Replies

“Here is a better piece of historical evidence that I just found:

Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
New York Times
Published: July 20, 1859

[H]ere none but a native can be President…A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born… They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the government of the United States…One of the never did owe featality elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. [end quote]

And there is so much more:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0C13FB34551B7493C2AB178CD85F4D8584F9

See also: THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION.; THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEFINED. Important Offical Paper.
New York Times
Published: July 15, 1859

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60C14FB34551B7493C7A8178CD85F4D8584F9

126 posted on Friday, March 18, 2011 8:41:21 PM by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)”

Lucy, Those official opinions are cited well into the 20th century by the US Govt & the courts in the 1950’s just prior to Obama’s supposed birth (1952-1959). Therefore, Obama is not a citizen per the 14th because at his birth, he was a British subject & not exclusively “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US as required by the Constitution to be POTUS. There are references after 1961, however they are not needed because we are only dealing with citizenship at birth.

THANK YOU HARVARD LAW ARCHIVES!