According to this definition, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is eligible to run for President.
If you believe that this subordinate clause applies to the whole law, then you must accept that ONLY people not born on U.S. soil are eligible to be President.
The purpose of article two(natural born citizen) was to prevent a person with dual allegiance from becoming the President and having mixed loyalties with another nation. obama is not nor ever can be the President if his father( by his own admission ) was a foreign national.
Hence, the confusion.
In the 1970’s, I was taught that a Natural Born citizen was one born on American soil to two parents owing sole allegiance to the United States. A child born at sea or on land which is under the jurisdiction of the United States, to two parents owing sole allegiance to the United States, is also considered Natural Born.
So, yes, it does get confusing when you start throwing in things like, “what if the ship at sea isn’t an American ship” (I remember we debated that one for quite some time in class and never came up with a sufficient answer).
However, since the stated intent of the Article II natural born clause was to assure that the President would have sole allegiance to the United States and none other, when one is born with dual citizenship, as is the case with Barack H. Obama, Jr., AND one has shown allegiance to one’s foreign nation (i.e. - Obama actively campaigning with Odinga in Kenya in 2006), then one has forfeited any claim one might have had to the Presidency.
Cheers
P.S. - You might want to consider the AND function and not just the Exclusive/Inclusive OR functions in your Natural Born Boolean logic.
A*B = no confusion.
A+B = confusion.
AB’+A’B = more confusion...
Cheers