[BP2]

What part of the Constitution or what federal law defines that?

AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is "OKAY"?

Citizenship denotes rights, protections, obligations, and allegiances.

Go back and READ the historical works of Blackwell, Vattel, Christian Wolff, Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius. When you do, you'll notice the historical context of the whole (current) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue, and that it goes back further than 1787. You'll understand the historical background influenced the Framers and how they constructed the Constitution. There IS a connection.

It's safe to say that our forefathers weren't to keen on the idea of DUAL allegiance (or two masters). As the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence heralds to the world on July 4, 1776:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Many of the same who signed the Declaration of Independence 11 years earlier wordsmithed the Constitution of the United States in 1787, inserting the infamous clause regarding the *unique* qualification of "Natural Born Citizen" for President (notably, a Senator and Representative is required be only a "Citizen"):

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

A scant three years later, the First Congress met to create the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here's a pertinent excerpt:

"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States ...

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:

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."

George Washington signed the Constitution, and was President for both the 1790 & 1795 Acts. He was quite aware of this change; many others were, too. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, President Washington would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Stop playing games. This cutesy, revisionary, "the-Constitution-is-a-Living-Document" crap is going to get someone hurt!

[ExTexasRedhead]

Welcome to 1933 Nazi Germany.

[Newtiebacker]

“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?

[Tublecane]

“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?

[Windflier]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is "OKAY"?

Dual citizenship is recognized by the U.S., though not encouraged. They cannot outlaw it without conflicting with the laws of foreign countries. A child born in the U.S. is a natural born U.S. citizen. If the laws of another country also grants citizenship to the child then there is nothing the U.S. can or will do about it.

Stop playing games. This cutesy, revisionary, "the-Constitution-is-a-Living-Document" crap is going to get someone hurt!

No games, just a question. According to U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions, if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a U.S. citizen at birth. How does that differ from natural born U.S. citizen and where is this difference defined?

[Yaelle]

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States ...

Is this the key, if Obama were born outside the USA? And what constitutes residency? Couldn't his father's student visa be considered legal residency?

[calenel]

"AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is 'OKAY'? "

This might help you. Also, Perkins V. Elg.

[calenel]

"AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is 'OKAY'? "

This might help you. Also, Perkins V. Elg.

"And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States."

"...born...citizens...". Having that attribute or quality from birth. Now, looking that up in my magic reverse dictionary: ah! 'natural born citizen'

[Citizen Blade]

AH, well, what part of the law says that Dual Citizenship, which is not currently recognized by the US, is "OKAY"?

Dual citizenship is perfectly legal under US law. Being a citizen of another country in addition to the US will neither harm you nor help you under American law.

Go back and READ the historical works of Blackwell, Vattel, Christian Wolff, Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius.

All well and good, I suppose. But none of their writings are in the COTUS, Federal law or case law on this issue. You're not going to make your case relying on European legal scholars instead of US law.