Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
“AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is “OKAY”?”
If this is supposed to disqualify Obama on the basis he was eligible for British citizenship due to the status of his father and and the act passed in ‘48, would that mean all Britain would have to do to reclaim her colonies over here is just make us all eligible for British citizenship? Would that make us all have ‘conflicted’ loyalties and thus no one could be President?
Or would we just tell Gordon Brown to lay off the bathtub gin? :)
Regarding the ‘95 Act perhaps they just realized it was redundant? What part states that the children of diplomats and military members stationed overseas would be rendered ineligible for the presidency and why? Is that sort of arbitrary reduction of an innocent child’s rights in keeping with the definition of freedom they propounded in the Federalist Papers, The Declaration and the Constitution itself?
Why would any rational nation punish those representing and defending them in such a dubious manner by stigmatizing their children? Is there any discussion *ANYWHERE* that would result in those children losing their status?
“AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is ‘OKAY’?”
Uh, well, the part that doesn’t say it doesn’t accept dual citizenship. If nothing says dual citizenship isn’t allowable, then dual citizenship is allowable.
Where do you get the part about the U.S. not currently recognizing dual citizenship? My understanding is the exact opposite.
Historical works are not the law. The Declaration of Independence has no significance as law in the United States of America (which came into being with the Constitution).
“However, just five years later, Congress met to clarify certain parts of the previous Naturalization Act. Among other things, the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words ‘natural born’ from this statement”
So what?
Any news yet on this?
If words have meaning, then we have the foundation for a free republic. If the meaning of words is malleable, there is no foundation for a free republic to exist.
Thank you for posting the Words.
“and its just THE FATES that they can’t drop a baby on Uncle Sam’s head. Its the fates the lineage has to wait a generation.”
Oh, so it’s the Fates that decide. I forgot for a second that this was Ancient Greece and not some place where you write your rules down.
“Its the rules: you come from voracious place attempting this insidious doctrine, we make you wait a generation before you and yours have the very highest right to run our country.”
If the Fates say so. Could somebody ask Zeus to tell them to write it down somewhere, just in case they’re busy next election?
You might want to take a look at this:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
“If words have meaning, then we have the foundation for a free republic. If the meaning of words is malleable, there is no foundation for a free republic to exist”
You mean like the “words” natural born citizen “meaning” born a citizen?
The United States Senate did just that last April in their well-researched Senate Resolution 511 which determined that John McCain was a "natural born" citizen because he met two important conditions: both parents were American citizens and he was born on American territory. This Resolution may not be Law but it is based upon the Senate's research of the Law and the Courts.
You might want to take a look at this:
I have already, and I already knew this was where most of the ammunition was coming from. I don’t buy it.
I agree with you that this argument will not hold, but not because of the merits. Merits don’t matter, politicians will not touch this issue and would no more deny Obama his office than enforce the Constitution. Supreme Court Justices are just an odd sub species of politican in the final analysis.
Tublecane; BP2; calenel; LucyT
[BP2 wrote: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” — Ronald Reagan]
Now BP2, I don’t think Reagan was speaking to the same very distinct matter. Are you then sympathizing with the libs and libertarians who decry the “natural born” phrase as outmoded in a globalist world? Now if really one extrapolated on this quote of President Reagan’s, we’d surely have plenty of easily qualified natural born candidates to be elected (from) among the rabble in some corner of the US after a nuclear war, or whatever one can imagine….well, a civil war, which has been offered as a very real possibility if this “electee” does this or that. You’d need to establish electors and all the rest, who needn’t be natural born. The Confederacy I assume did with election of Jefferson Davis.
Safe to say you’d have plenty natural-borners to choose from to lead, unless someone’s developed and deploys a neutron bomb that especially takes us out.
No ~ I mean like the words Natural Born Citizen meaning Natural Born Citizen.
Go take a look at Vol 7 of the US Foreign Affairs Manual regarding Dual Citizenship, then get back to me...
Zeus and SPANKY!!!
“Go take a look at Vol 7 of the US Foreign Affairs Manual regarding Dual Citizenship, then get back to me...”
Go look up the word “manual” in a dictionary, then tell me why I should bother. Manuals are not laws. Give me laws!
Please tell me the last US President that had Dual Citizenship?
“Please tell me the last US President that had Dual Citizenship?”
What’s your point?
Well, obviously you know something that US Presidents since circa 1837 don’t... Please let me know when you have the answer
Just because no one with Obama’s particulars had been elected before does not mean no one with Obama’s particulars could be elected. Pointing out that none of our previous presidents had dual citizenship at birth (if in fact that’s true) is a non-argument. Tradition is not law.
“Well, obviously you know something that US Presidents since circa 1837 don’t... Please let me know when you have the answer”
What’s that, the fact that people born as citizens are natural born citizens? Who cares whether our U.S. presidents knew that, if as you seem to be implying they had no split loyalties.
Your point would be better taken if you had said, “Well, obviously you know something that people with dual citizenship since circa 1837 don’t,” since some of them might have been unaware that they were elligible for the presidency, according to my view.
Perhaps our Senators can put this issue behind them with a resolution for Obama akin to SR 511 that they all agreed to for McCain. Of course they might just choke on their proverbial wisdom since Resolution 511, based on considerable research of American law and litigation by Senatorial staff, determined that McCain was a "natural born" citizen because he met two vital requirements: both his parents were American citizens and he was born on American territory.
So then just who needs the Supreme Court now that our learned politicians have spoken and defined "natural born" with such certainty in this great Resolution of theirs. Perhaps we just need to remind and hold their feet to the fire.
How is it possible for this Senate of ours to unanimously adopt SR 511 on one hand and even think of calling Obama Mr President Elect on the other??? Are they all such transparent fools???
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.