Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: WOSG
Hmmm. You are correct. I misread paragraph (g).

I agree that regardless of the location of his birth, he is a US citizen by virtue of the 1952 law and being born to an American parent.

A few things are still in play.

Is this sufficient to meet the "natural born" requirement? Not according to what I had always been taught. (But so what? I was also taught the Moon was up there "to protect us from meteors")!

More to the point, there is still a lively debate in legal circles as to what constitutes "natural born" I don't expect they will be done splitting finer and finer hairs until some time after the sun burns out.

The two other things still in play are what actually happened? Given eye witness accounts of his birth in Kenya, what if he really was born there? Why would Stanley Ann bother to rush back to Hawai'i to claim he was born there?

I think that it is simply because she feared he wouldn't be granted US citizenship, since he was born off shore, and Barak Sr. had one too many wives for US laws. Her simplest solution was to board a plane as soon as they'd let her, and get their little butts back to Hawai'i before his cord fell off and she could plausibly assert he was born there at home.

She acted based on what she knew and feared, even if it wasn't accurate.

The other alternative is also quite simple. She didn't go on a honeymoon, she didn't meet his parents, and Barak really was born in Honolulu.

If that is the case, it would have been a trivial exercise to get an unquestionably authentic birth certificate. Soooooo...

WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN POST A CLUMSY COPY???

2,431 posted on 07/08/2008 3:01:53 PM PDT by null and void (every Muslim, the minute he can differentiate, carries hate of Americans, Jews & Christians - OBL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2425 | View Replies ]


To: null and void
Hmmm. You are correct. I misread paragraph (g). I agree that regardless of the location of his birth, he is a US citizen by virtue of the 1952 law and being born to an American parent.

Don't say that. He has quoted you the new version of Sec. 1401(g). There isn't any argument about that, go back and look at the legal opinion post--the effective date of the 5 and 2 rule is persons born after November 1986; Obama was born in 1961. The amendment is not retroactive--the old rule was 10 years prior to birth, five which are after 14; Stanley Ann flunked by definition.

The statute about which there is uncertainty is Sec. 1409 which by its terms applies only to persons born out of wedlock. Obama misses because his parents were married--this is your case where even if their marriage was in the bush in a Grove of trees, they are still in wedlock for persons affected until a court says they are not.

2,461 posted on 07/08/2008 4:02:11 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2431 | View Replies ]

To: null and void
But so what? I was also taught the Moon was up there "to protect us from meteors")!

To some extent, it does. Just not enough. It certainly has taken plenty of hits, but so has the earth. Terra just fixes them faster, much faster, than Luna.

2,498 posted on 07/08/2008 5:45:34 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2431 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson