Posted on 11/16/2008 8:35:29 PM PST by motoman
Although this link has been previously posted, I believe that this "forged" document and the Birth Certificate controversy are related.
...Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
You can talk, talk, talk, write, write, write, spin theories, spin theories, spin theories, but there's nothing in the Constitution or the law that disqualifies from the Presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland.
Personally, I thought the positions he took during the campaign disqualified him. But the voters didn't agree. And the country will endure the consequences.
You are generating a lot of verbage and misrepresenting it as fact. Lookup the US statutes on international adoptions. There you will see that the US will as authorized by referenced treaties follow international law.
Call any immigration attorney and the will tell you that an American child that is internationally adopted will risk losing citizenship.
Right now I have a relative that is trying to regain Australian citizenship from an Aussie mother who married a US serviceman. My relative was adopted at age 7 and gained US citizenship and simultaneously lost Australian citizenship. The treaty goes both ways.
Seriously you need to learn about international adoptions and the red tape that is involved. It is so complex that it is impossible to navigate without a specialized attorney.
Perhaps, but that is a political, not Constitutional question. The Constitution lays out basic requirements for the Presidency. But, beyond that, it is a political question for the electorate whether a candidate exhibits sufficient loyalty, intelligence and experience to become President.
I think Hussein is Constitutionally-qualifed to be President, but that is as far as his qualifications extend.
Thus, the fact that he didn’t is irrelevant to his legal standing. By the logic of the Founders in setting the natural born citizen requirement in the first place, the fact that for nearly half his life Obama COULD have pondered being a citizen of some other country raises sufficient concerns about his allegiance to the US as to render him ineligible to serve as president.
The FF could have very easily made it clear the dual citizenship was a bar to the Presidency by adding a few extra words to the Constitution. They did not do so, so we are left with the plain text of the Constitution, which is unambiguous as to the Constitutional requirements of the Presidency.
All that tells us is how Australian law handles international adoptions. It says nothing about US law.
These matters are handled by treaty. That means they are handled by each government in the same way.
Look it up, google it or call an immigration attorney.
Howdy, esteemed lady! Are things there in the” Sandbox” as quiet as they have been reported to be lately?
Things are pretty quiet. I've almost forgotten how to dive into a bomb shelter. And I wear my body armor so rarely, it's now a nuisance when I have to. :) The markets, the streets, the cafes and the parks are all hives of activity now and contruction is going on everywhere. Baghdad is coming back.
Al Qaeda pulls the odd stunt out in town every now and then just to let us know they're still around, but these have become few and far between.
Anbar Province, once the most violent place in Iraq is very peaceful now. The Marines there in Fallujah and Ramadi are bored to tears.
It's so calm now that I'm going to come home in a couple of weeks for a three-week leave just to get some excitement. :-D
Nothing you wrote is contrary to my thinking other than the first paragraph. Adoption by a foreign national cannot remove a citizen’s citizenship. No one can give it away other than the citizen himself when s/he is of legal age to do so.
Nor is there anything in any post discussing adoption which casts any doubt about the inviolate nature of citizenship.
No one who has any knowledge of US law has asserted that an adoption can strip a US citizen of his citizenship. On the other hand there have been legal citations posted on other threads showing that citizenship cannot be removed in such a manner.
The only way citizenship is lost is through a conscious legal act of the citizen. Forget the Indonesian issue it is a dead letter.
Only proving he is not a natural citizen will keep him out of the White House.
“The FF could have very easily made it clear the dual citizenship was a bar to the Presidency by adding a few extra words to the Constitution.”
They likewise could have very easily clarified what was meant by “natural born citizen” but didn’t. It has been left to the courts to decide what was meant. My claim is that any even-handed legal analysis would conclude that dual citizens are disqualified from being president.
The issue of fitness to serve is undoubtedly political. The issue of constitutional eligibility requires interpretation and hence—based on the precedent set in Marbury v. Madison—ultimately may be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. It may have caused a great hue and cry among some voters, but the SC did not hesitate to get involved in 2000.
What proof have you seen that Zero is an American citizen much less a Natural born one?
Isn’t that a big assumption given the character of this man?
Nothing a man in Indonesia to/for a US citizen can remove his citizenship. Such a proceeding according to Indonesian law has no impact on his natural born status if it exists.
US law trumps Indonesian law including its adoption law.
Selective service law might have some claims on an adopted citizen but they would be tenuous and doubtful if he were never a resident of the U.S.
Natual born status would not be affected by becoming a citizen of another country as a child. If BO was born in Hawaii it is game, set, match.
Let’s say that Obama’s father’s status as a subject of the Queen conveyed UK citizenship on his offspring even if born in Hawaii, do you think that would have any impact on US citizen laws?
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
I'm sorry to hear that your relative is having difficulties regaining Australian citizenship. I hope the person will succeed, since this is what they want.
That’s not adoption that you referred to. When a child is adopted, the US statutes refer to laws that stem from treaties.
You are looking in the wrong area. The law you reference is written to protect children from actions of parents that emigrate.
The laws that govern adoptions follow from treaties that account for citizenship of the newly adopted child.
Apples and Oranges.
I'm satisfied that I have proved my case. Your failure to admit that is your problem, not mine.
I decline to waste any more time on you.
Looks like forged birth certificate and forged selective service registration to me. Hopefully, Obama will be ruled ineligible to serve as President:
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Here is the article regarding Obama’s “falsified” Selective Service Registration......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.