Well, before you were sticking to British common law. You need to make up your mind.
Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.
Hope this helps.
Well then as Justice Gray noted in the Ark case: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."
So under precedent established by English Common Law, Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the U.S. Under British law at the time, he also had British citizenship. Under U.S. law he was a natural born citizen. One does not negate the other.
Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.
And where does the Constitution say that?
Hope this helps.
Not at all.