Replies

“The statute which the Court there sustained did not divest Mrs. Mackenzie of her citizenship. [n19] It provided that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” [n20] “At the termination [p70] of the marital relation,” the statute continues, “she may resume her American citizenship. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Her citizenship was not taken away; it was held in abeyance.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0356_0044_ZD.html

Interesting semantics there - “Her citizenship was not taken away.”

It is clear that birthright citizenship could not be taken away by legislation.

So what’s your point? It is not the law now. It was not the law when Obama was born. Laws change.

Interesting semantics there...

Interesting context there...

Twice before, this Court has recognized that certain voluntary conduct results in an impairment of the status of citizenship. In Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, an American citizen had renounced her citizenship and acquired that of a foreign state. This Court affirmed her loss of citizenship, recognizing that,
From the beginning, one of the most obvious and effective forms of expatriation has been that of naturalization under the laws of another nation.
338 U.S. at 498. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, involved an American woman who had married a British national. That decision sustained an Act of Congress which provided that her citizenship was suspended for the duration of her marriage. Since it is sometimes asserted that this case is authority for the broad proposition that Congress can take away United States citizenship, it is necessary to examine precisely what the case involved.
The statute which the Court there sustained did not divest Mrs. Mackenzie of her citizenship. [n19] It provided that "any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband." [n20] "At the termination [p70] of the marital relation," the statute continues, "she may resume her American citizenship. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Her citizenship was not taken away; it was held in abeyance.
This view of the statute is borne out by its history. The 1907 Act was passed after the Department of State had responded to requests from both houses of Congress for a comprehensive study of our own and foreign nationality laws, together with recommendations for new legislation.

So what’s your point?

That a "natural citizen" is born with no divided allegiance, and no recognizable claim (by Agreed upon International law) by another nation upon them.

If you can be drafted into a foreign army, you are NOT a "natural citizen." You are an "unnatural" dual national.

It is not the law now. It was not the law when Obama was born.

It was not the law for basic citizenship. It *IS* the law for meeting the requirements of eligibility for the Presidency.

Laws change.

Yes they do, but we need to be careful not to assume they did when they didn't. An axiom of legal interpretation is that a law cannot be presumed to have repealed a previous law unless it specifically says so.

Changing the laws to allow either parent to pass on citizenship is merely a back door game when regarding the CORRECT AND ORIGINAL requirements for the Office of Presidency. Since DUAL NATIONALS were not possible in 1787, they cannot be regarded as acceptable according to the meaning and intent of Article II.