If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen.
Of U.S. citizens, one is either a natural born citizen or one must be “naturalized” into that state of allegiance.
There is no third category.
Like most things people make up, they cannot seem to agree - that is why birthers tend to be all over the map as far as what this third category is.
So you believe it is not necessary for both parents to be US citizens?
Because that is the issue here -- Obama's father was not, and it is not even in dispute.
The "naturalized citizen" issue has nothing to do with this issue. The whole case turns on the definition of NBC.
This new information about the case law being scrubbed seems to suggest there are many others besides me who think Obama has an eligibility issue.
>> “U.S. law should always be a reflection of our best understanding of natural law.” <<
.
A fluffy, irrelevant statement at best.
.
>> “If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen” <<
.
That describes the original “Natural Born” citizen, but leaves out many that are scooped up under the 14th amendment, who become citizens merely because their parents are here under a visa, but totally lack any allegiance or reason for allegiance, thus are not in conformance with the intent of the Natural Born requirement for the presidency, and in fact fly in the face of it.
The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”