Posted on 11/16/2008 1:53:54 PM PST by sportsone234
As for the theoretical possibility that he was born outside the U.S. (no one has come up with convincing evidence that he was born outside the U.S.), well, read this.
a. As amended by Public Law 103-416 on October 25, 1994, section 301 states as follows with respect to persons born abroad:
b. Sec. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
g. 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
Note that this condition applies retroactively to Obama, as the following condition shows:
l. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).
This information comes from pp. 15-17 of the following U.S. State Department document:
7 FAM 1130
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
which is available in PDF format here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Note that this law is retroactive to before Obama was born, so even if he were born outside the U.S. he would be retroactively a natural born American citizen.
Before the peanut gallery speaks up, the prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to criminal law. Citizenship law is not criminal law.
Irrelevant. A person who is natural-born (like Obama, assuming he was really born in Hawaii) is not trying to "become an American", he already is.
How so? It's my impression that the US did not recognize "dual citizenship" until just a few years ago. It certainly did not recognize such in 1961. If Obama was a British subject then he most assuredly was not a US "natural born citizen"!
Regards,
GtG
I think that’s ridiculous
Here is the relevant wording from the Constitution.No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Now please explain your reasoning that the above means there is no one eligible to be President.
The comma between "United States" and "at the time ..." makes the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" applicable to natural born citizens as well as foreign born ones. So all the eligible citizens died long ago. ;^)
Don't believe it? Try this: "Smith, or Jones if he has red hair, can be President." Obviously, Jones needs red hair but Smith's can be any color, or missing. HOWEVER, "Smith, or Jones, if he has red hair..." means both need to be redheads.
I'm sure the Founders meant to say something else, but that's what they actually said.
This is getting so tiresome. If there really was something to this do you think the Hilary and McCain camps would have stood there and not played this obvious trump card and let BHO take the presidency? And do you think their opposition researchers wouldn’t have been all over this trying to find something?
I think you are interpreting that comma in the Constitution in accordance with today’s rules of punctuation, rather than those commonly understood in 1787 when it was written. The phrasing to which you refer has always been understood to have an entire “grandfather” clause, i. e., “a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” to supplement the “natural born citizen” requirement which was intended to be the criterion applicable after all the citizens at the time of adoption had passed on.
Yes, it's certainly possible that they decided not to look into this for fear of being smeared with the "r" word and/or fear of rioting breaking out in some black communities.
That's fine. It doesn't have to. The U.S. certainly DID recognize U.S. citizenship, which is all that matters.
If Obama was a British subject then he most assuredly was not a US "natural born citizen"!
Untrue. One has no effect on the other. There is no caveat in U.S. citizenship law that says, "Oh yeah, unless you're also British."
Comma usage did not follow today’s rules. Just look at the superfluous ones in the Second Amendment.
Yes, of course it’s ridiculous. But, at one time, that was a rather common misconception.
Including you???
Before the peanut gallery speaks up, the prohibition of ex post facto laws applies only to criminal law. Citizenship law is not criminal law.
The crux here is that A.D. was too young for the law to apply to her???
Ref. to Philip J. Berg, Esq., he explain it better than I!!!
www.obamancrimes.com
No, I very much like to find out who Obama really is. But by now you must’ve noticed that he is being protected by some powerful people, by the corrupt MSM, probably by the democrats and perhaps even by some republicans.
Have you noticed that it is only Freepers who want to keep the story alive and that NOBODY in Washington D.C. cares any more because, as far as they know, it has all been settled. Even Rush and Sean ignore the story.
I agree that the entire affair smells to high heaven but unless someone with great political power, influence and courage tries to get to the bottom of it, it will not be resolved. Don’t you find it strange that neither McCain nor Palin tried to get to the truth? They may have tried to solve the mystery privately, but they got nowhere.
I’d say this finally ends it. 0bama is not eligible to be POTUS.
You may have just hit on the real hidden truth. 0bama is a survivor of his own abortion and his original BC reflects that. If true his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Now that's an interesting theory, but there's no evidence at this point to support it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.