Having done more research, I agree with you. Since past cases define natural born as being born to citizens, why was Obama allowed to run seeing his father was Kenyan?
protected by courts which would not take a case and focus was on birthplace. His father was a Brit by virtue of Kenya being a Brit colony but you didn’t hear much about that.
wiki has a good article The big issue is whether or not a candidate’s parents have to be US citizens when he or she was born.,
In the 1740s Vattel whose writings were known to the founders write a Natural born citizen is one who is born in country to citizen parents. many countries have required the father to be a citizen. Many in the uS argue it doesn’t matter as long as the person was born here. Unfortunately the founders did not define the term. But if you think about a person born with citizenship options like Obama because of his father, the founders would not put a potential brit in charge of the uS military., (letter between Jay and Washington)
The vice-president must be a natural-born citizen, in the same manner as the president. UCLA professor Eugene Volokh said Harris is a natural-born citizen because she was born in the United States.[225] In a Newsweek op-ed, Chapman University professor John C. Eastman asked if Harris’s parents were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth or if they were temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas. He then stated that if they were temporary visitors, then “under the 14th Amendment as originally understood”, she would not be considered a U.S. citizen at all—much less a natural-born citizen—and might not even be eligible for her then-current position in the Senate.[226] Responding to criticism it received, Newsweek’s editors wrote that Eastman’s “essay has no connection whatsoever to so-called ‘birther-ism’”. The response went on and stated, “the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’, and the relation of that Article II textual requirement to the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, are issues of legal interpretation about which scholars and commentators can, and will, robustly disagree.”[227] Newsweek also published Volokh’s rebuttal to Eastman’s essay.[228] Colin Kalmbacher in Law & Crime responded to Eastman by saying that Eastman misstated “the state of the law – as well as the opinions of the legal community and the precedents of the courts – based on an incorrect reading of the” Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898.[229] Newsweek later apologized after receiving a strong negative reaction to the publication, saying they had “entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized” and that their publication of it “was intended to explore a minority legal argument about the definition of who is a ‘natural-born citizen’ in the United States. But to many readers, the essay inevitably conveyed the ugly message that Senator Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the child of immigrants, was somehow not truly American.”[230]
I recommend Natural Born Citizen on wikipedia or do a search Harvard has a good article i disagree with
Because liberals can do whatever they want. The laws don't apply to them.