[Seizethecarp]

“Whether the presumed Hawaiian marriage happened remains irrelevant. What matters by our Constitution is who the parents were. Obama has told us, many times, Obama Sr. is his father. These days a DNA test might be used if that claim is contested, But who would contest it? By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barry was born a subject of the British Empire.”

We do not yet know “what matters by our constitution” as SCOTUS has not yet ruled on an on-point case other to say that “there is doubt” as to whether persons who do not have two citizen parents and born on US are NBC.

The 1948 BNA explicitly excludes Barry from being a UK subject if he was the illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage.

See 1948 BNA:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

[Spaulding]

Not quite Seizethecarp. The doubt being expressed about natural born citizenship concerned the children of U.S. citizen diplomats born abroad, and never questioned the intention of the jus sanguinis, or parental allegiance provision in the definition, the U.S. common law definition according to Alexander Hamilton. That extension of natural born citizenship may be why, for a brief time, and in violation of the Constitution, the 1790 Naturalization Act provided just that extension of the natural born citizen provision. It was repealed in 1795 and never raised again. Mario Apuzzo suggested that the 1790 statute was intended to be temporary to allow the children of founders, who were ‘grandfathered’ since their parents couldn't have been citizens, to run for president. A statute, as you pointed out, cannot amend The Constitution. I don't believe the amendment was ever proposed, but I have not read every one of the twenty four proposed amendments to Article II Sect 1 natural born citizen provision.

Obama’s people would love to have concerned citizens following every possible thread. But we have Barry's assertion about who his father was, and his claim in “Dreams...” that he has seen his birth certificate, and thus knows that he is legitimate. So unless you represent a group of people wishing to challenge the legitimacy of the marriage of Barry's parents, it makes no sense to question the status of Obama Sr’s marriage to Stanley Ann. It makes as much sense as attempting to discover if Stanley Ann forsook her U.S. citizenship as did so many 60s radicals. To claim that Obama’s legitimacy to the presidency is only valid if his father can be shown to be a bigamist is not consistent with the intent of the founders that the allegiance of the commander in chief be insured, and that there be no legal or emotional ties to any other country.