Fascinating. The addendum changing the mother’s necessary stay in the USA to 2 years after age 14 from five years after age 14 happened in 1986.
Thus in 1986 it could be said that Barack Obama was RETROACTIVELY a natural born citizen at birth.
Then why did he take such precautions to hide his background??????
Possible reasons might be that by that time, he was already a citizen of Indonesia, clearly. Does that affect anything? If someone is retroactively a NBC, but before the retroactive law he had become a citizen of a different country, does that affect his NBC status?
Also, by that time, he had applied to American colleges, probably as a foreigner. And his grandmother may have illegally found him some social security numbers so that he could hold his ice cream shop jobs and such.
This is absolutely a very interesting subject. Too bad no investigative journalist wants to risk his life to delve into this.
No it can't - that law isn't retroactive and literally can't be made retroactive. If it was, then you'd have a backwards-cascade of newly created NBCs that were already naturalized, who could then sue over all sorts of things they had to go through to get naturalized which affected their lives, careers, status, etc.
Nope - too big a mess. And that's why the Obama people didn't invoke that argument, either.
I’ve seen a copy of his enrollment paper for Columbia University, I think it was, and he lists his birthplace as Kenya and checked he was a foreign student. Being a foreign student must have given him financial help. So, he was either born in Kenya as he said, or he was lying to get a scholarship.
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