Technically, you assertion is not correct regarding the Constitution defining what a 'natural-born citizen' is. Not to rehash the debate but here is something I put together a few months ago:
The Constitution was constructed under the principles of Natural Law. Under Nature Law one was a “natural-born citizen” following the father’s bloodline – it has NOTHING to do with the location of the birth itself (as most erroneously assume). A child is a “natural-born citizen” of whichever nation his father is a citizen of at the time of birth. This truth is flatly stated in the Law of Nations, a body of thought that the Framers included in the Constitution (ref. U.S.C. Section VIII – “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”). The idea is that a President should not have dual citizenship nor split alliances, for obvious reasons, so the provision (under Art. II.,Sec. I, Clause V) for all Presidents is that they must be natural-born citizens.
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 5: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...”
Law Of Nations, §212: “…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.”
a. The term “natural-born citizen” originated with the British Royal Family in an effort to secure the royal bloodline when members of the royal family were born while traveling abroad.
b. It was based upon “natural law” or “nature’s law” (not man-made law) – following the bloodline of the father, the king or prince, regardless of birth place of the offspring.
c. The term later became British Common Law and later, international law by way of international treaty often referred to as The Law of Nations, defining what constitutes a “nation” and the “citizens” of a nation, wherein all nations recognized the legal citizenship and citizenship rights of sovereign nations on this basis.
To be a natural born citizen of the United States, one must be the blood offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a legal U.S. citizen. The Law of Nations, written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758, defines natural-born citizen. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this definition and it’s not complicated:
1) natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
4) 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.
With this background, let’s look to certain facts regarding Obama. President Obama himself has publically stated that he is the son of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a citizen of Kenya which was a territory of the British Crown at the time of Obama Sr.’s birth. As such, even if Pres. Obama was born in Hawii he would still NOT be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and hence not constitutionally fit to be POTUS.
