Replies

If by "dual loyalty" you actually mean dual citizenship, you are quite wrong. Go read the State Department's website. They're not all warm and fuzzy on the concept, but they recognize it none the less.

Actually you are wrong, the naturalization law at the time Obama was born did not allow dual citizenship, and today's law on the dual citizenship concept is not retroactive.

Case in point John McCain was actually born in Colon, Panama, the question was raised and rightfully so if he was in fact a Natural Born citizen or even a citizen at all.

The Panama Canal Zone was never US territory and always belong to the Nation of Panama.

The reason John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be president was that he met the legal definition crafted by the Founding Fathers that you have tried to twist into fantasy, he was that child born to US citizens beyond the seas.....

"Actually you are wrong, the naturalization law at the time Obama was born did not allow dual citizenship, and today's law on the dual citizenship concept is not retroactive."

So there you go. You have just completely taken Obama off the hook. Because he was born in the US and was not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying Army, he was solely subject to the jurisdiction of the US at birth. If, as you insist here, the US did not recognize dual nationality then his "British citizenship" does not exist in the eyes of US Law.

He is therefore a natural born American citizen.

I remain completely puzzled by all the fake Constitutional conservatives in this thread like Danae and Syc who repeatedly insist that United States law is inferior to British law on this subject, and that foreign countries can ignore our sovereignty and involuntarily take away an American's natural born citizenship. What genuine patriot would bend over to any foreign nation like that and say, "please sir, may I have another?" Because that is exactly what all of you are doing every time you assert that British Law had jurisdiction on Obama when he was born.

Of course, the US Supreme Court has called BS on that, too. Again quoting from that font of Birther despair and anger, the brilliant and authoritative decision in Wong Kim Ark:

"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. "

But that's the opposite of what you are guys are saying... you are denying that the jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is exclusive, or absolute. Hell, you are saying it is not even as good as that of other nations.

There's not a one of you who really gives a damn about the Constitution at all. The Founders would spit you guys out like so much lukewarm water.