This entirely foolish argument turns on what BRITISH law specified at the time of his birth - the British law which made Buchanan Sr. a crown subject was still in effect in 1812, as it was a major cause of the war.
So, therefore, IF having a father born overseas and a crown subject by British law is disqualifying, then James Buchanan Jr. was never President.
The whole thing is idiotic.
If he was born in Hawaii, he's OK. If he wasn't, he's out.
The rest of it is a waste of time.
This entirely foolish argument turns on what BRITISH law specified at the time of his birth {No, it does not, but I can see why your strategy is to try and frame it that way ... but the man claimed as Barry's daddy was never an American citizen , never naturalized as an AMerican citizen) - the British law which made Buchanan Sr. a crown subject was still in effect in 1812, as it was a major cause of the war. [What the Constitutional framers said defining 'natural born citizen' is what this turns on, despite people like you trying to frame it otherwise. SCOTUS speakers have repeatedly stated that their job is to apply the meaning of terms as the framers of the Amendments held them to mean at the time of the Amendment passage into the Constitution, and that if the people want something different they can change the Constitutional wording.
So, therefore, IF having a father born overseas and a crown subject by British law is disqualifying, then James Buchanan Jr. was never President. You dodged the issue of whether Buchanan's father and mother were American citizens albeit naturalized at the time of his birth. Why? Because you have tried to float a completely erroneous standard of British Law defining the Constitution. Societal engineering agenda doesn't trump truth, JN.