You never answered my question: why did the framers write natural born citizen why not just the word “citizen”?I don't know. I guess I could look it up, but it doesn't really matter to me, since Obama clearly meets the test.
The problem lies with his father being a British & later Kenyan citizen. It is a question of allegiance.The fact that his mother was a US citizen is sufficient. Where does it say otherwise? Do you really think that Obama would have allegiance to Kenya or Britain because of a father he hardly even knew? Really?
There is also the question of Obama being a citizen of Indonesia.Also not an issue as he never renounced his American citizenship. Whether or not Indonesia considered him a citizen does not change the fact that America continued to consider him a citizen, which it did.
IF Obama was not born on U.S. soil, Obama’s mother’s citizenship would be sufficient to transmit citizenship to Obama at birth
IF
she had been old enough at the time of his birth.
The law in 1961 required the citizen parent to have lived a certain number of years in the U.S. after his or her 16th birthday. I think it was four years. She was only 18 when Obama was born.
In other words: If Obama was NOT born on U.S. soil, he never was a “natural-born” citizen. This is why the PLACE of his birth DOES matter.
And if Obama was not a citizen at birth, he is not even a citizen now. He’s not eligible to STAY IN THE U.S., let alone be President.