US Constitution, Article 6, binds treaties to law.

Treaty establishing diplomatic relations, between US and British, signed by President Truman in 1951, attached British Nationality Act of 1948 to Hawaii birth of Barack Hussein Obama II, since his father was in the USA under a treaty with the UK.

See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64484945/Information-in-the-Nature-of-Quo-Warranto-AnyGOV-V4-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64263111/Glossary-V3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-yoxEP8Gpg

“For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.”

Born in 1961, Obama falls into this part of the law as stated above. Now I do agree that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, spent her childhood in the United States, however, for naturalization to be passed to Obama she would need to have resided in the United States for (5) years after her (14) fourteenth birthday and prior to the child birth.

She gave birth to Obama in 1961 at the age of (18) eighteen. She does not fulfill the required (5) five years after her (14) fourteenth birthday clause, (shy by just (3) three months). So technically the naturalization would not be passed automatically to one Barack Obama II.

It always boils back to the law in effect at the time and not current law sorry to say but he is not a natural born citizen and should not be President.

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court, Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U. S. 242 (1830), Page 28. Online: http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

Source: US Supreme Court, The Venus, 12 U. S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814), Page 12. Online: http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Approved, March 26, 1790.

Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 3 – An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1790. Page 104. Online: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

..

1795, Jan 29 – Uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1795 [Repealed Act of 1790]

And the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

And be it enacted , That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Approve, January 29, 1795.

Analyis: This act changed the “natural born citizens” clause in the 1790 act, to just “citizens”.

Source: Statutes at Large, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter 21 – An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1795 [Repealed Act of 1790]. Page 415. Online: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”