Originally Posted by Britney
For me this just pops up the wikipedia definition which is fine.
4 Court Cases that Define the words
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) is limited to defining the citizenship of women and their voting rights (or in this case, the lack thereof under the 14th am).
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) - takes Happersett and extends it to everyone born in the country. That's fine.
Shanks v. Dupont 28 U.S. 242 (1830) has to do with untangling citizenship before and after the revolutionary war. If you were born a british subject in the colonies and left before the revolution you remained a british subject. The court was enormously reluctant to give land to the British (for obvious reasons).
28 U.S. 242 - the "venus case" describes what happens to naturalized citizens who renounce their citizenship.
None of these cases address citizenship status of americans born abroad, like John McCain (Born in a civilian hospital in Panama) or the countless americans born elsewhere. 8 U.S.C.A. ? 1401 pretty unequivocally defines natural born citizenship to encompass persons born of one american parent abroad.
Furthermore, it's apparent from the release of the short, long, and newspaper articles announcing his birth his place of birth was Hawaii. It's getting into "tin foil hat so the CIA can't hear my thoughts" status to try an argue against the pile of evidence supporting natural born citizenship.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
I'm not sure what the author is trying to accomplish with reference to other presidents.