At the time the Constitution was written, it meant a citizen born on American soil. However, Congress has, through legislation, made a somewhat expanded meaning to include certain people born abroad as well - when certain criteria with respect to the citizenship status of one parent or both are met. In Obama's case, though, if he was born abroad, his parents' status would not have qualified him for citizenship at birth under that legislation.
It would be interesting to see how the man who filed suit in this case will try to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, as he claims. There are unlikely to be written records to that effect available, and any potential witness still alive would probably be living in Kenya and be unlikely to be willing to go to Philadelphia to testify in the case.
Just to point out that in a law suit, many arguments or assertions may be made and they do not all have to be aligned, and actually a number of them may be at odds with other. As the law suit proceeds into the discovery phase where depositions are taken and subpoenas (legal demands to appear to be questioned) are issued, as the facts then become clear — some arguments and assertions may be dropped.
Several comments from relatives in Kenya to the effect that Obama was born there have been reported. However, its a matter of conjecture whether any of those people would be willing to repeat them in the current circumstances. More than likely, they’ll simply cover up for him.
(2) When something is in the Constitution, changing it requires an amendment.
(3) If you find any legislation that expands "natural born" please also cite which cases and courts have applied it to the Article II requirements for Presidency.
OK - thanks ... but wouldn’t Obama have to prove his citizenship by showing his parents BC???? Haven’t heard anything about the lawsuit on any talk radio today (Rush, Hannity or Medved) .....