The two citizen parent NBC issue failed to gain traction in the courts, in legal academia or with the public before, during or after the 2008 election. I agree with you that if Obama was born a UK subject, he is not NBC by blood, but NBC by soil (territory is OK IMO) is also required, IMO. They both count, IMO. I do not believe it is logical to say that only soil or only blood matters. They both matter.
Obama has failed to submit to any court evidence of who his father is (pixels on factcheck don't count, vague references by HI officials don't count), yet you assume that his father is BHO Sr, and that Obama’s birth was governed by the 1948 BNA as claimed by liar Obama.
The 1948 BNA does not convey UK citizenship to illegitimate children, but you assume legitimacy despite clear evidence that Obama Sr. by his own admission in letters in archives was married to Kezia before, during and after alleged Dunham marriage. If the HI marriage was bigamous, Dunham was legally single and her illegitimate child would have unitary US citizenship if born in HI.
The only clear fact that I can attest to is that Obama is intentionally and suspiciously withholding his original 1961 HI vital records. I advocate maximum pressure to compel Obama to release his original HI vital records. What is contained in those records will only make possible the next level of forensic investigation into his eligibility.
“Traction” is not the issue. Just because the White House ignores Judge Vincent doesn't mean Obamacare is therefore constitutional. While we have free speech, it is critical that we use it to inform others of the truth. The state-run media, and a remarkable number of our ruling class, lied about what they knew of the circumstances in Egypt (and some were raped and beaten for their ignorance).
You have an “opinion” about eligibility, but why not learn and trust facts?
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Those are words from Congressman John Bingham, before the House as he explains his bill, the 14th Amendment prior to its passing. There has never been another interpretation; dozens of justices have substantiated the “never doubted” definition.
Here is founder, President of the States United, before the ratification, one of our first historians, explaining birthright citizenship, another name for natural born citizenship, in his Dissertation on ....Citizens of the U.S., Dr. David Ramsay in 1790:
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
These are the words of one of our founders, and thus the interpretation familiar to our framers - our common law. They didn't assume that children born on our soil, of parents who died before the revolution, were birthright citizens. That category, the most restrictive as to trust in allegiance, is only used for our president and vice president. The British wouldn't permit anyone not a natural born subject to be in Parliament. Naturalized citizens in our republic can hold any office but president and vice president.
There has never been another interpretation, nor has there ever been the assumption that only one condition constituted natural born citizenship. Think of what you are saying. A child, born on our soil, of non citizen parents was decided in Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. A child born to citizens on foreign soil is a Title 8 citizen, a citizen by statute, and not a natural born citizen.
Until clear indisbutable evidence is found, none of the above are known for sure. There is evidence that 0bama Sr was in the US much earlier than the accepted date, which would highly jeopardize the Kezia marriage, and other evidence as well - one point being that only Mark, Ruth's son, could prove that he was 0bama's son for inheritance purposes. There is more that clouds this as well. Also, the issue of how legal a tribal marriages was in the eyes of either Kenya under British rule or HI is unknown, and if he was actually married to Kezia, what if any formalties were used? Maybe it was merely shacking up, if it happened at all, which is not known until proved.
I would also posit that the reason the NBC issues has not gained traction with courts or Congress is not because it is not worthy of traction, but because so many judges and Congressmembers are either traitors or gutless disgusting cowards or otherwise complicit. It doesn't mean the NBC issue is not worthy of legal consideration.