Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Interesting footnote to that case:
3. The provision granting citizenship to children born abroad out of wedlock applied retroactively; the provision granting citizenship to children born in wedlock did not. The 1934 Act, too, was nonretroactive. The net result was that a child born abroad out of wedlock to a United States citizen mother in 1933 or earlier had United States citizenship after the 1940 Act, but a child born in wedlock did not until 1994 when Congress enacted legislation making the 1934 Act retroactive. Pub. L. 103—416, Tit. I, §101(a)(2), 108 Stat. 4306, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(h).
If the law says that two US citizen parents give you the right to citizenship at birth, that’s what I’d call a natural-born citizen. If this weren’t true, all the kids born of soldiers overseas would not be natural born citizens. This concept of citizenship by birth when born outside the US has been in place since the 1700s.
3. The provision granting citizenship to children born abroad out of wedlock applied retroactively; the provision granting citizenship to children born in wedlock did not. The 1934 Act, too, was nonretroactive. The net result was that a child born abroad out of wedlock to a United States citizen mother in 1933 or earlier had United States citizenship after the 1940 Act, but a child born in wedlock did not until 1994 when Congress enacted legislation making the 1934 Act retroactive. Pub. L. 103—416, Tit. I, §101(a)(2), 108 Stat. 4306, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(h).
The judge's clerk had more difficulty finding the real effective date than I did.
Of course not, but Obama and McCain are old both enough and have been residents long enough. McCain is clearly natural-born, Obama not so sure.
My son was born in France while I was stationed there in the US Army. My wife and I are native citizens of the USA. There was a consular agreement between the USA and France where he had dual citizenship but France relinquished any claim to him. It has been my understanding that he is considered natural born And McCain probably is too.
Thanks, I realized I had the date wrong after signing off last night/early this morning. I knew someone would corret me :)
I question anything Obama says. He can't even get his own history straight. On the Barnes and Noble website you can use the "See Inside" feature to read selected pages from his book.
This is page 144:
If Obama was born August 4, 1961, his eleventh birthday would be in 1972.Chapter Eight I had been to Chicago once before. It was during the summer after my father's visit to Hawaii, before my eleventh birthday, when Toot had decided it was time I saw the mainland of the United States. Perhaps the two things were connected, her decision and my father's visit - his presence (once again) disturbing the world she and Gramps had made for themselves, triggering in her a desire to reclaim antecedents, her own memories, and pass them on to her grandchildren.
We traveled for over a month, Toot and my mother and Maya and I--Gramps had lost his taste for traveling by this time and chose to stay behind. We flew to Seattle, then went down the coast to California and Disneyland, east to the Grand Canyon, across the Great Plains to Kansas City, then up to the Great Lakes before heading back west through Yellowstone Park. We took Greyhound buses, mostly, and stayed at Howard Johnson's and watched the Watergate hearings every night before going to bed.
We were in Chicago for three days, in a hotel in the South Loop. It must have been sometime in July, but for some reason I remember the days as cold and gray. The hotel had an indoor swimming pool, which impressed me, there were no indoor pools in Hawaii.
According to Wikipedia:
The hearings held by the Senate Committee, in which Dean was the star witness and in which many other former key administration officials gave dramatic testimony, were broadcast from May 17 to August 7, 1973, causing devastating political damage to Nixon. Each network maintained coverage of the hearings every third day, starting with ABC on May 17 and ending with NBC on August 7. An estimated 85% of Americans with television sets tuned in to at least one portion of the hearings.So, if the Watergate hearings were televised in 1973, and Obama turned 11 in 1972, how did he watch the hearings on TV every night before his 11th birthday? Of course as the Messiah he is not restrained by time as are us mere mortals.
OK. How about a citzenship statute that says all persons born with blue eyes within 100 miles east of the Yellow River are US Citizens at birth. Natural born? Any doubt that Congress has the power to enact such a statute? Do you think it likely the Supreme Court would hold they were Natural Born for purposes of Article II, Sec. 1, par. 4 even if they had never set foot in the United States?
That's why Constitutional Lawyers don't think the citizenship statute controls the Constitutional issue. I don't.
Unfair to military service? Most military do not take their wives--particularly pregnant wives. But unfair to the children like McCain--yes. That's why you have the amendment process for the Constitution.
