7 years a Citizen |
Is it your contention that any person of mixed parentage is not a “natural born citizen” of any country? That hardly seems plausible.
Also, suppose Obama Sr. became a U.S. citizen prior to Obama Jr’s birth, but did not renounce Kenyan/UK citizenship. By your logic, Obama would still fail to qualify as a natural born citizen, despite being born to two U.S. citizen parents, because one of his parents would have owed allegiance to a foreign country (as well as owing allegiance to the U.S.). Do you mean to argue that the child of a dual-citizen cannot be a natural born citizen? If not, why not?
Finally, suppose the identity and/or citizenship of a child’s parent is unknown (an unfortunately common occurrence nowadays) - is that child not a natural born citizen?
I am somewhat limited in my skills, but could you do me a favor and forward your posting to Sean Hannity...He is blind to this and insulted 2 callers and me today with his blow off of what you have presented here. Thanks!
I am somewhat limited in my skills, but could you do me a favor and forward your posting to Sean Hannity...He is blind to this and insulted 2 callers and me today with his blow off of what you have presented here. Thanks!
Both the Arthur precedent and the most court Supreme Court rulings, notably the U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark case of 1898 are totally against your theory.