That makes obozo a citizen but not a natural born citizen. THINK
Yes and your point is?
Article. II.
Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
Are you serious? Can't you read?
Yes I can read can you?
Does Obama Really Meet The Constitutional Definition Of A 'Natural Born Citizen?' - Freedom Outpost
The courts decision states: "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."
Nope. It was just anyone born in the US. Whether or not their parents were citizens was irrelevant. Per the founders, place of birth was the most certain criteria of allegiance. And what applied in the United States. Brtish Common law from which US law was derived used place of birth as it sole criteria for natural born status. If you were born in the country, under its laws.....then even if your parents were aliens, you were natural born.
Nope, not according the Harvard Law. They are saying exactly what I have been saying, if you don't go through the naturalization process, then you are a natural born citizen. That fits with British law and US law.
From Harvard:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1× All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3× and enactments of the First Congress.4×Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5× These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”6× The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,7× a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
