The definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is historically more tight than that of ‘citizen’.
The Founders were worried about allegiances of those in office, as many at the time were loyal to the Crown or were from families that were loyal to the Crown of England.
Also many of the Founders themselves were born of parents that were subjects of the Crown, so they wrote the elgibility as ‘natural born citizen’ rather than just citizen.
And the meaning was made clear by legal writings that ‘natural born’ was defined as having two parents who were citizens.
Thus, the issue is whether a candidate is eligible if he or she has a parent that is not a US citizen because there is a doubt whether a child raised under such circumstances would feel natural loyalty to their country.
In Obama’s case I do not think he feels natural loyalty to America, he is apologetic for America to a fault, he addresses foreigners as ‘citizens of the world’, he does not salute the flag nor put his hand on his heart when he hears the National Anthem. These are signs that the person of Obama was raised in an environment that was not proud of America and what America stands for. From the little known of his mother, I believe she had issues with American ideals and culture and I believe she allowed her son to be coached and influenced by the communist Frank Marshall.
The fatherly influence of communist Frank Marshall is I believe the root of Obama’s political development and Obama continued receiving a similar perspective from Jeremiah Wright.
His upbringing appears to be almost everywhere anti-American.
To get back to your question, I believe that if Obama had had an American citizen father, his upbringing would have been different and he would possibly have a different view of America.
So the issue of ‘natural born’ is I believe a legitimate issue as it goes to loyalty and faithfulness to country.
i understand the emotional side of it.
i’m looking for technical/legal references that back the explanation(s) given and make it a black-and-white case with no grey areas.
my understanding of what was stated was that it could be conceded that (a) he is a u.s. citizen, (b) that he was born in hawaii, and (c) the document he presents as a birth certificate is valid in some fashion — yet it is clear (to some) that he is still ineligible (because a, b, and c are not enough to fit the “legal” definition of “natural born”). that is much more compelling and defensible position than “he was born in kenya”.