“Donofrio’s contention is that Obama was born in Hawaii, but not a natural-born citizen and thus not eligible to become POTUS. Stop with the doubt about the place of Obama’s birth. We accept that Obama was born in Hawaii. Now how do you answer the question that Obama was a natural-born citizen if his father was a British subject at the time?”
That’s my reading on why this one was accepted by the court (and the others rejected.) It goes back to the original meaning of “natural born citizen” as the founders understood it. Born on US soil AND BOTH PARENTS WERE US CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.
Not that it matters what we argue, the court understands the issue. It does get tiring to hear people argue about his birthplace when that isn’t the issue at hand.
I agree with you.
My parents, at the time of my birth, were BOTH British subjects. My mother worked for the British Army during
WW2. While they were here on Green Cards, their allegiance could still be said to lie with the UK.
Hence, while I was a “Citizen”, I was not a “Natural Born Citizen”.
I learned this over 30 years ago from someone I would regard as very knowlegeable on the subject.