You are a minority, and there is no case law, since the 14th Amendment, to back you up.
You are now pulling “Natural Law” out of your hat, because you can not win your case based on the 14th Amendment and Congressional Acts and Court cases still in effect, under CURRENT LAW!
sorry for the multiple posts, not intentional
So the founders intended that a child could be born to two foreign parents temporarily in the United States. Those parents could then leave the US and raise the child in some other country. That grown child could then come back to the US and become president. Is that what you are asking us to believe by your definition of natural born?
If so then what would be the point in putting it in the constitution in the first place. You are wrong. It was intended that the president always be loyal to the US and not some foreign country. The reasoning was clear. We can see the horrible effect of doing otherwise with Obama who’s loyalties are not with this country at all.
You are wrong sir:
Here is the law, chapter and verse:
The U.S. Immigration Law that covers the issue of children born abroad to 1 citizen and 1 alien.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)
This applies to Obozo (it was the law at the time of his birth), assuming he is the son of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. and that he was born abroad.
If born abroad with the stated father, he is not even a U.S. Citizen.....
If he was born in the U.S. he would be a citizen by birth, but not a “natural born” citizen.