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

To: Maximum Leader
Actually, even if he was born in Kenya, he’s still a US citizen. The red herring is, everyone is looking at the law which states that the mother must have been a citizen for at least 5 years after her 16th birthday (impossible since she was only 18)— but that is for American WIVES of foreign husbands. Barack Obama Sr. was already married in Kenya when he met Barry’s mom. Since he was neither widowed nor divorce and because bigamy is illegal in the United States, any marriage ceremony between the senator’s parents was invalid.

The law at that time was the child of an UNMARRIED American mother was automatically a natural born citizen if mom was a US citizen who’d lived on American soil for at least one year. So regardless of where Senator Obama was born, since he’s certainly a bastard, he’s certainly eligible for the presidency.

8 USC 1409 (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Most of that is not correct.

For purposes of Sec. 1408(g), "wedlock" will have a fairly broad legal meaning.

As a simple legal proposition, if they had been married in Hawaii, the marriage would have been valid between the parties and as to third parties whose rights were affected (Children) even if under local law, the marriage was voidable.

I don't think they were married in Hawaii--I think they were married in Kenya where the multiple wife marriage was legal and valid and that marriage would certainly be effective wedlock for purposes of the statute. The reason she wound up in Kenya is that they went there to get married at the term break--which they did because he was aware that marrying her in Hawaii would have constituted the crime of bigamy.

As to the citizenship at birth and Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4, the term "natural born" clearly means something in addition to citizenship at birth. Most Constitutional lawyers think it requires birth in the geographical limits of the 50 states. Neither McCain nor Obama qualify.

And the constitutional bar generally seems to assume that Sec. 1409(c) is unconstitutional notwithstanding a 5 to 4 decision to the contrary.

379 posted on 10/14/2008 9:20:21 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies ]


To: David
As to the citizenship at birth and Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4, the term "natural born" clearly means something in addition to citizenship at birth. Most Constitutional lawyers think it requires birth in the geographical limits of the 50 states.

No, they don't. The generally accepted reading of the natural born citizen clause is that it refers to someone who is a citizen at birth, rather than through naturalization. The Constitution and Federal law do not recognize any other class of American citizen, despite your repeated specualtions to the contrary. Both McCain and Barrack were citizens at birth (McCain's due to the fact that he was born to two American citizens and Obama due to the fact that he was born in Hawaii) and are Constitutionally qualified to be President.

383 posted on 10/14/2008 10:07:41 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies ]

To: David

“Most Constitutional lawyers think it requires birth in the geographical limits of the 50 states. Neither McCain nor Obama qualify.”

OK you had me ready to concede the point to you got this part. I don’t think there’s any question McCain is a natural born citizen. Not only was he born to American parents in a US Naval hospital but he was only overseas because his father was a Naval officer stationed there on orders. If “most constitutional lawyers” are right, then you’ve effectively barred thousands of military brats from ever being eligible for the job of commander in chief.

Beyond that, I just read the code again (yes I’m a lawyer) 1408 says nothing about “wedlock” being broadly defined. What’s more you’re confusing voidable marriage with void marriage. Voidable marriages (one party is below the age of consent or is of unsound mind or, my favorite, has a loathsome disease unknown to the other party) can be dissolved by the “wronged” party if they choose. But if they choose to stay married after they’ve learned of the voidable condition (or reach the age of consent) then they’ve ratified the marriage and its no longer voidable.

Void marriages (bigamy, incest, same-sex in most states) are a legal nullity from day one and there is nothing either party can do to save the marriage. Since bigamy is in the category of void (and not voidable), Obama was born out of wedlock.

Finally, if a marriage is illegal under US law (even if legal under, say, Kenyan law), then it doesn’t count as a valid marriage under the US immigration code. Otherwise a Muslim immigrant could bring his 4 wives with him under a green card visa, and for now at least, that ain’t happening.


397 posted on 10/15/2008 8:36:35 AM PDT by Maximum Leader (run from a knife, close on a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | 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