Pipe dreams, born in Hawaii of a US citizen mother and a noncitizen father (To whom the mother was not married IIRC) is still a natural born citizen. Not to say that I doubt there are papers all over the place that people are sitting on where he declared himself a Muslim, an Indonesian, or a Kenyan for convenience at the time, but if he just lied rather than formally renounced his US citizenship or elected a non-US citizenship once he was an adult, it means nothing legally.
Since "natural born citizen" is an at-birth status, it is as yet unestablished by any legal opinion at all, that this status can be lost at some later time by having forfeit one's citizenship. One's at-birth status does not change as a result of later events. However, I strongly believe that the Court would, with little or no reservation, uphold the idea that one must still also be a citizen to hold the office of President.
In truth, the only statements on the matter of "natural born citizen", from the U.S. Supreme Court, over its entire history, would strongly undermine the above highlighted statement, that it is mere birth on U.S. soil. Also the validity of the marriage (which was ended by legal process) is entirely irrelevant to natural born status -- which is a function of Natural Law, not Positive (man-made) Law. Being outside of man-made (Positive) law undoubtedly had a good deal to do with the choice of the phrase for the office President, putting its qualifications outside Congressional finagling with a legal definition (Separation of Powers).
In Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) Justice Waite clearly indicated the definition of natural born citizen in the below passage:
- 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.
This same definition of natural born citizen was again cited Justice Gray in the majority opinion for U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and at no time was it in any way undermined. Additionally the dissenting minority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, written by C.J. Fuller, also affirmed this definition involving birth on this country's soil to parents who were its citizens.
There are other statements throughout American history supporting this definition as well:
- “What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.â€
- Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) (signer of the Constitution of the United States)
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.â€
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) - Rep. John A. Bingham
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.â€
Representative Bingham
While there are references in American history to only one citizen parent establishing natural born citizen offspring (as in the first quote above), provided there was birth on U.S. soil, this is not entirely accurate. This came at a time in American history when the wife's citizenship was deemed to follow that of the father, naturalized by presumption, due to patriarchal beliefs.
And an improper President does not render the other two branches illegitimate.
It's not just "improper", but rather more accurately "unqualified" that is the concern here. The powerful positive mandate of Article II indicates that "No Person" but a natural born citizen is qualified to hold the office of President.
However, in certain cases, your statement may be correct. For instance, in Supreme Courts where there are no appointees on the Court made by that illegitimate President, then there would be no ruling that would become illegitimate. Similarly, even if those Court contain appointees by an unqualified President, there is a chance those votes would not serve as a deciding factor in the Court opinion. Yet if their vote(s) were able to change the outcome, this would also make those case decisions illegitimate.
And while no bill can be signed into law by an unqualified President, I suppose some bills might be able to be considered law if they received a 2/3 majority Congress. However, if there is no legitimate President in Congress, then there is no balance of powers, and no bill has the opportunity to be vetoed, nor signed into law, and the two branches of government are acting as if government is in a legitimate status, when it is not. This would result in an enormous expanse of ground for conflict.
Beyond these considerations, Dr. Edwin Vieira does a fairly thorough job of considering the state of "Constitutional Crisis" resulting from an unqualified Oval Occupant, in
"Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down".
