It is just like so many other stnadards of behavior and conduct the Democrats are trying to bury and erase. Obama and/or his supporters keep trying to foist the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript) on the public as the only document the State of Hawaii can provide as a birth certificate for Obama to present to the public. This argument of theirs has to be one of the most insulting and ridiculous excuses ever used by Obama and the Democrats supporting him.
The Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript) is a computer generated form that did not become available until 2000-2001. When Obama had to present a birth certificate for the numerous routine purposes before the year 2000, he had to do so using the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) because the Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript) did not yet exist.
Obama wrote in his book/s that he had his birth certificate tucked away in a book. The Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript) did not yet exist, so it had to be his Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) in that book. Yet, Obama and his supporters are now trying to say he cannot produce the same document he wrote about in his book.
Obama must have used his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) on all of the other occasions before 2000-2001 when he was called upon to produce one to enter schools, apply for his license to practice law before he was disbarred or compelled to surrender his law license, and to apply for his U.S. Passport. It is fair to presume he should still have the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) he used on those occasions.
Then there is the fairy tale or blatant lie the Hawaii Department of Health, Obama, and his supporters are broadcasting, claiming the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) is not available even to Obama because the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript) was and is the only form of birth certificate provided by Hawaii. Up until very recently, other people were requesting their Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) and receiving it, and not the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (short-form transcript). When the blogosphere posted images of these long-form documents proving the claim to be a lie and a fraud, the Hawaii Department of Health suddenly began to refuse requests for the Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) in an apparent attempt to protect Obama by giving the false impression the Certificate of Live Birth (the long-form original birth certificate) was not available to him before the most recent twelve months.
So, this Department of State representation that dual citizenship is supposed to be recognized by the U.S. Government is just another part of the scheme to undermine the fundamental value of U.S. citizenship, the electoral system and U.S. citizens’ votes, and the duty of allegiance and loyalty to the other citizens of the United States. It is another subversion of the Constitution by rewriting history and the Federal regulations.
That is simply not true. It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.
I worked for the State Department for 28 years. The rules on dual citizenship have been in place for some time as the cited SCOTUS decisions indicate.
So, this Department of State representation that dual citizenship is supposed to be recognized by the U.S. Government is just another part of the scheme to undermine the fundamental value of U.S. citizenship, the electoral system and U.S. citizens’ votes, and the duty of allegiance and loyalty to the other citizens of the United States. It is another subversion of the Constitution by rewriting history and the Federal regulations.
The State Department does not and cannot act unilaterally. It follows US law. The Constitution says nothing explicitly about dual citizenship at all. Indeed, in its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court used an argument derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to affirm a right to dual citizenship.
It is interesting to note that Israel's "Law of Return" (under which any Jew may immigrate to and become a citizen of Israel) confers Israeli citizenship automatically, without the immigrant having to apply for it, attend any ceremony, or swear any oath of allegiance. The Israeli law may originally have been written this way to encourage American Jews to move to Israel; they could, in theory, argue that they had not explicitly requested Israeli citizenship and were thus still entitled to keep their US citizenship. (Note that Mr. Afroyim, subject of Afroyim v. Rusk, was alleged to have lost his US citizenship, not because he had become an Israeli citizen, but because he had voted in an Israeli election.)