Actually there was some murkiness with respect to Panama. Looking at State department records: the clarifications were in 1952 for Guam, 1986 Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands using the term “citizens at birth”, and the State Department noted that these areas are under US jurisdiction.
The Panama Canal Zone was clarified using the term citizen only. According to the State Department, the canal zone was not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.
The state department also states that current law is that both parents must be citizens and at least one a resident of the US to qualify.
Per Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, one must be a natural born American citizen to serve as President. Barack Obama is NOT eligible for the Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen. The law that applied during the time of Obama’s birth (in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986) stated- “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen (a British Colony) and his mother just 18 at Obama’s birth...” (thus, she would have had to have been 21 in order for Obama to be eligible). John A. Bingham, primary framer, 14th Amendment, states- “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.” Obama himself has stated that he is the son of a Kenyan- Kenya being a foreign sovereignty. Thus, Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he were actually born in Hawaii.
I specifically replied to your comment about John McCain and the Panama Canal Zone, so I am not sure why you went into all this stuff about Obama, but since you did.
The info you are quoting pertains to a US citizen married to a forgein national.
Obama is an illegitamate child born to an out of wedlock mother who was a US citizen-is he not?
The 1952 law established easier requirements for a US citizen unwed mother, whose child is not born on US soil, than those you cited.
Namely that she need only have been physically present continuously in the US or a possession for 12 months prior to the child’s birth(the words “immediately prior”) are not used.
According to the US State Department, it has “never been determined definitively by court whether a person who aquired US citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen “(for the purpose of presidential qualifications).
Personally, I am all for interpreting the requirement very strictly ie: Both parents are US citizens, and child is born on American soil, territories, or possessions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
As another Freeper pointed out, Congress only has the power to set up naturalization laws for citizenship. Congress did attempt to define natural born in 1790, but subsequent language in 1795 removed the term “natural born”. The “Insular Cases” also overuled the 1795 act.
The legal opinions I have read stated that this is not an issue for the Federal Courts, it is an issue for the state’s election laws, and the electors. Any role for the US congress is after the election.
Should a case actually be accepted in a State Court, it might then be appealed eventually to the SCOTUS.
Obama’s status re: constitutional requirements even if born in Hawaii, is not well defined IMHO, and even less legitimate if not born in Hawaii, since his father was not a citizen of the US.