Hawaii became a state in 1959. He was born in Hawaii in 1961. That makes him a natural born citizen, regardless of his father's citizenship.
There's no proof he was actually born in Hawaii. There's more proof he was born in Kenya. That's what all the law suits are about. He refuses to show any documents pertaining to his birth records.
That's the catch here.
What if he is hiding a real birthdate?? Like maybe he was born in 1958? That would make his mother a younger teen , but still possible.
This is the popular myth, but citizens from any other Nation can assign their children's citizenship to their country of origin, just like American citizens can do abroad. Furthermore, being born here does not actually confer US citizenship when the parents are not US citizens. That is a behavior of certain US agencies that is rooted in ignorance and willful misinterpretation of the Constitution.
If he was born in Hawaii, I would agree that he is a natural born citizen. However, we have no documentation of that fact as of now, other than the say-so of Obama supporters.
The major weakness in Mr. Donofrio's argument is that he is creating what appears to be a new interpretation of the constitutional phrase "natural born citizen," an interpretation which unfortunately does not seem to agree with case law. Donofio is claiming that becuase British law made Obama a British subject at birth, he is not a natural born (American) citizen in that he had dual citizenship (or dual loyalty) at birth (assuming, again, he was born in Hawaii). Donofrio should not base his argument on his interpretation of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause alone, even if it may be consistent with the Founding Fathers' thinking at the time the Constitution was written. As an alternative strategy, he could possibly subpoena the Hawaii birth records so that the Court can have whatever information is contained there before deciding this critical matter.
“He was born in Hawaii in 1961.”
You wouldn’t happen to have proof of that would you?