The Nationality of your American Parent and your place of Birth are not relevant, the Law of the other Country takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930.~~~~~~The problem is that it takes more than a treaty to override the US Constitution. The 14th amendment grants citizenship to all children born on US soil.* It would take an amendment to the Constitution to comply with a treaty like that. The Constitution trumps treaties. US law trumps treaties. We violate treaties all the time.
If a citizen's citizenship could be given away by treaty you can bet the members of one of the political parties would have lost theirs by now. A treaty with the microscopic island of umba-bomga.
As I pointed out in this post, SEC. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481] does not leave a hole for Obama can fall into.
--------------
* short of the offspring of certain holders of diplomatic passports.
Then according to you international agreements this country has signed on to mean nothing if our laws trump them.
Our Congress, you know the people that write the same laws, decides what treaties this country enters into in the form of ratification or the acceptance of the treaty terms by that portion of our government that makes the laws.
It certainly is an odd position to be in to say it is OK for this country to break a treaty that Congress agreed to just so we can have as our next president a man that may very well be a naturalized citizen of not just the United States but possibly of the United Kingdom, Kenya, Indonesia, and maybe even Canada because our laws according to you, still should allow him to run for the highest office in our land. The One office which our founding fathers sought to keep free from foreign citizens.
As I pointed out in this post, SEC. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481] does not leave a hole for Obama can fall into.
Very timely point. Let's start at the bottom. Sec. 1481 is predicated on citizenship. Your earlier post is fine--if Obama was a citizen, absent some one of the acts specified, his mother couldn't lose his citizenship for him under US law. But for purposes of the issues presented here, to get to the statute, you need to find he was a citizen when born--and if he was born in Kenya, he wasn't.
And the statute doesn't affect the Natural Born test under the constitution.
And I know it will come as a shock to you however treaties trump US law.
If he was born in Kenya, the subject is not on the table. But the real issue is application of the treaty if he were born in Hawaii--the father then filed in Kenya under the treaty; what are the applicable rules of law?
As to his rights as a citizen of Kenya? That is not an issue here and we do not address it.
Is he a citizen of the US? A natural born citizen? I assume in the context of this presidential election, the courts will hold the answer to both questions is yes as to Obama, even though there is an obvious issue of sovereignty. There is a good argument, that as a result of application of the treaty, he ought to be viewed as ineligible but as a lawyer who has been in politically sensitive cases, I would guess the judge comes out on the other side.
I can't believe I just posted reply number 4,640 to a thread. I suspended my rule of reading entire threads before I post. Has anybody read all this stuff? lol