Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson, both considered as possible SCOTUS justices, wrote the following re McCain's eligibility to be President for the Senate. In it they opine that natural born can be the product of either jus sanguinis or jus solis.
"The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier."
Now you may discount or disagree with their opinion, but for you to state without reservation that this is settled law is just plain wrong. Eventually, this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Tribe and Olson have dropped the ball. Minor v. Happersett is instructive here: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen. These were the natives, or natural born citizens ...” The WKA ruling affirmed this definition by acknowledging that Viriginia Minor’s citizenship was established by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...” Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents and thus could not be ruled a citizen per the definition of NBC. Justice Gray also recognized that he couldn’t necessarily rule Ark to be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment unless he could show how Ark’s parents fulfilled the subject clause, which he did by requiring permanent residence and domicil. Since Obama’s father had neither, Obama is not an NBC nor a 14th amendment citizen.
How right you are. I heartily concur. Furthermore, that is all I and some 50 Million other Americans are really asking for.
The SCOTUS (and lesser courts) have gone out of their way to deny a hearing on the merits to those cases brought before them. Since the cases of Obama's constitutional eligibility have yet to be given a fair hearing on their merits, no one, whether on this site or elsewhere, has the right to discount my opinion on the matter, which is that whereas I am a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is not.
Therefore, it is an open question; an entirely valid question.
I am sufficiently experienced to realize that I might be wrong. I am also aware that only the courts can tell that to me and to the other 50 million Americans who need this point clarified to prevent ad hoc interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by anyone with enough money to beguile the gullible.