But that is the November 14, 1986 version of the rules. Wikipedia notes that different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before that date. It goes on to note United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law as it existed at the time of the individual's birth controls.
So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?
(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)
Here is a link to a legal opinion which sets forth the nuances of the law and the effective dates of the relevant modifications: "Obama and McCain: Citizenship And Eligibility--Legal Issues Vanity | July 4, 2008 | David"; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts
There are two holes in the opinion as set forth. The legal research engine I had when I wrote it does not reach the effective date of the modification that took the "after age" cut off from 16 to 14--since Stanley Ann missed, even if the age was 14, I have not viewed it as a relevant question.
The significant change took the period from 5 years to 2 years--as set out in the opinion, that change covered persons born after November, 1986 and thus does not affect Obama.
The other hole is 8 USCA Sec. 1409(c) which governs persons born out of wedlock which I now believe is irrelevant to Obama's situation.
I don't view the newspaper clipping as dispositive in any way. In fact, I have forecast that we would find evidence of a filing around August 8, 1961. The issue is what the underlying facts are.
Someone on the mother's side, either Stanley Ann or one of her parents, was concerned about the citizenship issue and took steps to address it.
It would be helpful if someone would look at the other Hawaii newspapers for the period of the first two weeks of August 1991 and determine if the announcement is anywhere else, perhaps with additional information.
The local title company could look at the address given in the note and determine who was in title on that date--maybe find a lease.
An increasingly important question for the Hawaii authorities is the data underlying the August 8, 1961 filing--at what hospital was he born? Who delivered him and how? I continue to believe that is the reason the campaign is concealing the birth records and obstructing access to Mrs. Dunham Sr. and to Sarah in Kenya.
However, if you or others are alleging falsifying documents either by his mother, his grandmother, or his father, that is another matter altogether. That is, of course, criminal activity.
One of my children was born overseas and both traveled with us abroad as children. Other than telling them they were travelling again, I told my children very little about why they were having their photographs and fingerprints taken again, or getting shots, and I made especially sure that they never had physical custody of any critical paperwork for any longer than absolutely necessary for fear it would be lost. And no one, including me, ever explained the nuances of citizenship law to them. It wasn't necessary: they had been told they were US citizens, end of discussion.
Consequently, assuming these supposed illegal acts occurred, I'm not sure how much blame I'd attach to him personally for them up to the point of majority.
Subsequent to that, of course, he owns the acts and any falsehoods told to cover them up.
I read through the opinion you provided at the link and have no problems with it except this part:
The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.
I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.
In the Cornell University Annotated Constitution, there is this note in the discussion of Marbury v Madison:
"Finally, the Chief Justice noticed the supremacy clause, which gave the Constitution precedence over laws and treaties and provided that only laws “which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution” are to be the supreme laws of the land."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag29_user.html)
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on citizenship and naturalization.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on the operation of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court is not going to say the 1790 Congress, one consisting of many of the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution, somehow had forgotten their original intentions when the language in Section II,Article I, Clause 5 of the Constitution was drafted.
The Supreme Court is not going to say that, in the naturalization law passed by the Congress in 1790, the one ascribing "natural-born" citizen status to children of US citizens born overseas, that the Congress had somehow forgotten what it meant by "natural-born" just three years earlier.
And finally, the Supreme Court is not going to effectively bar forever, in defiance of the 14th Amendment, millions of present and future otherwise "natural-born" United States citizens from election the highest office in the land just because of where their United States citizen parent(s) were when the labor contractions came.