Posted on 03/23/2015 1:17:25 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
So I saw several years of complaints that Obama was born in Kenya. Lets assume he was. His mother is an American citizen; there isn't any dispute there. And, in the minds of those who believe he was born in Kenya, that means he's not eligible to be President.
Lets move to Ted Cruz. He was born in Canada. His father wasn't a US Citizen at the time of his birth. His mother was. So if Obama being born in Kenya supposedly matters, why does Cruz being born in Canada NOT matter?
Cruz never needed a recourse to law to become a citizen. He was a citizen from the moment of his birth, by virtue of his being born to a US citizen. No court had to approve of or grant his citizenship. That is the very definition of a "natural born citizen".
Oh yeah, that’s it. Just make it up as you go along.
Look it up!!! For goodness sake, Look it up yourself, since you don’t believe common reason. I did a search for “citizenship laws 1960” you can add a “retroactive?” to that
You are casting aspersions on someone else’s intellectual honesty??? wow, just wow.
But Obama’s mother didn’t give her son citizenship. She wasn’t able to in 1961
You don’t know that. Because it doesn’t make sense to you??? I’m sorry, that’s nothing.
Ex Post Facto
United States[edit]
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws.[19] The case dealt with the Article I, Section 10, prohibition on ex post facto laws, because it concerned a Connecticut state law.
Not all laws with retroactive effects have been held to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has a retroactive effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[20] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, do not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because these laws do not impose any kind of punishment...
More at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States
Why don’t you look it up yourself????
Yeah and especially never look up what is known as fact. Just come on here and denigrate others who apparently know more than you.
If you’d bothered to look it up, you’d have the answer to that, instead of arguing out of ignorance.
So you can’t look up citizenship law from 1961, and you can’t even read this thread for an answer?! It’s all been clearly explained, actually over and over.
I know the answer to the question I was asking. No, there were NO Requirements for the mother in 1787. As a matter of fact, Citizenship at that time was completely patrilineal.
Women, upon marriage, were automatically naturalized into their husband's nation.
My point in asking the question was to demonstrate how silly were the beliefs of people who think a "natural born citizen" can have a mother who has to meet "conditions" for him to be a citizen.
The Mothers of "Natural Born Citizens" do not have to meet "conditions."
She doesn’t have to. The citizenship law was changed by then.
Yeah, don’t pay any attention to the laws that were in force at the time of Obama’s birth.
That’s good, but it’s only been explained OVER AND OVER on this thread!
You can prove that?
Yeah, that’s why he said “I’ve released my birth certificate” because he didn’t do it.
And obama, the man who claimed to be from Kenya so many times........
Have you noticed that BD45 only hears what he wants to hear, and only believes what he already believed? We are wasting our time here.
The state of Hawaii has proven it - by pulling the computerized record from its archives. You can argue with the proof, but you wouldn't win in a court of law. You can produce any document in your possession you want, but it's not valid unless the state says it's got the same record in its possession. That is how fraudulent papers (i.e. fake ID's purchased by illegal aliens) get exposed - the lack of backup in the state archives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.