That's a question that the US courts and their judges do not honestly answer despite numerous Supreme Court cases that give them the natural born citizen definition based on natural law.
That is the major problem with our courts. They are not aware of the relationship between natural law and a natural citizen. This is a forgotten area of law. Today's judges are only concerned with what some previous court has ruled. Original intent is not even on their radar.
That's a question that the US courts and their judges do not honestly answer despite numerous Supreme Court cases that give them the natural born citizen definition based on natural law.
That's delusional. The current state of the law is that a person born in the US is Natural Born for purposes of Article II Section 1--you may not like it but that is the current legal rule under the U S Constitution.
What "numerous Supreme Court cases" give a different definition? Miner? The "we hold that . . . " language is mostly dicta--the plaintiff was born in the US so she was a citizen no matter where her parents were citizens--addition of citizen parentage was irrelevant; and the holding is not relevant to the Article II Sec. 1 issue because the argument was not over the eligibility of the plaintiff to hold the office of President.
And, why should citizenship of the parents make a difference? From our point of view, Rubio would make a great President committed to American Constitutional principles of government and the Judeo Christian ethic as a basis for our legal system. And frankly, I think there is a reasonable probability that Zero will ultimately be found to have been born to a multi generational US Citizen father and thus eligible under any any theoretical argument you might want to make about the relevance of citizen parentage.
The reason why place of birth is important is because the government and the head of state of the place a person is born has the power under international law to assert certain kinds of control over the person throughout the course of their life.
A good example is US tax policy. A German national; successful businessman who has earned billions of dollars of income throughout his life; born in the US in 1946 because his father was a prominent anti-Nazi businessman who was significant in connection with post war reconstruction efforts--the father and mother in New York for several weeks in connection with post war financing plans when the birth occurred; the US Government position is that he was liable for US Federal Income Tax on all of his billions of dollars of income throughout his life.
There is further documentary record that kind of issue was the exact reason for use of the NBC term in the Constitution by the founders.
An easy decision for the Court on this issue and correct on the applicable Constitutional legal principles.
Making this argument a centerpiece of our legal effort has hurt our case badly.
An effective lawyer for our side, making the record before the ALJ, would have focused on the place of birth issue. We have rules about evidence--what facts and sources can used to create an evidentary record before a Court or Administration Law Judge.
Whatever the ALJ might rule, the clear evidence is that the image of a Hawaii birth certificate furnished to support the born in Hawaii argument is not a true copy of a certificate of Hawaii birth records but is instead a fraud. That record can be made sufficiently clear to stand up on appeal.
Thus there is only one class of admissible evidence of the place of birth. Statements against interest are admissible as evidence, either because they are not defined as hearsay or because they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule depending on the status of the person making such statements as a party or interested witness or other factors defined by local law; and further depending on local law as to definition.
Over the years, there is a pretty clear record of statements by Zero that he was born in Kenya. A number of people heard him make those statements--in political coffee hours; in one on one coversation; in public speeches; and he is responsible for publications which attribute the fact of his birth in Kenya to him.
The only legal evidence on the question of where he was born are his own statements against interest.
Now I tend to doubt that he was born in Kenya. But a legal record on appeal on this basis would ultimately put the burden of proof on the question of his place of birth on Zero--in order to defend his eligibility to hold the office, he would need to appear and prove that he was in fact born in the United States which I also tend to doubt that he can do.
In short, effective legal work on this case should have been the key to our success.