Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: autumnraine

It’d be interesting to see this argued before the Supremes. It still seems like a big grey area and very subjective. Personally, I think they’d side with Obama’s being qualified, even if born in a foreign country, simply due to the status of his mother. It would raise many problems if young female American citizens had citizenship questions about children born either in or out of wedlock, fathered by foreign nationals, at least leaving them in limbo. It seems common-sense here. If the mother is an American citizen, unless she has renounced her citizenship, it shouldn’t matter where the child is born, as the child would still be considered a citizen of the U.S. (and hence, qualified to run for President).


236 posted on 08/05/2008 9:39:47 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj

Well, all that has changed since then I think. 1986 (?) changed the “five years after 16” issue. I don’t have the source handy and I am in the middle of folding and putting clothes away but got sidetracked by this fascinating subject. ha!


252 posted on 08/05/2008 10:10:51 AM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]

To: fieldmarshaldj
It’d be interesting to see this argued before the Supremes. It still seems like a big grey area and very subjective.

The Supremes are bound to follow the law, and there is no grey area in this case. The statutes in force at the time of Obama's birth are clear - he would not qualify as a 'natural born' citizen if born in Indonesia and fathered by a citizen of Indonesia due to his mother's age, therefore he would not be eligible to be POTUS.

It would raise many problems if young female American citizens had citizenship questions about children born either in or out of wedlock, fathered by foreign nationals, at least leaving them in limbo.

Such children are not 'in limbo.' They are US citizens, just not 'natural born' US citizens, so are therefore unqualified to be POTUS.

It seems common-sense here.

Yes, it is common-sense.

If the mother is an American citizen, unless she has renounced her citizenship, it shouldn’t matter where the child is born, as the child would still be considered a citizen of the U.S. (and hence, qualified to run for President).

Wrong...the father must also be a US citizen, since the mother had not lived in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 16. READ THE STATUTE!

289 posted on 08/05/2008 11:45:19 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson