I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my statement. I actually meant to say that Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status is determined by his fathers nationality at the time of his birth. Since Obama, Sr. was a British subject, so was Obama.
The constitution requires that the President be a ‘natural-born’ citizen (No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President). The founders were NOT natural born citizens, and they knew it. That’s why they left a loop hole for themselves (or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution). Citizens with dual allegiances “at birth” are not allowed for the office of President, or VP. Note both ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ are given as requirements. Obviously one can’t be the other.
The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Statutes passed by congress declaring who is, or who is not a citizen, are fine. However, congress can’t “define” a term of the constitution. That’s for the court to decide. If statutes violate the constitution they become null and void. The interpretation of the term ‘natural-born’ citizen then is left for the Supreme Court to decide, not congress.
My main point though was that there must be some other reason why Obama doesn’t show his birth certificate.
There likely is another reason, I agree. But, the stipulation that it be the father was discarded in the late 1890s, I believe, and was replaced by “a parent”.
The loophole in the Constitution was put in place for a single person, by the way. Every one of the Founders met the requirement that they were born in what became the United States, save one: Alexander Hamilton was born in the Bahamas.
Why, because it says; "Bastard" right on it?
See post #174 for current law. It doesn't state 'father', just a parent. The father provisions are from reading 19th century laws, not current law that applies.