I posted this earlier so will do so again:
Sorry to disappoint you folks, but you’re wasting your time. The citizenship question is not the first in US history.
Subsequent law has dealt with insufficiencies of the constitution on this issue:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
-Anyone born inside the United States *
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
-Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Although that just proves Obama may be a citizen, it still doesn’t answer the ‘eligibility’ question for the office of President.
A person born of two ‘citizen’ parents.
Natural born is the subject, noone disputes he is a citizen.
Besides his daddy wasn’t an American, that alone disqualifies zero.
Vatell spells it out along with letters from Ben Franklin, Et al.
While I appreciate the opinions of politicians, pundits, authors, bloggers and posters, the only opinion that matters is that of the current Supreme Court, if they could be reached for comment...
According to the Constitution, the requirement is ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
I’ll try to explain this so that everyone can understand it.
When one is born, his citizenship is determined by one of two factors:
1. Where he was born (the ‘Native’ claim) AND;
2. Of what country was the citizenship of his parents.
If both factors result in the citizenship of the same country, then there are no conflicting loyalties, and the newborn is ‘naturally’ a citizen of where he was born.
Thus the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is applied.
Get it?
“Citizens at the time of birth” isn’t the same as “natural-born citizens.” Every Mexican woman who pops out a kid while shopping in San Diego for the day gives birth to a “ citizen at birth.” But that offspring will never be president ( at least that’s what the Constitution says), So from what I see, nothing you have written has any effect on FUBO’s eligibility to be president.
Obama has birthright citizenship because his mother was a US citizen. And because he was born on US soil. But his father was a British subject, so he's not a natural born citizen as required by Article II, and as defined by the body of international law referred to in the Constitution as the Law of Nations, whose preeminent codification at the time of the Constitutional Convention was in a book by de Vattel.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):
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.
Correspondence among the Framers makes it clear that the issue that motivated the "natural born citizen" requirement was to ensure that the Commander-in-chief of the military would have absolutely no allegiances or ties to any foreign power, and would not be a citizen or subject of any foreign power, nor be able to make any such claim. Obama's father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Obama can legally claim to be a British subject based on that fact.
Only citizens at the time the Constitution was passed were eligible ... every one after that point had to be a “natural born citizen”
You are wrong, and obviously biased.