I’d think we’d have to face the circumstance of Obama’s not being a US citizen at all (for which there seems to be a small actual possibility) for standing back to their Senatorial faceoff.
+++++++++++++++
Are you basing that on Ann Dunham not meeting the qualifications of the US Statute in 1961, if BO were born in Kenya, or the subsequent law, which she does seem to qualify under, and is retroactive to 1952 births. Perhaps David can clarify that.
Nevertheless, the SCOTUS needs to clarify if ‘citizen at birth’ = ‘natural born citizen.’ They may choose to PUNT.
Yes, that would be the scenario of birth outside the US with only a too-young Stanley Ann to pass on the citizenship.
That provision was not retroactive, only a provision counting time spent overseas in the miltary or the employ of the US government as time in residence in the US. Thus someone who's father was shipped to Germany in 1953 and married his German mother there and was born in Germany after his father's 19th birthday, would be a US citizen, as of 1986 when the law was passed, but would not have been before.
In reverse order.
The term "natural born subject" is an established common law concept--someone here posted some excerpts from Blackstone the other day; if I ever got into this as a litigator, I know where there is an excellent law library collection of this kind of material.
A natural born subject was a person born subject to the sovereignty of the king of the geographical area where he was born. The framers of the US Constitution simply lifted the phrase and concept as the eligibility test for President but changed the word "subject" to "citizen" because we do not have subjects but only citizens.
A person born outside the geographical limits of the US is subject from birth to the sovereignty of the head of state of the geographical area in which he was born--the founder's didn't want a person subject to someone else's sovereignty as head of state.
It ought to be an easy Constitutional decision to find that the requirement is that a person be a citizen at birth, born in the geographical territory of the US.
There ought to be a number of other constraints--parents as committed US Citizens; no interrupting sovereignty in other jurisdictions; etc.
But the court ought to start with a rule of law based on "born in the USA". Whether they would nor not depends on the skill of the lawyers who argue the case.
In Obama's case, he wasn't born in the US--he was born in Kenya. And he was not a citizen when he was born under applicable citizenship statutes.
The applicable statute says so; although it was changed after he was born, there is a specific effective date clause which makes the modified statute inapplicable to persons born before the cut off date--which Obama was. He doesn't get statutory citizenship under any of these tests. There is an excellent brief I wrote on this topic as a separate post in July of 2008--it is a fairly complete summary.
I don't know why you think it is a small possibility that he is not a US citizen. Let's reverse it--when and under what law did he become a US Citizen?
There is a good chance you might be correct. The only way he is a citizen is if there was a naturalization proceeding. He obviously had an interest in hiding such a proceeding if there was one because on its face, a naturalization proceeding requires as a precondition that he not be a citizen at the inception of the proceeding. Which would vitiate his claim of natural born citizenship.
I know he was not born in the US and is therefore not a Natural Born Citizen. I don't see any indication that he did anything to become a citizen at all and therefore don't think he is one.