Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
What I am saying is that he probably isn't eligible to be elected, selected, made, etc, etc President of these United States, or that if he is, Governor Schwarzenegger would have a very good case for seeking an Amendment to the Constitution.An amendment to the Constitution is a fine thing for Governor Schwarzenegger to seek. He has no less right than anyone else. The amendment starts out life in Congress or in a Constitutional convention. There is nothing preventing a naturalized citizen from participating in either of those. Read Article. V:
Article. V. - AmendmentThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In the early going, there was stuff in the African periodicals, some of them in English, that has been scrubbed. Those periodicals recited interviews with the Missionaries that got on the BOAC flight on which Stanley Ann was rejected; and with Sarah and the two half-siblings who claimed to have been physically present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.
And if not, Stanley Ann’s mother really knows—it ought to be a simple task to respond to the birth location argument with real evidence.
////////////////////////
Seems like this is the core of the matter. So what if the Dems say screw it and keep going with the nomination. Are we looking at this being taken to the Supremes?
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDRENParents 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.
Then according to you international agreements this country has signed on to mean nothing if our laws trump them.
Our Congress, you know the people that write the same laws, decides what treaties this country enters into in the form of ratification or the acceptance of the treaty terms by that portion of our government that makes the laws.
It certainly is an odd position to be in to say it is OK for this country to break a treaty that Congress agreed to just so we can have as our next president a man that may very well be a naturalized citizen of not just the United States but possibly of the United Kingdom, Kenya, Indonesia, and maybe even Canada because our laws according to you, still should allow him to run for the highest office in our land. The One office which our founding fathers sought to keep free from foreign citizens.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child'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.It's likely that Obama's parents were not legally married since his father was already married.
As I pointed out in this post, SEC. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481] does not leave a hole for Obama can fall into.
Very timely point. Let's start at the bottom. Sec. 1481 is predicated on citizenship. Your earlier post is fine--if Obama was a citizen, absent some one of the acts specified, his mother couldn't lose his citizenship for him under US law. But for purposes of the issues presented here, to get to the statute, you need to find he was a citizen when born--and if he was born in Kenya, he wasn't.
And the statute doesn't affect the Natural Born test under the constitution.
And I know it will come as a shock to you however treaties trump US law.
If he was born in Kenya, the subject is not on the table. But the real issue is application of the treaty if he were born in Hawaii--the father then filed in Kenya under the treaty; what are the applicable rules of law?
As to his rights as a citizen of Kenya? That is not an issue here and we do not address it.
Is he a citizen of the US? A natural born citizen? I assume in the context of this presidential election, the courts will hold the answer to both questions is yes as to Obama, even though there is an obvious issue of sovereignty. There is a good argument, that as a result of application of the treaty, he ought to be viewed as ineligible but as a lawyer who has been in politically sensitive cases, I would guess the judge comes out on the other side.
I can't believe I just posted reply number 4,640 to a thread. I suspended my rule of reading entire threads before I post. Has anybody read all this stuff? lol
That has already been discussed and the law as you just stated it is the most recent version that Obama is not covered by.
Just so I know why is it so important that we break treaties, congress has ratified, and we have signed in regards to international law just so that Obama can be our next president?
Then according to you international agreements this country has signed on to mean nothing if our laws trump them.Yes
It certainly is an odd position to be in to say it is OK for this country to break a treaty that Congress agreed to just so we can have as our next president a man that may very well be a naturalized citizen of not just the United States ...It would be much odder to allow Constitutional rights to be given away by treaty.
Look at it this way. Laws are declared unconstitutional all the time even though they are passed by the legislature. Treaties have even lower status that US law. For example we have been violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty for some time now. No formal withdraw from the treaty was required, we just did it.
No.
His father's prior marriage would not affect the question of whether the father and mother were in "wedlock" for purposes of Sec. 1409(c). If the Stanley Ann/Obama Sr. marriage were contracted in the US, it would be voidable; and it would have constituted the crime of bigamy. But as between the parties and those whose rights were affected by validity (children), the marriage would be treated as effective until terminated by a court. The actual extent of the rights of the parties might differ state to state but as to the federal citizenship wedlock issue, the courts would hold they were married.
Further, if they were married in Kenya, the marriage would presumably be valid under local law and there would be no doubt it was an effective marriage for purposes of the wedlock issue. The first wife might be grounds for divorce in the US but that wouldn't affect validity of the marriage.
Our rights are given away by treaty all the time, in fact you may not realize this but outside of our borders our rights are almost nonexistent in other countries.
The only rights we have outside of our borders are guaranteed by those treaties you would ignore for the sake of Obama’s candidacy.
The nation we entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with no longer exists, so why would we keep a treaty with a country or a government that doesn’t exist.
Do we keep treaties we signed with the Nazis with the present government of Germany?
Me.
But I'm quite, quite mad...
Just so I know why is it so important that we break treaties, congress has ratified, and we have signed in regards to international law just so that Obama can be our next president?It isn't. What is important that we stay true to the ideals of the Constitution. What kind of precedent would it set to honor a treaty that violates the Constitution. That would just turn into a backdoor method to amend it. A scary proposition.
The citizenship conferred under the 14th amendment is very settled law. Like it or not children born on US soil are natural born citizens. There is a method to change it but it hasn't been done yet.
Obama's situation is not anywhere near as important as every man's situation. You can't declare Obama has lost his citizenship without declaring a lot of other American citizens have lost theirs as well. Their rights are more important than the political expedience of preventing Obama from being president.
The question isn’t merely his citizenship. There are millions of citizens who can never be president.
I think he may be one of them.
Me.lol. my eyes would be bleeding after the first couple hundred posts.But I'm quite, quite mad...
I wanted to post those links because there is lots of authoritative information about all of these topics there.
The nation we entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with no longer exists, so why would we keep a treaty with a country or a government that doesn’t exist.The ABM treaty is just one example. A more recent example is the execution Texas carried out the other day. The US has signed a treaty but the Supreme Court found that the provisions of it couldn't be carried out constitutionally. The Constitution trumped the treaty.
The only rights we have outside of our borders are guaranteed by those treaties you would ignore for the sake of Obama’s candidacy.It's not that I would ignore them, certainly not to support Obama's candidacy. It's just that the Constitution is important. The idea of giving the rights conferred by it away via treaty is unacceptable.
If Obama's not eligible because he is not a natural born citizen that's fine. If he was born on foreign soil he likely isn't. But if he was born on US soil you would have to strike at the heart of the Constitution to take his eligibility away. This election isn't so important that the Constitution should be suspended.
The 14th amendment is the most abused of all our legal rights.
It has become a bad law that allows people that are here illegally to have children that are United States Citizens just because they were born here. I would argue that because they were here illegally to begin with that they ignored our jurisdiction over them and they have no right to it or citizenship.
That anyone born in the United States is a automatically a citizen is a more recent view of the 14th, it wasn’t too long ago that Native Americans were not considered citizens or even Native born because by treaty their lands were separate from the United States.
It was originally intended to give citizenship to those slaves brought to this country against their will and forced to live here. The more liberal definition is a recent abuse of our laws.
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.