The foundational view of the Natural Born Citizen clause is an interesting legal argument. As an abstract proposition, it ought to have significant merit and it is an argument that certainly ought to be made to the Court if the issue ever gets there.
That said, like it or not, the Supreme Court of the United States is a political quasi legislative body exercising its power in the framework of judicial resolution. Decisions accommodate a wide range of considerations of which historical foundational principals are not any where close to the top of the list.
The prevailing view is that the Natural Born Citizen clause is out of place generally in the modern internationalist environment. It is not viewed as open to the Court to simply hold that the Constitutional provisions does not exist but the interpretation of the provision is going to take place in the context of a national vote that installed Obama without any real inquiry into this issue which was well known at the time of the vote.
The argument simply fails to take account of the fact that since this clause was installed in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Court is going to hold that whatever conditions other than birth in the geographical territory of the several states were originally incorporated in the Natural Born clause, those conditions were removed by adoption of the 14th Amendment.
I assume the Court will stop short of holding that at this point all that counts is citizenship at birth as defined by Congress. I think if squarely presented with the issue by a litigant with standing, it is reasonable to believe that the Court will see the clause as requiring birth in the geographical territory of the several states but even that is by no means certain.
I can tell you from first hand knowledge that the Obama forces are well aware of the threat posed by this issue and by state action to lay the groundwork for ballot challenge in the event of a 2012 reelection campaign. A case that reached the Supreme Court on any of the related issues other than birth location which was decided against the plaintiffs would be an obstacle to subsequent state action to exclude Obama from the ballot on appropriate grounds.
It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar.
I disagree that the issue was well known by the voting public. It isn't well known today. The issue was obfuscated by ginning up "Kenyen birth," and scant attention was paid to the question of dual citizenship at birth. The public was lulled into "birthplace is determinative" by the suit challenging McCain.
I figure the Court will avoid the issue by ruling lack of standing, or not judiciable (the constitution empowers Congress to hear the evidence and make eligibility decisions).
The result of applying Wong Kim Ark as finding Natural Born Citizenship regardless of parentage or child-rearing location is something that most Americans would reject. But the proponents of the NBC by birth location alone (see 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark) assert a rule that permits an anchor baby, raised in Mexico, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, etc. (wherever the parents have citizenship and allegiance) to be eligible for presidency, by moving to the US at age 21 (or any time later) and waiting 14 years before running.
Actually, thanks to the MSM's singleminded pursuit of putting Obama in office, it was only well known among news junkies like us. The average voter had utterly no clue then, and has no clue now. That would be entirely different if he were a Republican; the MSM went after the non-issue of McCain's citizenship two or three times. But it is what it is.
I think the only type of action that has even a small chance of getting to SCOTUS is a challenge to his military authority or a challenge to a law he's signed. The former is already underway.
This is my interest in the issue: regardless of Obambi's eligibility, this whole question has demonstrated that there is no adequate procedure to vouchsafe the Constitution's requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.
Going on some schlub at Party HQ saying, "Yep, he's eligible," doesn't cut it. Has Congress ever even set out what it thinks makes a person eligible for POTUS under the Constitution? No. So how in the world is there even a reviewable standard that is applied by schlub down at Party HQ when putting names on the ballot?
To prevent this garbage in the future, it simply seems prudent for Congress and/or the States to enact procedures for reviewing eligibility, including a standard, a process for appeal and a remedy.
The 14th Amendmant states that Children of Diplomats are not US citizens.
What type of visa did Obamas father have ? A diplomatic Visa?
If yes, and if his father then documented it in the birth records ... he’s an illegal Alien not an NBC.
It should be noted that the track record of the many lawyers who have attempted to pursue this issue in court is not exactly stellar.
***************
It should be noted that the record of the courts who have heard this issue in various forms has been less than stellar as well. So much for the intellectual curiosity of jurists. The likelihood that every single judge would rule the same way is a suspicious set of circumstances. But then again, crooked judges are an epidemic in our flawed legal system, and the chicago thugs are a bunch of wiseguys.
The MSM has been reporting this issue dishonestly as well.
The shell game of creating the illusion of NBC without ever producing the authentic BC is dishonest.
There is a moral bankruptcy that has accompanied the rise of this regime to power, to rule over the citizens of America, many of whom may have been bamboozled by the pervasive deception.
The lawyers who have brought these cases have managed to make out a prima facie case- if the the courts were interested in hearing the issue.