"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, cited by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark as the definition of a natural born citizen, cited by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in Perkins v. Elg..
For those buying the 14th Amendment/Title 8 ploy, here is the definition from the Congressional Record (Globe) of 1866 by the author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman, Judge, John Bingham:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Don't let them confuse you. Either no one commenting here knows the truth, or they don't want you to know it. Title 8, the definition applying to Obama, by his own admission, never mentions the case "born on the soil of citizen parents" because that is the definition of a natural citizen. Title 8 does what the Constititution permits congress to do, create a uniform naturalization code. Laws can not define a child as citizen by nature. Only God does that. The naturally born citizen is born to two citizen parents, on the soil of which he is a citizen. Barack Obama Jr., if he was born in Hawaii, and we should assume he was until there is proof otherwise, is a naturalized citizen, born of a citizen mother and non-citizen father, eligible to every office in our government but the presidency. Our president must be a natural born citizen.
“...we should assume he was until there is proof otherwise...” So you think that I can go down to the Passport Office and get my passport as they “...will assume I am a U.S. citizen unless there is proof otherwise...” I don’t think so...I appreciate the complete nature of your “natural born citizen” analysis, but I cannot accept this phrase as being legitimate. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, not the other way.
IMHO, the question should be simple: has the U.S. ever recognized a prospective Preisdent as being anything other than a citizen solely of the United States. Rather than focusing on particulars of parentage and birthplace, I think it would be more natural to say that a person is a natural born citizen of the U.S. if and only if the person has been recognized by the U.S. exclusively as a U.S. citizen and has never been recognized by the U.S. as a citizen of any other country. It is vaguely conceivable that Obama would qualify, but there are at least two probable points of disqualification: if he wasn’t born in the U.S., the U.S. would have likely recognized him as a British citizen, and depending upon exactly what happened in Indonesia, he might for a time have been recognized as an Indonesian citizen. Even with regards to the birth certificate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter issue is in fact the problem. If Barack was born in Hawaii, but his birth certificate was amended to say he was born in Jakarta, that would likely have been regarded as an acknowledgment of Indonesian citizenship.