The Constitution uses the term "natural born", but does not define it (although the Fourteenth makes it clear it includes people born here unless their parents were here representing a foreign government). If the framers had meant the term to be restricted to those born on US territory, it would have been simple enough to have included language to that effect.
In 1790, Congress, which at the time included authors of the Constitution, made it clear "natural born" applies to children born to Americans abroad, writing in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". So, McCain is all set.
Obama, however, is on thinner ice, should it be shown he was born outside the country. The following is found on a State Department site:
Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen.So, either Stanley Ann needed to be 19 when she had him, or he needs to be a bastard. We all knew the US government likes to reward illegitimacy, didn't we?Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother: A child born outside of the United States and out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year at some time prior to the birth of her child. (NOTE: The U.S. citizen mother must have lived continuously for one year IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OUTLYING POSSESSIONS. Periods spent overseas with the U.S. government/military or as a government/military dependent, may NOT be computed as physical presence in the U.S.).
Actually, I've seen enough versions of that law quoted that I'm totally confused about what it really means.
What does seem clear, however, is that Congress gets to define "natural born", except for those included via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Obama is probably showing the original, off the record and in private, to the mainstream media to immunize himself for future issues. When the right tries to raise a real issue he will remind the media these were the same fools who thought he forged his own birth.That rascally Obama!
And if the case is say — Stanley was flying while in labor and had her baby at some multi-leg turbo-prop waypoint between Kenya and Vancouver, and then days (or even years) later registering his birth as if in Hawaii? And she wasn’t married? What a case to be heard ...
The law is bulletproof. An opinion is here and I believe it is accurate and complete with one small addition: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts
The illegitimate issue is 8 USCA Sec. 1409. As set out in a post on the above thread, that statute became effective for persons born after November of 1986.
The legal bottom line is that if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a citizen and eligible to hold the office of President. If he was born in Kenya, he is not either and there is no way around that answer.
That's in part because Congress keeps changing it.