Born abroad

[Stranger in a strange land]

Probably, although the Constitution doesn't go into detail on what a "natural born citizen" is. However, a person who acquires U.S. citizenship by birth, either by virtue of being born in the United States or by virtue of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad, would probably qualify.

[Stranger in a strange land]

My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States, even though both his parents were non-citizens and Chinese subjects. This has been upheld and cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens. The only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats, untaxed Indians (now obsolete), and enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was Obama born in the United States? Yes. Were his parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof? His mother undoubtedly was. His father was too, as had he committed a crime, he would have been tried under U.S. law. He did not have extraterritoriality in other words, and therefore any citizenship conferred upon young Barack by virtue of his father's Kenyan or British nationality is irrelevent. British nationality law has no bearing in the United States, except for foreign diplomats granted extraterritoriality.

A natural born citizen is somebody who acquires citizenship by birth. Attempting to claim otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenous at worst. Vattel's writings are NOT the law of the land, birther mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

I'm guessing you're repeating a lie you heard elsewhere, but regardless of what the framers of the constitution felt (and they weren't a homogenous group by the way: they were 50 or so men with vastly different political beliefs), there is no distinction in U.S. law between "natural born citizen" and a "citizen by virtue of geographical location", Vattel notwithstanding.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

I claimed no such thing. A naturalized citizen is a citizen who acquires nationality through naturalization. Naturalization does not make one natural born. Schwarzenegger is not a nautral-born citizen under any reading of the law. The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.

Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen who wasn't naturalized until 14 years after Arthur's birth. He was elected as Vice President in 1880 and sworn in after James Garfield's death. There actually was some controversy at the time - including suprious claims that Arthur had been born in Canada - but he was allowed to serve nonetheless.