The fact we do know, or at least the fact that appears regularly in the record is that he got a degree in the spring of 1962. But we don't have any record that shows him in school on Feburary 2, 1961 (a Thursday, says Obama, which I have not confirmed). And I doubt we will find one although he might have been enrolled and showed up back in class on the sixth.
You are misreading the 1952 law imho, there is a residency requirement for the parent, which is more than fully met by the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham lived her whole life in the United States up until the birth of Barack Obama Jr.
Raycpa quote the law in a previous post, and it required 3 of the 5 years to be after age 14. She met the requirement.
The 1934 and 1952 laws give citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizen mothers.
No.
The 52 law and the 34 law, codified as 8 USCA Sec. 1409(c) applies only to children "out of wedlock". We have established here a mother and father who are married to each other so Obama doesn't meet the precondition that he be illegitimate; Sec. 1409(c) doesn't by its terms apply.
Thus he has to get back to Sec. 1401(g) to find citizenship through his mother--ten years of residence before birth, five of which are after 16; since she was only 18, she flunks.
If Obama is born in Kenya, he not only isn't eligible to serve as President, he also is not a citizen.
As I said earlier, it is 100% certain that both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the eligibility requirements to be President.
You can keep reciting that at the bottom of every post but it is also not correct.
McCain has an obvious problem as indicated by the numerous law review and other legal periodical articles, meeting the natural born test. There is no conclusive authority directly in point on the issue. The kind of reasoning I have seen courts engage in on statutory issues is: Well if Congress can overcome the Constitutional provision with legislation, it can effectively amend the Constitution. If this ever gets to a tribunal with authority to decide the question, McCain flunks the Natural Born test.
Obama is a question of fact. If he was born in Hawaii, he is eligible; and he is a citizen. If he was born in Kenya, he is not eligible and he is not a citizen. Simple.
How do you DO that????
“Thus he has to get back to Sec. 1401(g) to find citizenship through his mother-”
If you assume a marriage between his parents (which is valid) and a birth overseas (which is not), we are on the same page her. I quoted from the law itself. You can read the code here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Let me repeat the law itself:
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”
So she met the residency test and Barack Obama meets the natural born citizenship test.
Now, I was wondering about why you have a different residency requirement - I found it here: “1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”. “ So an amendment in 1986 changed the situation to the 5 + 2, which Stanley Ann Dunham met. Further, the claim that someone can fail a residency test despite living their whole life in the US is beyond dubious.
“As I said earlier, it is 100% certain that both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the eligibility requirements to be President.”
“You can keep reciting that at the bottom of every post but it is also not correct.”
“McCain has an obvious problem as indicated by the numerous law review and other legal periodical articles, meeting the natural born test. There is no conclusive authority directly in point on the issue.”
False. McCain is manifestly and obviously a natural born US Citizen, 100% certainty of this.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_24-2008_03_01.shtml#1204265246
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_24-2008_03_01.shtml#1204246912
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF103EF933A1575AC0A961948260
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/crafty-obama-finds-way-to-look.html#comments
PS. Making snopes and other debunking sites:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://peacefulvet.info/blog/2008/06/19/barack-obama-is-a-us-citizen/
Further explanation as to why McCain and Obama are both natural born US Citizens.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF103EF933A1575AC0A961948260
No Simple Matter to Be a Natural Born Citizen
Published: September 20, 1987
LEAD: To the Editor:
To the Editor:
William Safire’s column on Presidential ineligibility due to birth abroad (’’The Constitution’s Flaw,’’ Sept. 6) was entertaining, but it was not accurate. Lest someone who aspires to the Presidency be dissuaded when he or she need not be, let me clarify this thorny area of law.
First, Mr. Safire commits a common error when discussing the Constitution’s requirement that the President be ‘’a natural born citizen.’’ Mr. Safire believes this to mean native born, that is, born within the United States. A far more logical and reasonable meaning, however, is one who became a citizen naturally, through the circumstances of birth, and not through being naturalized, the lengthy and onerous process by which aliens become United States citizens.
One most definitely may have citizenship transmitted automatically even though born abroad. When is someone born abroad a birthright citizen? Under our immigration law we must start with the date of birth.
If you were born after Dec. 2, 1952, citizenship devolves if either parent was a United States citizen. If both were, either must have had, before your birth, a principal abode in this country for any length of time. You thus may be a citizen automatically although you may never in your lifetime set foot in the United States. And since only one parent need have lived here, one of your citizen parents could never have set foot in this country either.
If one of your parents was a United States citizen and the other was not, but was born in American Samoa or on Swains Island, and you were born abroad, you are a United States citizen if your citizen parent, before your birth, resided in the United States for one year.
If one of your parents was a United States citizen and the other an alien, if you were born abroad, you would automatically be a United States citizen if your citizen parent had been, before your birth, in the United States for five years, two before the age of 14.
Of course, as with most law, things are more complicated than they seem. Three other sets of rules apply for those born in the following three periods: before May 24, 1934; between May 24, 1934, and Jan. 12, 1941, and between Jan. 13, 1941, and Nov. 23, 1952. Since I earn my living as an immigration lawyer by helping clients to traverse this thicket, I do not wish to examine why Congress saw fit to change the law from time to time.
A more interesting constitutional question, one that keeps me awake at night and to which Mr. Safire may wish to devote a future column, is whether or not one who was born in the United States and therefore was a birthright citizen, but who lost citizenship and then regained it, can be President.
If one becomes a citizen of a foreign country, takes an oath of allegience to a foreign state or serves in foreign armed forces, one may lose United States citizenship. Later, he may repatriate and become a citizen again. Does the Constitution’s language, ‘’natural born citizen,’’ mean continuous citizenship since birth? Nobody knows. And as the issue doesn’t affect any of this year’s crop of Presidential hopefuls, we are not soon going to get an answer. DONALD M. KRESGE New York, Sept. 8, 1987
It was. Check it out Here