The Constitution IS the law of the land. However, it does not say what YOU think. It says what the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision says, which is that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen. Neither that decision or any other has ever said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is affected by the citizenship of a parent or of both parents. EVERY means every---every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.<quoted text>LMAO!!! Now how can I be wrong, that would be calling the Constitution wrong, sorry the Constitution is the law of the land which has jurisdiction over all three branches of the government and can only be changed by an amendment.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, which makes him ineligible for citizenship in the USA, unless he be naturalized and that has not happened.
"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are natural born citizens and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are natural born citizens eligible to serve as President - Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagans attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:Those born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling:No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers position that Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. The petitioners legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born Citizen regardless of the status of his father.
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that [e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.