As per USC 48 Ch 3, S. 3 HAWAII (Hawaii Admission Act), Hawaii’s statehood was not ratified and complete until September 18, 1961. Obama was born August 4, 1961. He is not a natural born US citizen.
Now we ‘know’ that Obama was born of a non-American citizen father, the question remains of Obama’s citizenship: is he a British subject or a dual-citizen (as the Obama web sites claim)? Either case prevents him from being a ‘natural born’ American citizen and being Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. The ‘Constitutional Crisis’ remains.
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. The 14th amendment has TWO requirements... be born in the USA AND... be under the jurisdiction of the US government. The courts have already ruled that people who are in the US temporarily or are foreign diplomats do not fall under the 14th amendment and their children ARE NOT US CITIZENS. Obama Sr. at no time applied for citizenship. Obama Sr. at no time changed his LEGAL DOMICILE from Kenya where he had other children. If you maintain a DOMICILE in another country you can only be in the USA temporarily. Under both US and British laws at the time, Obama JR., at birth, WAS a British Subject and NOT a US natural born citizen or even a common citizen! He is ineligible to be POTUS and is an illegal usurper. The laws have a reason, they are not to be ignored. Showing a COLB changes nothing as the ELK case proved, you CAN BE born on US soil and still not be a US citizen. Doesn’t matter WHERE Obama Jr. was born, what matters is that at the time of his birth he was NOT a US citizen.
Obama is a dual citizen AT BEST, thus, Constitutionally DISQUALIFIED.
His mother’s age only becomes an issue if he were born outside the US. To confer her citizenship, she had to be a US citizen who had lived in the United States for five years after turning 14; mathematically, an 18-year-old cannot meet that standard. (That requirement has been changed for mothers, but it’s still the standard for fathers to confer citizenship.)
However, if Obama were born WITHIN the boundaries of the United States to an American mother, then it doesn’t matter what age she was (or, for that matter, what citizenship his father carried.) (Incidentally, under the current interpretations of the law, it wouldn’t matter what citizenship either parent carried as long as he were born inside the US, which is what leads to the problems of “anchor babies.”)
So: To be a natural-born citizen, you must be a US citizen at the time of your birth. In 1961, to be born a US citizen, you had to be 1) born within the boundaries of the country, or 2) have at least ONE parent who was (a) a US citizen, AND (b) had lived in the US for five years after turning 14. His father was Kenyan, so he’s disqualified by 2a. His mother was only 18, so she’’s disqualified by 2b. Therefore, neither of his parents could confer US citizenship upon him. The only question remaining is whether she gave birth physically in the United States, so that he could qualify under option 1.
Interesting...but I doubt if this will be pushed. Too many cowards in the “home of the brave”.