Posted on 10/21/2008 1:12:04 PM PDT by lil'bit
I don't know who told you this, but it's not the least bit true. Read the case law. Try Afroyim v. Rusk for starters:
The fundamental issue before this Court ... is whether Congress can consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up.-snip-
[The Fourteenth Amendment] provides its own constitutional rule in language calculated completely to control the status of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . ." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.
-snip-
We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
1)The person in your case was not a “natural born” citizen.
2)The person in your case was not a minor child adopted into a country that does not allow dual citizenship.
3)Despite the verdict The laws of this nation still say that if you participate as a citizen in another country’s election i.e. voting you will lose your citizenship.
4)The law used to attempt to remove the citizenship of a naturalized citizen that had previous swore a sole alligence to this country.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
The question and I do believe it is still a valid one is that if another nation that does not allow dual citizenship confers citizenship on an adopted child during the legal process of adoption is that child or adult in Obama’s case still a US citizen natural born or even naturalized if the person in question did not reaffirm their right to their US citizenship at the age of majority as required by US law?
You are using a case that is nothing like the question, save for the fact that both involve the issue of lost citizenship. perhaps you should read more case law until you find one that is more appropriate to the question at hand
So what? The situations don't have to be the same. All that matters is the Court's holding. Read it again:
We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.That's the Constitutional law regarding loss of citizenship, and it's been the law for decades. Obama never voluntarily relinquished his American citizenship. End of story.
Vance v. Terrazas is a good followup case, and it confirms everything I've already told you.
They don’t have to be the same?
Are you kidding me? That’s like saying here is a case were someone got pulling over for a DWI and got off so we should ignore this guy stealing a car because a motor vehicle was used in each case.
Per the Court, it's unconstitutional for the government to revoke a person's citizenship without that person's consent, period. Read the decisions I linked to. Everything you need to know is right there.
Back at ya! (especially on the no injuries - worst part of the game.)
Your Falcons have had one heck of a season so far, and you guys deserve it after the nightmare that was last year. I always knew that Ryan kid would be a player, but not this fast.
Lookin' forward to a great game!
Owl_Eagle
There are people who are surrounded by bigots
and know it is wrong, but are afraid to be vocal against it.
These people are going to pull the lever for Obama
and they are not being polled.
angee_is_mad, DUmmy
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.