Ark v. US, comes closest. And, I think it can be fairly said that the majority opinion in that case does go quite a long way in narrowing or clarifying what “natural-born” actually means. And, in their definition, Obama would be eligible. But, they don’t go all the way.
++++++++++
I must confess, I haven’t read that case closely. Do you think Bammy would be eligible if had one citizen parent and were born in Kenya?
***************
“But, as the framers wrote and intended, I don’t believe he qualifies. Unfortunately, that standard is not always the law of the land.”
+++++++++
Right, that argument won’t fly in the current ‘court of public opinion.’
What’s interesting are two things:
1) The liberals insane reaction to this, while having personal doubts.
2) The evident coverup of so much of Bammy’s life to include:
his long copy birth certificate
his kindergarten records,
his Punahou school records,
his Occidental College records,
his Columbia University records,
his Columbia thesis,
his Harvard Law School records,
his Harvard Law Review articles,
his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago,
his passport,
his medical records,
his files from his years as an Illinois state senator,
his Illinois State Bar Association records,
any baptism records, and
his adoption records.
One good to come out of all this. The potential clarification of natural-born citizenship status for future, if not for now. Not giving up on this yet, but I tend to agree, that in the current environment, that may be the only fruit out of this, aside from condounding liberals - who are forced to defend obfuscation and mendacity.
My personal opinion is that he would not, given your hypothetical circumstances. The only case that addresses it, even in a peripheral way is US v.Ark. And in that case, it's only in the dissent where Fuller writes in criticizing the majority, and in pointing out what he characterizes as unreasonable...
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Of course, it's a dissenting opinion, which does not set precedent but could be found to be germane and relevant in a case that dealt specifically with presidential eligibility.
And despite the protestation of many, this issue of presidential eligibility and what the specific definition of "natural-born" citizen really is, has never been adjudicated in the history of the country. It is unsettled law, although there are certainly many cases that could be cited and would probably inform a jurist's opinion.