Where the heck have you been? While some of Berg's case is questionable, the essential facts of his parentage - admitted by Obama himself - squarely and decisively place him OUTSIDE of "natural born citizen" status.
To be "natural born" one must be born within the United States to TWO US citizen (but not necessarily natural born) parents. Obama was not, and although (if born in Hawaii) he is definitely a US citizen as a result of the circumstances of his birth and the operation of statute law, he is not and never can be a "natural-born" citizen as demanded by the Constitution as a qualification to the Presidency. That is unless Unless the Supreme Court were to rule against all precedent, and to do that, they would have to agree to hear the case. Basically, under the law as it exists, and conforming to stare decisis, he is not qualified on the basis of self-admitted facts. The Supreme Court would have to take the case to clear the road for his inauguration.
You need to bone up on your legal scholarship, and FR is a good place to start.
This is simply not true. No matter how many FR posts and internet pages keep repeating that it is.
This is still not true. There still isn't a 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' class (a 3rd class) of citizen. This definition of 'natural born' that you keep touting does not exist. How could the FFs have meant this alternate definition when there was no discussion or documentation to support it? The COTUS uses the term 'natural born' and it means exactly what the dictionary says it means: 'having a quality or status from birth.' There is no record of any debate regarding an alternative meaning for the expression and no rational reason to believe that some kind of consensus in accord with your statements was ever achieved. Particularly in light of the absence of any documentation by the FFs supporting your position.
Where does this definition exist in the Constitution or established U.S. case law?
And I am sure you can provide a source for that tidbit on information.
Can we see it?