This is the first time I’ve seen or heard this issue clearly defined. It’s not about Kenya vs Hawaii, it’s about the citizenship status of the parents. That’s how you avoid Manchurian Candidates, like the one in the Oval Office. I’d also like to see how relinquishing (and resumption) of citizenship plays out vis a vis the Constitution.
If one were to have relinquished and then taken up US citizenship once again, then one would have to be naturalized, legally speaking. That’s not natural born.
It’s about more than citizenship, it’s about avoiding competing legal claims by another jurisdiction. Look to John Jay’s recommendations, look to various Founders’ comments regarding the avoidance of foreign entanglements. They didn’t want a President and Commander-in-Chief of the military to be beholden in any way to any foreign power.
ONLY if BHO Sr. and SAD were legally married.
In the common law, and all statutes in effect in 1961, bastards did not HAVE fathers.
The concept of legal fathers for bastards was invented by the US Supreme Court in 1973 in Gomez v. Perez (the same Court in the same term that decided Roe v. Wade).
BHO Sr. could not have transmitted British nationality to any children of SAD, since they were not legally married.