In 1971, the Supreme Court held Congress is not limited in Statutory law of parentage, augmented by Residency Requirements (jus sanguinis), to the the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Rogers v Bellei, 1971).
Consequently, Obama is probably a U.S. citizen by statutory law. He is probably considered a Natural Born Citizen, but there’s a chance the Supreme Court will find that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, Obama will spend whatever he has to make sure his case is not ruled on.
Do you mean that Congress can change by legislation the definition of “natural born citizen” to mean anything that it wants, just to suit the needs of the current situation? If that is so, we the people no longer have the final authority in determining the terms of the social contract under which we have been operating for the last 233 years.
The meaning of the Constitution should mean only what the framers intended that it mean.
He can’t be natural born because his father was a british subject and his mother was too young to confer that status.
It has nothing to do with where he was born.
John
You said — “Consequently, Obama is probably a U.S. citizen by statutory law. He is probably considered a Natural Born Citizen, but there’s a chance the Supreme Court will find that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, Obama will spend whatever he has to make sure his case is not ruled on.”
Now, that makes sense.
On the other hand, if such a case was to be ruled on, by the Supreme Court, it is not certain if they would rule against Obama, anyway. That’s far from certain. But, you’re right, it’s better to *not* have it ruled on, rather than leave it up to a possible decision going against you (but still, that doesn’t mean that it would *definitely* go against Obama...).