[BP2]

> But the British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed the status of Obama Sr’s
> children did at the time, therefore Obama was British 1st and American 2nd.

>> Maybe to the British, but in terms U.S. law, that doesn't matter at all.

When ... the US laws of 1961 when Obama was born, or the US laws of 1787 when the Constitution was written?

Only one would be accepted by the SCOTUS in a ruling, and it would NOT be the laws of 1961.

[patlin]

Thanks, I was talking in obot terms, something they might bite onto and try to prove me wrong. I really would like to see it because thus far I have I have not found one law that the US Congress has ever passed that legally allows for dual citizenship & for that matter, a law that doesn't recognize the father as being the one that passes his citizenship when the child is born in wedlock.

If dual citizenship was a matter of law & it mattered NOT for the sake of the executive branch, then why is it that anyone working or interning at the white house to this day must take an oath renouncing any foreign allegiance they might have acquired during their life?