Let me try again...this is lengthy but seems to address your concerns and well...take a read, let me know what you think
In order to be eligible and qualified to serve as the President of the United States you must be a “natural born” citizen, be at least 35 years of age and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5).
But what is a natural born citizen? You’d think that THIS would be the question being asked by the media...
There is difference between “naturalized” and “natural-born” American citizenship. Legal precedent on this distinction is a bit murky; while “naturalized” citizenship, “native-born” citizenship, “citizen at birth” status and American citizenship in general have been addressed several times by the Supreme Court, American “natural born” citizenship never explicitly has.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defined natural-born status in this way:
“The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
Note that is says citizens, plural. But this Act was revised five years later, and then excluded the phrase “natural-born.” While this act speaks specifically to those born outside of the US, it does seem clear that our founding fathers saw a “natural-born” citizen as a child of two US parents.
Those who seek to simplify or dilute the definition of “natural-born” frequently point to the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. That case was about:
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court for this case (which is what sets precedence) did not explicitly comment on the definition of “natural born citizens.” Instead, they simply said:
“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [’citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’].”
And they quite intentionally referred to Kim as “native born” instead of “natural born” throughout the ruling.
This precedent speaks nothing to the definition or application of “natural born citizenship,” especially as it pertains to the presidency. It does however, address “naturalized” citizenship.
Perhaps the closest the courts have come to defining “natural-born” citizenship was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 167–68):
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
The U.S. law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of “natural-born” citizenship - one which confers “natural-born” status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama’s American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of “natural-born.”
Where does this leave us? Well, we know that a child born of two US citizens on US soil certainly is a “natural-born” citizen. We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14). There is no clear precedent to extend the definition beyond that. So to those MSM who have so actively said, “He was born in Hawaii to an American mother, case closed!” - think again!
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (a U.S. citizen) and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (a National of Kenya and, therefore, subject of the United Kingdom). There is no American precedent which specifically suggests that “natural-born” citizenship might be conferred to a child of dual nationalities. Congress or the Supreme Court could easily make such a ruling so as to define “natural-born” status as conferred simply by being born on US soil, but doing so would not retroactively make Obama a natural-born citizen.
Yet, as I said earlier, legal precedent regarding the specific definition of “natural-born citizenship” is quite murky. Far be it from me to issue a finite definition of the term. All I’m seeking to prove here is that there is no justification for the self-righteousness I’ve seen in the MSM and other critics of the birther movement who assume that simply being born in America means one has “natural-born citizenship.” The people who make such suggestions only show their very limited knowledge of the legal precedent.
So, the question of whether or not Obama is, definitionally, a “natural-born” citizen is the first concern of those “crazy birthers.” It’s a concern, by the way, which is entirely unrelated to any conspiracy whatsoever. It’s merely a question of legal precedent. Doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy to me... it’s a pity the Supreme Court won’t hear any case bringing this issue up. Why? The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens don’t have “standing” to sue their president for this info. Why? Because a private citizen is not “uniquely damaged” by this problem. Lovely, right? God forbid the Supreme Court be asked to make a difficult decision on a matter of Constitutional definition which could massively effect the entire country...
http://conservativebrawler.blogspot.com/2009/07/those-crazy-birthers-obama-eligibility.html