No, they didn’t. Under the statute, Obama’s mother had to have lived in the US for at least five years after the age of 14. She gave birth to him before her 19th birthday. Also, this statute doesn’t apply to McCain, because McCain was born in 1936.

If there is some requirement other than acquiring citizenship at birth in order to be a “natural born citizen,” please enlighten me.

There may be. Whether “natural born citizen” means “entitled to US citizenship from birth” or is to be construed more narrowly as requiring birth on US soil is a long-standing unsettled issue. It arose, but did not ripen, when George Romney ran for President in 1968 since he was born in Mexico to US citizen parents.

Of course it is; read the third paragraph of my second comment. I’m just saying I understand the argument and intend to address it, not that I agree with it.

BTW, what statute are you reading? This says the parent(s) simply have to have lived in the US for a period of time which Obama’s mother and both of McCain’s parents certainly all did, in order to acquire citizenship at birth. If there is some requirement other than acquiring citizenship at birth in order to be a “natural born citizen,” please enlighten me.

This is incorrect. Being born in the US automatically qualifies you as a “natural born citizen,” regardless of parental citizenship. But one need not be born “in” the US to be a natural born citizen. Today, and at the time Obama was born, a child born to two US citizens abroad was a natural born citizen, but not a child born abroad to one US citizen and an alien (as defined by statute, no clue what originalist say about this situ). At the time McCain was born the statute didn’t include children of two US citizens born abroad, but that doesn’t necessarily matter as original meaning of the term may have included that population of children as well.