No, but if Obama, Jr. was born on U.S. soil, he is a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and satisfies that qualification for POTUS, unless his parents were here in an official diplomatic role for a foreign country or as members of an occupying force.
Like it or not, that's the way it is in America today, and no court will touch the issue of interpreting the term "Natural Born Citizen" as written in the Constitution. There will be no de Vatellian emanation of a penumbra -- because citizenship issues are delegated to Congress, and the Court therefore "lacks power."
As Justice Scalia wrote, with Justice Thomas concurring:
"I remain of the view that the Court lacks power to provide relief of the sort requested in this suit— namely, conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 452 (1998) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment).
Nguyen & Boulais v. INS, (2001) (SCALIA, J., with THOMAS, C., concurring in judgment).
"The complaint must be dismissed because the Court has no power to provide the relief requested: conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress.
"The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
(Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 452 (1998) (SCALIA, J., with THOMAS, C., concurring in judgment).
Flame away. I have better things to do right now.