You most certainly can. In referring to 'natural-born citizen', Justice Gray writes, "The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution." He goes on to detail instance after instance where English common law clearly states that persons born in the country are natural-born citizens regardless of the nationality of their parents. Justice Gray also points out that "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."
The whole Ark decision can be summed up in that. Two classes of citizenship, not three. Children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth and need no natrualization. Nationality of the parents are, in most cases, irrelevant to the nationality of the child if born in the U.S. Under all this Obama is clearly qualified for the presidency if he was born in Hawaii.
Most certainly cannot. Here’s some passing thoughts that will maybe help:
Wong Kim Ark - passed 5-4
Laws regarding citizenship are essential to sovereignty.
The Wong Kim Ark/Justice Gray decision was based on the completely incorrect premise that the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things, was based upon or predicated upon adopting the British common law system of feudal subjectship.
British common law concerning subjects is based on a doctrine of a never ending allegiance by birth to the feudal system, monarchy, and kings and queens.
A feudal doctrine and monarchy are both completely contradictory to a republic and a free people like that of the United States of America.
America rejects this feudal doctrine, and is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution where there are no subjects, only citizens, the 14th amendment, and a myriad of other very obvious things, like wars.
Gray is so bad with this he doesn’t even explain how or why he jumps back and forth between “subjects” and citizens, nor does he mention, even in passing implications, a recognition of the difference between a monarchy and a republic. In fact, it seems beyond Grays’ ability to see what a huge mistake that is, which means he is either incompetent, or trying very hard to accomplish some other objective, and willing to push British law to do it, because it certainly isn’t reflected in his writing, and America certainly is not Britain.
Strongly suggest you read Chief Justice Fullers’ dissent.
It’s contrary to Minor v Happersett, one of the first cases mentioned by Gray, among a great deal of other non-British stuff.
Incidental, but relevant with respect to Obama: Wong Kim Arks’ parents were permanent residents.
Wong Kim Ark was a permanent resident.
As weak as that case clearly is, they still did not rule Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen.