Until we get the supremes to chime in on the issue of Natural Born Citizen, the question will remain, irrespective of whether or not he was born in Hawaii.
The actions of the congress in passing a resolution to delcare McCain eligible to run for president, is proof that there is a serious issue involved in these allegations against Obama.
The presence of people here who put up hurdles and try to explain away the problem with his qualifications is equally puzzling and disturbing. Nothing short of full disclosure and opening his records to the public, and a ruling on the NBC is satisfactory.
Scalia says that U.S. law entertains only two ways of becoming a citizen, being born a citizen, or being “naturalized” as a citizen. It makes sense to me that the type of U.S. citizenship is inherent in the way you became a citizen, thus the “natural” is somewhat superfluous (other than its reference to natural law) in that someone born a citizen due to ‘natural law’ conferring citizenship and allegiance upon birth, is a natural born citizen.
This was my opinion long before 0bam-bam made the scene, and I have seen nothing in all the discussions of this issue to dissuade me from my belief - but it is just my opinion of the law - I agree with you that we need a SCOTUS ruling on this before it is a settled matter.
But to me it is this simple. IF he was born in Hawaii (i.e. the computer printout form isn't fraudulent) he was a citizen upon birth. Any citizen who is a citizen via the natural act of being born is a “natural born citizen” instead of a “naturalized” citizen.
JMHO. I agree that a SCOTUS ruling is needed. But I think the groundwork is set for them to codify the law as I have laid it out. I very much doubt that there will be additional qualifiers added or recognized from foreign law.