Posted on 01/06/2010 6:30:17 AM PST by SvenMagnussen
(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Which question?
What does the constitution say about dual citizenship?
Nothing. What's your point?
Who, exactly, would “we” be?
They're not going to let a little thing like the constitution get in the way.
After all -- as a 'useful idiot' of the left once told me -- 'The constitution is *just* a piece of paper!'
STE=Q
And ONE MORE TIME...
what does the constitution say about dual citizenship regarding potus??
My tagline says it all!
More questions instead of answers. You’re hilarious.
You are ill-informed on the “birther” issue. Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious. Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.”
Seriously? You just found that? These die hards trumpet it every day.
There is no actual statement in the Constitution or in legal precedent that precludes a person with a foreign citizen father from being deemed a natural born citizen. That you want to treat it as a settled fact doesn't make it so.
And Obama never admitted that he wasn't an NBC in a debate with Keyes. That's an urban myth that no one can produce an actual link to because it never happened. Even Keyes disavows it.
Yes. I've known this for over a year. So?
He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments.
He lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 21, so even if it were true that dual citizens couldn't be president, it wouldn't matter in his case.
Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.
That is simply not true. This is yet another instance of birthers just making things up out of thin air.
What, exactly, am I not getting?
You are ill-informed on the “birther” issue.
***Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.***
Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native.
This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious.
Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.
Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.
It.
It!
IT!
You’re not getting IT!!
IIITTTT!!!!!!!!
And for the twentieth time: it says nothing. What's your point?
Well, THAT brought a smile to my face which immediately turned to a big sigh.
Repeating the same falsehood over and over again will not make it true.
The Constitution says nothing about dual citizenship vis-a-vis the Presidency. Really. Go read it yourself.
It uses the undefined term “natural born citizen.” Contrary to birther myth, that term does not automatically exclude people with a foreign citizen parent. English common law precedents the Founders would have been well acquainted with do not make that distinction. The body of available legal precedent does not make that distinction. And everyone, including Vice President Cheney overseeing the electoral college count and Chief Justice Roberts who swore him in, knew Obama didn't have a citizen father.
Just because you want to make up something in your head and insist it is a fact doesn't make it so.
Hawaii's director of public health has publicly, officially, and explicitly stated that the state's vital records show he was born in Hawaii.p>
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
“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.”
The Framers distinguised between”natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves by law.
The Framers were not natural born citizens because, “at birth” they were all British citizens. That’s why they included a grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1. The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. They recognized that they were NOT “Natural Born Citizens”, because “at birth” they were subject to the British Crown as was Barack Obama.
The Framers were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers. The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “Natural Born Citizens” so they wrote the grandfather clause in for a limited exception.
Nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
NOW...if this is not true simply PROVE IT!!!
Repeating the same falsehood over and over again will not make it true.
Seems to work pretty well for your side.
That is not what was stated. Go back and read the statement.
Then why not release them so it can be “evident” to all of us.
That's very true, so why do you keep repeating your lies?
Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native.
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.