“Ok, so this should put to rest any question about his citizenship.”
There never was any question about his citizenship. The question is whether he is a naturalized (not eligible to be Pres or VP) or natural born (eligible) US citizen under the law as those terms were defined when he was born. These are legal terms with speicific definitions and requirements, and the only real implication is eligibility to be Pres or VP.
He clearly was the former because to be the latter one of his parents had to be a US citizen for 5 years before he was born. Neither was. That’s how the law was defined then.
Doesn’t matter, though. The issue will never see the light of day. People apparently can’t grasp the concepts (even though they aren’t that complicated and are very clear cut), people keep mistaking the core issue (it is NOT about whether he is a US citizen), and nobody seems to care anyway.
Indeed.
His Mom was a US citizen, born to US citizens going back generations. Are you claiming anyone born to a US citizen under 21 years of age cannot be a natural born citizen?
And, if you took the core issue to this SCOTUS, how do you suppose they would rule...???
I doubt they'd even hear the case.
Wasn’t his mother a US citizen all her life? The children of US citizens, which children are born in the US, are not natural citizens?
Well I was speaking in terms of all types of citizenship as in the broad category of either naturalized or natural born.
Further, since he was born in Hawaii he was NOT born abroad, thus the rule you are citing does NOT apply. He was born on US soil (Hawaii was a state at the time) and had at least one parent who was a US citizen at the time. Age of the parent is only a factor when born abroad according to the law at the time.