Replies

My interpretation of the term "naturally born" is that he was either born in our country or one of his parents is an American citizen. We know his mother is an American, therefore, it does not matter where in the world he was born. Someone please tell me where I am wrong.

You are fully entitled to your interpretation.

You might even be right on parts of it. The big underlying issue is that the term 'natural born citizen' does not have an actual current legal definition.

US law provides citizenship under a wide range of conditions, some of which have changed over time. But it is mute on 'natural born' citizenship.

The closest Congress ever came to defining it was in 1790 when children born overseas to TWO American citizens counted as 'natural born citizens'.

This law was surpassed by a 1795 law that dropped any reference to 'natural born citizen'. More recently children born of one US citizen overseas have been specifically denyed even citizenship, let alone being regarded as a 'natural born citizen'.

When Obama was born, the rule was having a foreign parent and being born in that parents country made you a citizen of that country, unless you made a positive effort to assert your US citizenship upon achieving majority.

So if he was born in Kenya, and Stanley Ann was married to Barrak, Sr., he's a Kenyan.

To the best of my knowledge, no record of his mother being married exists, except Obama saying they were married on Maui (Which BTW would be invalid because Barrak, Sr. was already married to another woman back in Kenya)

The same law says that if he was born in Kenyan, and Stanley Ann wasn't married, he's an American.

Except, due to her age, Stanley Ann could not possibly meet the residency requirements, so Barrack would have the citizenship of wherever he was born.

Except the law has since been changed, and under the new law, he could be an American bastard.

Except it isn't at all clear that the new law is retroactive.

In any event merely being a citizen doesn't suffice as a qualification to be President.

You have to be a 'natural born citizen'.

No legal definition of that term has existed since 1790.

There is a lively debate going on right now about the exact definition of 'natural born citizen'. The two schools of thought are jus sanguinus and jus soli, the rule of blood, and the rule of soil respectively.

Under jus sanguinus any child of Americans (or some say an American) regardless of the location of birth is a 'natural born citizen'.

Under jus soli any child born on US soil is a 'natural born citizen'.

My belief is that the Founding Fathers intended that no one would hold that office that might have a hint of divided loyalties. For me, having a single American parent is too low a bar. Being an anchor baby is too low a bar.

I favor a rule that says to qualify for holding the office of the president one must have TWO American citizen parents AND be born in the United States or the District of Columbia. (If I though I could get away with it I'd also require spending at least half the time between age 6 and 21 be spent being raised in the good old USofA)

But that's just me. Until Congress and the Courts agree on a legal definition, what you and I say is meaningless.