Good point Omegadawn. I expect that we will hear the usual arguments to misdirect as anger with Obama grows. I did not realize that there were public arguments as early as 2004. There was the incident, now scrubbed from the Internet, wherein Obama was challenged by Alan Keyes, with Keyes asserting that Obama couldn't run for president and Obama pointing out that it didn't matter since he wasn't running for President! (I was one who heard the discussion, but, not anticipating the aggressive scrubbing of inflammatory evidence, didn't think to save the YouTube video!)
Of course, having every Senator sign a Resolution, SR511, in 2008 affirming that being born of two citizen parents was equivalent to natural born citizenship, makes it clear that both parties are complicit. This now includes the military, which has imprisoned one of a few officers, Lt-Col Lakin, who honored his sworn duty to preserve and protect the Constitution by refusing Obama’s order to redeploy (Lakin has been in combat zones many times). A JAG judge has informed the military that the Officer's oath to preserve and protect the Constitution is inferior to obeying the orders of the Commander in Chief.
One respondent suggested that the Supreme Court will simply define Natural Born Citizenship and the issue will be resolved. That, and I'm not arguing with you, is not what our Constitution intended. Definitions were never intended to be part of the document. Definitions came from our common law at the time of the Framers so that anyone could read and understand the principles upon which the Republic of laws is based. Changes in those provisions may only be made by amendment. A Supreme Court decision which is contradicted by a provision is invalid.
Even English Common Law, Blackstone, depending upon the date of the citation (a charming attribute of English law is its flexibility in that the Royal Court, controlled by Lords, often changes statutes to suit the needs of some member of the Royal Family), requires that parents be natural born subjects in order that the foreign born child be deemed a natural born subject (as Obama was, since his wife became a subject by marriage). But English subjects are not eligible to be King or Queen. In fact, from what little I know about English law, marriage of a Royal to a commoner removes the possibility of succession to the throne.
There is too much agreement from G. Washington, four Chief Justices, 14th Amendment Bingham, and 100 U.S. Senators, that a natural born citizen is born of citizen parents, and on our soil, though the Senators in Apr. 2008 chose not to mention the jus soli requirement. This issue is complex enough to have been successfully obfuscated by the state-run media and the Obots who troll this and other blogs with the mission of derailing clear discussion.
Good post ! McCain based his right to be a Natural Born citizen on the Naturalization and Citizenship act of 1795. CHILDREN OF CITIZENS THAT MAY BE BORN OVERSEAS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN. While this may be a loophole for McCain to claim Natural Birth, There is nothing in the Constitution or our laws that allows a child born to a foreign father and a American mother to claim Natural Born status. I believe that obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not even an American citizen( mother was underage, was not able to convey citizenship in 1961).