Thank you for the link, its the best case I have seen yet for your argument. Nonetheless, I still believe that anybody born in the US or born to US citizens outside of US is a natural born citizen.
My argument comes from the following article
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Its a great five minute read, and in my view is the best summary of the controversy. Anybody who is interested in the issue should read it.
Once again, if Obama is a citizen, but is not a naturalized citizen, and is not a natural born citizen, what exactly is he?
Since there are only two kinds of citizens, if he is not naturalized, he is automatically natural born.
Thank you for the link. I hope that those more knowledgeable about this than I am will comment.
I don’t like this paragraph, it seems to me that the author is insinuating her personal political views that have nothing to do with the intent of the Constitution:
Page 898
Looking to contemporary law rather than early American or British law makes sense where, as in this case, the underlying assumptions about which groups are entitled to rights under the law have changed significantly. Constistent with Fourtheenth Amendment ideals concerning due process and broadened political participation, this approach will most likely result in an expansive reading of who will be eligible to run for office. Expanding the categories of natural-born citizens makes the eligible candidates more representative of the voting population, thereby increasing the rights of voters to select their representatives as well as the rights of individuals to vie for the office of President.
(I’m leaving out the footnote numbers.)