Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
This section of the law was not added until 1981. The law in effect when Barry would have been adopted in Indonesia did not prevent him from renouncing his U.S. citizenship ... providing he ever had it. There’s no legal proof that he did.
I am biased also, but still want the truth. If you have more proof, just present it.
Tribe and Olson have dropped the ball. Minor v. Happersett is instructive here: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen. These were the natives, or natural born citizens ...” The WKA ruling affirmed this definition by acknowledging that Viriginia Minor’s citizenship was established by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...” Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents and thus could not be ruled a citizen per the definition of NBC. Justice Gray also recognized that he couldn’t necessarily rule Ark to be a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment unless he could show how Ark’s parents fulfilled the subject clause, which he did by requiring permanent residence and domicil. Since Obama’s father had neither, Obama is not an NBC nor a 14th amendment citizen.
Significant Court Cases
A number of cases, some of which reached the Supreme Court of the United States, have helped frame immigration law regarding dual nationals. Here are some of the most noteworthy.
Perkins v. Elg (1939)
This case involved Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States in 1907 to Swedish parents and raised in Sweden. When she turned 21 she acquired a U.S. passport and returned to live in the United States. Later, the U. S. government tried to deport her, claiming that under Swedish law she had become a Swedish citizen when she and her parents returned to Sweden. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Elg was in fact a U. S. citizen because her parents’ action did not take away her right to reclaim U. S. citizenship when she reached her majority. While this is not technically a dual citizenship case (since Elg did not try to maintain her Swedish citizenship), it nonetheless was important for those who did not wish to lose their right to U. S. citizenship through no fault of their own.
Kawakita v. United States (1952)
Tomoya Kawakita, born in the United States to Japanese parents, was in Japan when World War II broke out. During the war he supported the Japanese cause. He went to work in a factory where he supervised and also abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After the war he returned to the United States on a U. S. passport, whereupon he was arrested for TREASON, convicted, and sentenced to death. Kawakita appealed the sentence, arguing that he had registered as a Japanese national during the war and therefore was not a traitor. The Supreme Court ruled that Kawakita had neither acquired Japanese citizenship nor renounced U.S. citizenship, since he was already a dual national. Kawakita lost the appeal but instead of EXECUTION he was stripped of his U. S. citizenship and deported to Japan.
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Beys Afroyim immigrated from Poland to the United States in 1912 and became a naturalized citizen some years later. He became fairly well known in art circles as a modernist painter in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1950 he emigrated to Israel, and ten years later he tried to renew his U. S. passport. The State Department refused, explaining that Afroyim had voted in an Israeli election in 1951 and had thus given up his citizenship in the United States.
Afroyim sued the State Department, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor in a 5-to-4 vote. Interestingly, the Court invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although intended to guarantee citizenship rights to freed slaves, the Court held that in effect it protected all American citizens from losing their citizenship without proof of intent to do so. True, Afroyim had voted in an Israeli election. But this was not a formal renunciation of his U. S. citizenship.
we’ll know after he’s out of office.
the left will be bragging about it.
Are you a recognized constitutional expert or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
My point is that this is not settled law as much as you would like to opine otherwise. Whether one likes or agrees with Tribe and Olson or not, they have the legal "gravitas" and pedigree to elicit attention and support for their position. This will have to go to SCOTUS to be resolved. You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it doesn't change anything. Obama is in the WH and is the President and the CIC.
“There’s a difference between using this issue to “change the election results” and using it to establish the qualifications of a CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR OFFICE.”
The Democrats will be happy to have this conversation...as soon as Marco Rubio starts his future presidential run.
That is not the relevant aspect of it. If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, it would explain why there are so many shenanigans with his birth certificate. The original would have been sealed, and a new one would have been created.
The biggest problem was in his "kamp" refusing to show it at all ~
The Indonesian trail has been "sanitized," as has been any Kenyan trail, the Occidental trail, the Columbia trail, the Harvard trail, the Illinois Bar trail, the Social Security trail, the Selective Service trail, the Drug Use trail, the Girl Friends and lack thereof trail, the Paki-STAHN trail, the Bill Ayers trail, the Mom trail, the Frank Marshall Davis trail, the Hawaii trail; all either cleaned up or so truck-muddled that no one can figure them out.
Simple question, folk. W-or-WTF is this guy?
You are **deliberately** muddying the waters.
This has been covered literally, by now, HUNDREDS OF TIMES!! This is about Obama’s NATURAL BORN status!!!
Get it? Yeah! I do think you get and got it a LONG time ago. It is time to check in with the DNC and the Department of Justice for some new talking points.
( Yes, I am shouting. )
This has been covered literally, by now, HUNDREDS OF TIMES!! This is about Obama’s NATURAL BORN status!!!
Get it? Yeah! I do think you get and got it a LONG time ago. It is time to check in with the DNC and the Department of Justice for some new talking points.
( Yes, I am shouting. )
Why are you shouting at me? What did I do???
I don't think we should be questioning the loyalty of a 6 year-old boy because of choices his parents made. Either way, the Constitution deals with such concerns with a 14 year residency requirement, which Obama meets.
Only if the adoption occurred in a U.S. court. An Indonesian adoption would cause no change to U.S. documents.
Where Anthony Kennedy gets to decide for us all! It may result in an Official Pronouncement, but whether or not it will be accurate is another question entirely. We have achieved "fact" by democracy.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it doesn't change anything. Obama is in the WH and is the President and the CIC.
I believe it is in the best interest of the Nation and History to regard the man as illegitimate regardless of what others say. Wherever his name is mentioned in a History book, their should be a mark of shame next to it. He should be regarded in the same light as Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Boothe, or Arron Burr. As bad as Carter was, at least he was legitimate.
Recognized constitutional experts do not agree on everything nor are they infallible. The rulings I cited speak for themselves. If you disagree focus on that instead of relying on cutesy TV catchphrases. Maybe staying at Holiday Inn Express will help you make a stronger point.
It would be some mighty fine explaining required if it were able to make sense of the documents and behavior we've seen regarding them. An Honest man wouldn't play such games.
Sorry, but this is a bunch of nonsense. Justice Gray employed English Common Law to give teeth to the 14th amendment. It was NOT irrelevant. That's utter stupidity. Read the decision and come back when you understand it.
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.