Is Hawaii a state, and was it so in the 1960s?
Yes. Just as much a state as Iowa, Virginia or Utah.
“The law you linked is about how difficult it is to lose your citizenship and that no one can lose it for you. The author never said this happened.”
“then suddenly reappear back on the island four years later under suspicious circumstances without any evidence of repatriation”
Repatriation means to return to the land of your citizenship, so if Obama returned at age 10 without repatriating, it meant he had lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia.
“I found the blog accurate in all the things that I have knowledge of.”
Hmmm...you mean like quoting from the 1797 translation of Vattel as if it was available during the 1787 convention?
Words mean things. There is a QUESTION about Obama’s citizenship. I think he was born in Kenya, but there are only questions no proof. Unless of course you believe a birth certificate. I agree that IF Obama was born in Hawaii, the law is clear that, not being the age of majority, that his parents could not take away his “citizenship”. No foreign could take away his citizenship. IF HE WAS BORN IN THE USA. A BIG if. It is just unknown.
“I found the blog accurate in all the things that I have knowledge of.”
Hmmm...you mean like quoting from the 1797 translation of Vattel as if it was available during the 1787 convention?
It WAS available during the 1787 convention. In French and English.
To assume that the people in the States who read the Constitution, and elected Delegates to ratify it, somehow understood that the entire definition of citizenship they had always known was being tossed in favor of the unmentioned (in the Constitution) interpretation of some Swiss legal theorist, is preposterous. There is absolutely no basis for inferring that the Citizens of the new United States understood that the basic English concept of birth citizenship had been changed in that document because it was not mentioned.
What some elites may have written in their own debates is irrelevant. What matters is the meaning of the words as commonly understood at the time by the citizens who approved the Constitution, because it is only from them that the validity of the Constitution flows. And any claim that de Vattel's citizenship theory was the one commonly understood by the average American at the time of ratification is simply preposterous.
You are arguing with the wrong person over this. My understanding of the law is that one’s parents or guardians are not capable of renouncing anyone’s citizenship but their own.
A person who is born as an American Citizen cannot be deprived of their citizenship through any action of their parents or guardians, it must be done by themselves after reaching an age of majority.
Now I understand that Sven Magnussen (sp?) disagrees, and he may well have some statute or regulation that says so, but till I see something in statute that convinces me otherwise, I am going to continue believing that a person’s citizenship is not subject to the whims of their parents or guardian.
I don’t recall that it has been argued explicitly that it was a translated version of Vattel that the Founders were aware of and definitely had copies of. I think many of the Founders were knowledgeable with the French language. You are correct as to dates and incidents but the knowledge of the Founders needs to be in the context.