For you to be correct about the effective date of the law in regards to the child of an unwed mother then the SC is wrong in its recitation of the history of the laws on unwed mothers http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html, and the statute itself is wrong in referring to 1952 and the history that only specified a reference to 1409 (a) was merely an oversight and it should have referred to 1409 (c) as well.
Did you even read the post regarding the history of the law?
When I do tax research, I never rely simply on the current state of the law. I want to understand where it comes from and where it is going. This case does precisely that and it demonstrates that the unwed mother section predated the 1952 act, that it had much to do with womens suffrage movement and that it was not amended by 1986 legislation.
Extract from case:
In 1986, however, Congress added further gender-based differentials. ..... The requirements for a child of a United States citizen mother remained the same; such a child obtained the mother’s nationality if the mother had resided in the United States or its territorial possessions for at least a year before the child’s birth...
The footnote explained the origin of Section 1401(h). I don’t recall you commenting on that.
From your link: The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from his or her parents have changed several times. The law that was in effect on the date of the child's birth determines whether he or she acquired U.S. citizenship from a parent or grandparent.
The first Congress passed a law in 1790 stating "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" in Session II, Chapter 3.
Most military do not take their wives--particularly pregnant wives.
Most military do take their wives, except to the few locations that don't allow it. They are there for usually 3+ years, plenty of time to have kids. The Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, has a busy-enough maternity ward.
The Texas Darlin article essentially says that a “blank” Hawaii birth certificate was used to forge the Obama birth certificate. He basis this on the fact that there is a arifact in the blank document that also appears on the Obama Birth Certificate.
This is such a blatant thing, that even a RELATIVE idiot like myself, when it comes to forgeries understands what this means.
It means also that McKinnon was most likely the forger.
Why would an Obama supporter offer a forged document unless they’re trying to BAIT conservatives like ourselves to question it.
Then we have the United States Marines who’ve been guarding our embassies abroad for more than 2 centuries. No doubt there’s been more than ample opportunity for their children to be born in foreign countries. Not surprising that Congress took care of the question way back when.
I suspect the legal research problem here is immense + all the senior analysts of the time period in question whose business it was to read and interpret the regulations for application to a specific claimant are LONG RETIRED and likely most of them are dead.
The Brits did that about the time King James died with the result that all the early records of the Virginia colony ended up in London in a fire. They did it again in 1676/77 when the independent proprietorships, et al, in America were turned into Crown Colonies. The Brits also snuck their records out of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston during the Revolution. In 1814 they tried to burn whatever remaind of them by burning Washington DC. Later on when the border between the US and Canada was "set in stone" the Brits took everything, including land survey records, from all the parts South of today's border that they had to give up. This really screwed people living in Western New York. To do a perfect land title search you have to finish the job up in Ottowa (if you're lucky).
I really don't think they changed their act in 300 years!
Really?
McCain isn't clearly. He was born on foreign soil.
Obama at least has a paper trail saying he was born on US soil.
This is how lawyers get rich.
Obama does not have a paper trail. He has a scanned image that has been Photoshopped.
Wouldn't matter, Hawaii was still part of the US, just as Arizona was when Barry Goldwater was born there.
Hawaii became a state in 1959, so he's have to be two years older than he claims. That just happens to be the year that one of the two student teachers my teacher had was from Oahu. Hawaii was admitted in August of '59, and she became our student teacher in September of '59.
He has a paper trail. It may be forged or falsified, but his paper trail apparently indicated US soil birth to an American citizen mom. This clearly unambiguously and inarguably means he meets all requirements, IF is paper trail is accurate.
McCain's paper trail shows birth to US citizens on foreign soil. He doesn't even have the fig-leaf of being born on a US military base. A congressional law says he meets the Constitutional requirements to hold the Office.
Guess what? Congress doesn't have the authority to judge the constitutionality of anything. That power lies solely with the courts.
This means that McCain's status is anything but clear and ambiguous, his paper trail leads into somewhat murky Constitutional territory.
Congreƒƒ may have passed a law in 1790 saying anyone born anywhere to American parents is a natural-born American, the court has never had occasion to directly address the issue.
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe as long as congress court is in session...
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.