Too true that!
BTW, see how much trouble two of our resident legal experts are having coming to an agreement of what the actual question is here?
Never mind a resolution, they can’t quite agree on the problem.
This is why as a political issue it’s a non-starter. Very bright, committed conservative legal experts are confused.
It would be difficult to adequately explain to a typical voter, and near impossible to explain to a committed leftist.
Remember that having demonstrated inability to wrap their heads around the electoral college system, they still think “the shrub” was selected not elected!
What was the purpose? I think as Washington said in related matters -- "To avoid foreign entanglements."
The "natural born" clause is there ONLY because Washington wanted it there. He was a great man.
It is something exactly like the Obama's Dad situation he wanted to avoid. Why? He did not want to have a US President who was a Prince or a son of similar potent family.
Obama, himself, is the marker of the kind of entanglement Washington (and John Jay) wanted to avoid. How is that? When Obama went back to Kenya and campaigned for his cousin!
No, don't say that. It's a complex statute which has been renumbered and amended with effective dates that are sometimes inconsistent with application dates in the statute. And I don't think either of us, certainly not me, are I & N legal experts.
The focus is on Sec. 1409(c) which governs illegitimate children born outside the US to a mother who is a US citizen. Much application to Obama seems doubtful because to get him to (c), you have to make him illegitimate and born outside the US. If you get him that far, doubtful he ever gets close to "naturally born".
But I would like to bury this issue conclusively so that we can say exactly what the law is under any given set of facts as they may develop.