But, damn good point. Why shouldn’t he look like his grandpa?

You’re right. It neve occurred to me. More of the “what I want to believe!’ Shoots down that theory. Thank you.

That comment was devastating.

The local Hawaiian newspapers would publish such announcements if they were even phoned in by relatives in the know.

This was done all the time — even for babies born overseas to Americans.

FYI, Hawaii has FOR THE LONGEST TIME permitted extra territorial births as being local births if the local family phones it in.

Such birth notices are not/ never were vetted against any official standard.

I grant, this is the first legitimate argument I’ve heard on this topic. I’ll have to ask about for an opinion of someone more familiar with the Law.

I think the argument that BO is not natural born to be particularly unlikely, for the simple reason that there is a newspaper article announcing his birth in the Hawaiian newspapers of the times — there is simply no rational reason for doing this (if he’s not) unless you are going to claim a 50-year plot to make him PotUS, as that’s literally the ONLY possible reason to care if he’s “natural-born” or not. And given the attitudes of the parents all around, it seems decidedly unlikely that they would believe that the DAMN RACIST Amerikkka of the 50s would turn around and legally elect a black PotUS within 50 years.

So the only valid argument you can make is the requirement that BOTH parents be citizens AND he be native-born as opposed to being native-born alone.

I’d also like to know exactly how the FFs used that term, myself, in other writings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s

“The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion”

The Service serves up scholarly legal and historical opinion but ignores historical legal findings such as Minor v. Happersett. I am not impressed (not that anyone would oooohhh and aaaahhh at my opinion).

Historical opinion hadn’t much to go on and most always relied on comparisons; English law “natural born subject” and American “natural born citizen”, two legal definitions of which the first could offer nothing to the question at hand as the idea of a “subject” was entirely at odds with the Founding Fathers ideas. Clearly, citizens could never be thought subjects and legal extrapolations would have been difficult at best.

As to the Constitution and statutory construction – Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”.

The difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” must exist as “natural born” cannot be presumed to be without effect.

Finally, back to Minor v. Happersett – Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):

“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.”

Quite frankly, I am surprised by the Congressional Research Service opinion. I fully expect the answer to any inquiry as to the Constitutionality of X to be answered “Are you serious… are you serious”.

More importantly, the Corsi article points to evidence that Columbia era Barack was associated with “May 19th” communist group of Columbia students, and May 19th was associated with the Weather Underground. I have long suspected that Ayers began shepherding the student aged Barack. This is the first direct evidence of which I have heard (though still have not seen the evidence).