“I am not so sure you are correct—I think there may have been a reasonable position based on the Law of Nations document and the correspondence among the drafters of the Constitution that something else might be required.”
I think the dissent in WKA has a stronger case based on reason. Based on original intent, I think the decision is pretty strong. I think the Founders probably had varying ideas of what they meant, and you could have collected 3 or 4 answers if you had polled them.
But as a matter of law, now, I don’t see the Supreme Court rejecting the arguments in WKA and instead trying to overturn the popular election of a now-sitting President based on Vattel or others. Particularly when it was well known and uncontested in the election that Obama Sr was Kenyan.
IF Obama Jr was not born in the USA, then he needs to be removed immediately. However, I don’t know how you could find convincing proof without Obama simply confessing on national TV. So unless someone programs his teleprompter...
It is clear to me that the SCOTUS will not entertain this issue as it relates to Obama. Removing a sittng POTUS on a technicality and overturning the will of the (majority) electorate is a bad precedent to set.
However ...
Arguing that Obama is not a natural born citizen based on his father’s foreign citizenship at Obama’s birth is a legitimate discussion. I’ve read and studied WKA, Minor, the 14th, and all the others until I’m cross-eyed. And two things stand out:
1. People believe that the definition of natural born citizen “evolved” with the 14th.
2. The ONLY group of citizens about which there can be no doubt are those born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. About all others, arguments can be made for and against natural born citizenship. (But not citizenship.) No argument can be made against the natural born citizenship of the former group.
We need a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS, but we will not get one.
One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the above conclusion, IMHO, is the position of the U.S. Department of State on American citizens board abroad to two citizen parents. They state in the Foreign Affairs Manual that while those citizens are natural born by statute they may not be natural born for Constitutional purposes. And the reason they take that position is because the “Supreme Court has never ruled definitively” on the matter. The State Dept. clearly understands that statutory NBC may not equal Constitutional NBC. It may, but we don’t know for sure because there have been no cases decided regarding whether or not statutory NBCs are eligible to the presidency, or in other words, Constitutional NBCs.
(I realize that I’m a newb whipper-snapper compared to the two of you. Please be gentle. *whimpers*)