In addition, on his very own campaign web site, they admitted that his "birth status was governed by Great Britain."
So, how in the world, could a dual national be considered a Natural Born Citizen? They can't.
Just gotta get that argument to be heard by the courts. So far, not so good.
Let me begin by saying that I know that I will not be able to convince you that the phrase “natural-born citizen” as used in Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution refers, as I strongly believe, to a person that is a U.S. citizen at birth according to the laws in place when he was born, and that a person can be a natural-born citizen of the U.S. irrespective of his parents’ citizenship status. While I believe that it is incorrect to interpret the Constitution in the way that you do, it is certainly your right to do so, and I consider your theory far more plausible than many theories that the U.S. Supreme Court has ended up endorsing. I also know that while I could show you law journal articles on the subject written long before Obama even thought about running for president that argue that the prevailing interpretation has always excluded such a niggardly interpretation of Article II, section 1, clause 5, you would surely be able to show me well reasoned articles pointing in the opposite direction. So, on that point, I think that we should agree to disagree.
That being said, please note that if you take the position that a person that is a U.S. citizen at birth but one of whose parents was not a U.S. citizen when such person was born is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S. that it would mean that it was unconstitutional when the Republican Party nominated Chester Arthur for VP, when the Electoral College elected him VP, when he was sworn in as VP, and when he was sworn in as President upon the death of James Garfield.
Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject from Northern Ireland that did not become a naturalized U.s. citizen until Chester Arthur was around 14 years old. While Arthur’s political opponents in the 1880 election did question whether Arthur was a natural-born citizen, they did so based on the theory that Arthur had been born not in northern Vermont, but just across the border in Canada, and that under the laws at the time of Arthur’s birth a person born in Canada whose father was not a U.S. citizen was not a citizen at birth irrespective of his mother’s citizen status. Had Americans in 1880 believed that a person born in the U.S. to an American mother but whose father was a foreign subject would not be deemed a natural-born citizen you can be certain that it would have been shouted from the rooftops and that Arthur’s political opponents would not have wasted time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that Arthur was born in Canada.
BTW, the mothers of Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were from Scotland and Canada, respectively, but they quite possibly had become naturalized U.S. citizens when their presidential son was born, so those probably aren’t additional counterexamples.
I hope you take this constructive criticism to your theory in the spirit in which it was offered.