Posted on 11/15/2008 9:43:51 AM PST by pissant
People like you are undoubtedly either very stupid or trolls no matter how long you've been here.
I don't know if he was born here or not but he needs to show his BC, how much trouble could that be? McCain had to produce his at the start of the campaign due to the Dems complaining about him being born in the Canal zone. So you think republicans have to show BC but democrats don't?
The Hague convention of 1930 was not the relevant law in the US in the 1960s. I don’t see any mention of the Hague convention laws being operative in US immigration policy ever. US immigration laws would have been the prevailing laws in this case.
Accordingly, at least since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), it is no longer constitutionally sufficient that a person who was born or naturalized in the United States has voluntarily engaged in conduct deemed by law to be an act of expatriation. The person must also undertake such an act with the specific intention to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. See Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 263 (requiring that “the expatriating act [be] accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship”). “[B]ecause of the precious nature of citizenship, it can be relinquished only voluntarily, and not by legislative fiat.” Jolley v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245, 1248 (5th Cir. 1971).
Does the State Department issue these records? I have never seen anything resembling these. Has any other candidate for office ever released these records?
I would like to keep BO from becoming president as much as anyone, but honestly, this seems like a gigantic waste of time.
Of course the State Department does not routinely "issue" such records; and if no other candidate has ever released them, it's because no other candidate's birthplace in the history of our country was ever in doubt, nor have any withheld their documentation until this poseur, Obama -- honestly, you are asking me to do your basic logical thinking for you.
However, such records are subject to investigation by proper authorities, and may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Presumably the original petitioner Philip Berg, with his extensive legal knowledge as a former Deputy District Attorney for Philadelphia, would have explored this avenue of discovery.
I would like to keep BO from becoming president as much as anyone, but honestly, this seems like a gigantic waste of time
The strongest argument for attempting to settle this question is that if the United States does not do so, some foreign country will spring it on us at the worst imaginable time. The downside risk is noted in item 70 of the lawsuit demanding proof of citizenship brought by several California Electoral College members:
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
“So, was Obama’s mom a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth? If so, I don’t see where any of this is going.
Any person born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who are eligible to transmit citizenship
If his mom is a citizen—which, growing up in Kansas or wherever, I would guess she is—then Obama is, no matter where he was born.”
Thats the trouble with this thing - it is as clear as mud ...
When Obama was born, his citizenship status was determined by the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended 1952. At that time, Obama would have been a natural born citizen if his mother was physically within the United States for 10 years prior to his birth - 5 years of which were AFTER the age of 14.
Obama’s mother gave birth at age 18 and, if NOT on U.S. soil, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
However, the Nationality Act (now called the Immigration and Naturalization Act) has been revised many times over the years.
The years requirement after the age of 14 have been changed from 5 to 2 to 1 - and the age of 14 has been change to 15 then to 16.
Most times, when the Act was revised, the revision included a clause that specified non-retroactivity. That is, the revision did NOT change a person’s previous citizenship status. Sometimes, the non-retoractivity clause was NOT included ...
That is why this NEEDS to be clearly disposed of by SCOTUS - once and for all.
It’s astounding, isn’t it.
Ironically, late last night I saw an ad for an NBC-produced DVD called Yes We Can, The Barack Obama Story. When I got over my initial disgust, I began to wonder - what on earth is on that thing? He hasn’t released any info about his past and what we do know, the media won’t touch!
I presume it’s a remake of “The Man from Hope.”
Only trouble is that Bill Clinton didn’t really grow up in Hope. He actually spent most of his youthful years in Hot Springs, running errands for the Dixie Mafia.
Details, details.
What can I say?
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.