My position as to whether they are natural born citizens, eligible to become president? (I assume that’s what you meant.)
Being an ordinary person with no higher education, and certainly on the low end of the totem pole on legal beagle stuff, I only read what others post and try to form an understanding.
There seems to be a bit of gray area - to me (and again, I really do not know the absolute legal truth here, if there is such a thing), it appears that if both parents are US citizens, and the child is born on a US military base, the child most likely may be a natural born citizen. Otherwise, looks like a citizen, and if one parent is a foreign national, might have dual citizenship. But that probaly is also determined by the laws of the country in which he is born. If born off base, then maybe a dual ciziten as well, and would look to me as though not natural born.
But, again, I don’t know - it’s just based on what I try to glean reading these threads.
It seems clear that if 0bama was not born in the US as he claims (and there has been no proof that he was born in the US, so his real place of birth remains unknown), then it looks clear that he is not a natural born citizen, and thus unqualified to be president.
It also looks (again, what do I know - just have my natural born mother wit to guide me) that there are indeed three kinds of citizens - naturalized, natural born, and citizens who are “regular” citizens - meaning, they didn’t become citizens by becoming naturalized, but there were other factors such as being born in a foreign country, or with dual citizenship at birth because of one parent being a foreigner.
I will keep reading and learning.
And this is where Donofrio's argument disintegrates into pure fantasy because nowhere, and I mean nowhere, is there any case law that recognizes this "three-tiered" (Natural Born, Naturalized, Regular) definition of U.S. citizen.
This concept exists nowhere in the Constitution and is wholly a product of Donofrio's imagination.
On several threads a simple request has been asked. Show us case law.
You seem like a smart guy. Have you ever asked yourself why these cases keep getting tossed? Have you ever asked yourself why no prominent Republicans have challenged this? Why no conservative pundits mention this (except to belittle the Kool-Aid drinkers)? Why Hillary didn't use it? Keyes when he ran for Senate? Nobody? Are we to believe that somehow Obama's eligibility slipped unchallenged past all these career politicians (or everyone from the President on down is part of a grand conspiracy)?
Just think about it. Obama isn't smarter than everybody else. None of his opponents would have given him a free pass on eligibility. There is no grand conspiracy.
There have been any number of claims as to the intent of the FFs regarding 'natural born' status, but there has been no example cited of any discussion of the meaning of the phrase by FFs where they provided a definition other than the one found in the dictionary, which has been demonstrated to predate the COTUS by some two centuries (Random House Unabridged Dictionary: 1575-1585, Oxford English Dictionary: 1583) at least. So, either there is some other definition than the dictionary definition which the FFs agreed to by consensus without ever debating or discussing it, or they actually meant the dictionary definition. Incidentally, Oxford cites Blackstone as a source for its definition, so I dare say that the definition favored by Blackstone is the same one as found in the Oxford English Dictionary which agrees with the 'citizen at birth' definition cited. Therefore, all Article II says about it is that the President must have been a citizen at birth.