No active U.S. statute (law) defines or modifies what a natural-born citizen is. The definition stated in at least ten supreme court cases, and probably more, is “...born in the country of parents who are its citizens.” (Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253). This definition can only be changed by an amendment. There has been no such amendment, though at least 24 attempts have been made to start the process - which never got out of the congress.
Barack Obama, by his own admission, was born of a British father. He is simply not a natural born citizen. There is not need for school records or birth certificates, though it angers me that we elected someone who has hidden all his legal papers. He may or may not be a citizen. By British law, it seems quite clear that Barack is a British subject, and probably a citizen. But we don't care. Our constitution, for very good reasons, disallows anyone with competing allegiances, from becoming president. A dual citizen, as Barack describes himself, is inelligible to be president and commander in chief, with emphasis by John Jay and Joseph Story on the latter, of the world's most powerful army.
Why he was proffered as a presidential candidate is a puzzle? He is being protected by possibly traitorous Republicans such as Oren Hatch, who knows the constitution, and even Republicans I've respected such as James Imhofe, who also mis-states the constitution, and by all Democrats. Every Senator signed a worthless and deceptive Senate Resolution in 2008 asserting that John McCain was a natural-born citizen because he was born of citizen parents (Senate Res. 511). It wasn't true, but shows that are being represented by a collection of people not one of whom cares enough about our government to tell the truth. For McCain, they refer to the citizen parents clause; for Obama they explain that "citizen of the U.S." is natural-born. When pay-to-play is in force truth is a casualty. Perhaps they are afraid, but their fear is costing our freedom.
The Honduran legislature and supreme court had the integrity to remove a president who chose to ignore his constitution. He wanted to run for another term in office, and was about to ignore his constitution, using Chavez thugs to scare voters and probably stuff ballots. Obama has, not surprisingly, taken a stand against a representative republic, their legislature, and their constitution, and, with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, is helping to overthrow the representative democracy in Honduras, as he is ignoring the U.S. Constitution and demolishing separation of our branches of government. I think it quite possible that Obama is so confident in the success of his second American revolution that he is not afraid of being held to our legal standard. He intentionally ignored our Constitution - thumbed his nose at it by declaring his dual citizenship status before being sworn in. He might claim that Chief Justice John Roberts, fully knowing of Obama's status, gave the court's approval by swearing him in on Jan 20th.
I could refer you to John Jay requiring stronger requirements for president than “Citizen of the U.S.”; requesting that Washington change it to “natural-born citizen.” I could suggest you read Joseph Story's article in Article II Section 1. I would recommend visiting Mario Apuzzo’s site, since his pending law suits provide a clear exposition of the legal issues at http://puzo1.blogspot.com . Read the analysis by Leo Donofrio, who “discovered” that Chester Arthur had succesfully hidden the fact that his father too was a British citizen when Arthur was born - Arthur had all of his personal document burned just before his death. Read John Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, speaking in 1866 to a joint session of congress where he is unequivocal obout the definition of natural-born citizen. Finally, read Alexander Hamilton explaining the origins of the body of laws from which natural-born citizen is drawn in his paper on Leibnizian Natural Law. Hamilton exlains the inherent weakness in British Law, lacking a constitution, and explaining the importance of Vattel's Law Of Nations, based upon Leibnizian Natural Law, to the founders as they wrote our Constitution.
We need to stop being distracted by the soap opera of Obama’s birthplace and childhood and help the public understand that he, with his allegiance to a Muslim Marxist father, actively involved with Kenyan politics, is just the sort of person our founders required natural-born citizenship to keep from occupying our highest office. It appears that all of our institutions lack the courage to raise this blatant betrayal of our constitution. People must drive this. Otherwise the battles around cap-and-trade and healthcare and defense will be moot. As unbelievable as it seems to many, Obama is supporting Zelaya’s insistence on his being allowed to “run” for president of Honduras as many times as he likes, just like Hugo Chavez, just like Fidel Castro. Chavez will supply the Acorn clones. He will “win” just as Ahmadinejad, and Fidel (the name of Obama’s cousin Odinga’s son) and Chavez have won. And Obama too will have such a grip on our institutions, with his Czars, corrupt judges, corrupt justice department, and corrupt legislature, that he too may be president for life.
“...with his allegiance to a Muslim Marxist father, actively involved with Kenyan politics, is just the sort of person our founders required natural-born citizenship to keep from occupying our highest office.”
So well said, outstanding post.