The bottom line is that INA 1952 defines anyone born in obam's circumstances as having citizenship at birth. That is the law that courts will take into account and that makes the issue moot, unless proof (not speculation) is provided to show that he was born anywhere outside the US and its territories.
and
• The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 is law within the USC that set the standard for 'natural born citizen' in 1961. That law, the only one that matters at all (at least in the real world), states that the child of a citizen parent(note singular) born in a US possession (including Hawaii before statehood) would receive citizenship at birth if the parent (again note singular) resided in the US or its possessions for one year prior to the birth.
I have already pointed out to you that there is a difference between statutes and Constitutional law, and that Natural born citizen is nowhere to be found in the I&N Act of 1952. You avoid the issue by pointing back to the statute which does not concern Natural Born Citizens.
Using the law (in dicta)in place in 1961 as determinative of NBC as you propose, a child born of two illegal aliens is a NBC and eligible to be President. Going one step further according to your "thinking" a Foundling of unknown parentage would also be a NBC. I will give you a little advice, a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing. You are ignoring everything that contradicts your "conclusion"
SHOW ME WHERE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS IN THE IMMIGRATION and NATIONALITY ACT of 1952. EXPLAIN TO ME THE STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS ON ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.
For your edification the "Courts" will look at the CONSTITUTION, the specific articles, the history and the intent of those who drafted it, along with any amendments to it. They can even look at statutes, common law and law in other countries, but a statute does not determine what the Constitution means. THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE CHANGED NOR DEFINED BY A STATUTE or RESOLUTION. Words can have different meanings depending on jurisdiction and usage, civil, criminal, administrative, Constitutional etc.
The fact is this issue needs to be decided by the US Supreme Court, not you and not me. We can present our arguments and opionions but that is all we are doing.
look around you might be enlightened:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
and here:
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm
regards rs
_____________________________________________
re:A, You are atributing things to me which I did not say. I spoke directly and solely about what the law stated about the child of A citizen born in Hawaii.
Re: B, ditto.
Re; C, You are right in part, I am ignoring other's speculation that has no basis in fact.