You haven’t read up on it if you are going to quote a debate as authority..a debate that doesn’t even have the quote.
You don’t understand the law if you are going to claim that “can have” is the same thing as “will have” under all circumstances.
Furthermore, the law at the time would have required approval based on the true facts. It would not have been automatic. It would have been subject to a process.
Frankly, if you want to continue to be ignorant and misstate the law..I don’t care.
PART II. ANNULMENT
§580-21 Grounds for annulment. The family court, by a decree of nullity, may declare void the marriage contract for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the parties stood in relation to each other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever, brother and sister of the half as well as the whole blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the relationship is the result of the issue of parents married or not married to each other;
(2) That the parties, or either of them, had not attained the legal age of marriage;
(3) That the husband had an undivorced wife living, or the wife had an undivorced husband living;
(4) That one of the parties lacked the mental capacity to consent to the marriage;
(5) That consent to the marriage of the party applying for annulment was obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and there has been no subsequent cohabitation; and
(6) That one of the parties was a sufferer of or afflicted with any loathsome disease and the fact was concealed from, and unknown to, the party applying for annulment Case Notes Marriage voidable, not void, of girl under fourteen. 6 H. 289. Requires proper allegation. 7 H. 219. Proper parties. 7 H. 278. Nonassent of a party to marriage is not a statutory ground for annulment. 8 H. 77. Insufficiency of evidence on ground of nonage. 8 H. 360. Held that failure to procure license, ground for annulment. 25 H. 397, rev'g 16 H. 377. Enumeration of grounds does not deprive court of jurisdiction to annul a marriage on some other ground. 26 H. 89; 29 H. 770, 795. *Presumption that marriage was valid; burden on libellant to prove incompetency. 29 H. 716.* Trial court erred in deciding that wife was entitled to prevail on her divorce claim and second husband was not entitled to prevail on his annulment claim where certified copy of judgment of divorce presented undisputed evidence that when wife married second husband, wife had prior lawful living husband and thus did not satisfy the requirement of §572-1(3). 108 H. 459 (App.), 121 P.3d 924. Sections 572-1, 580-1, and this section must be read together; only the family court can declare void a marriage obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and it cannot do so where there has been subsequent cohabitation. 112 H. 131 (App.), 144 P.3d 579. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0021.htm
If he was actually born in Hawaii, he's a citizen at a minimum, even if his parents were not themselves citizens. If he wasn't, he's not, if his parents were not themselves citizens.
If his father or both of his parents were not themselves citizens, then he does not qualify as citizen at birth under jus sanguinis, which was the manner in which birthright citizenship was determined in some of the several States at the time the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, in order to legally qualify for election in those of the several States, the President had to meet the birthright citizenship requirements of all the several States, under elections held in those jurisdictions.
If he was born in Hawaii, and both of his parents were themselves citizens, then Barack Obama was a natural-born citizen, of that there can be no doubt.
If he was born to a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and hence a citizen of Great Britain, then he was himself born a citizen of Great Britain, and remains so, under the British law in effect in 1961. What facts can you add to this? Not hearsay. Demonstrable facts.