Because they don’t need to. He was indisputably born of a US Citizen mother, and thus fits into the vaguely defined category of “natural born” no matter where he was born. And the attestations of the Hawaiian authorities is pretty clear that his original paper records show Hawaiian birth anyway.
This natural born business is not a settled legal question, and current legal thinking would very probably swing his way if it came to it, even if he was born in Kenya or can be construed to have once had Indonesian citizenship.
If I recall correctly the reason the natural born issue came up originally was because someone wanted his BC. The interesting question is what else is on his original BC. There is likely something else quite embarassing on it, if not the material for a constitutional question.
His mother did not qualify as an American citzen under those current laws. She was under age did not live in the USA for 5 years after her 18th birthday.
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.