Sorry, but the Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen, not just “a” citizen.
That’s the fundamental law of the land, and it’s too late to pretend it’s not in the Constitution.
The question the Supreme Court should be addressing is whether the dual citizenship Obama inherited at birth precludes him from being a natural born citizen. On its face, I would think it does, but I’m hoping the Supreme Court will rule on this.
We cannot just ignore the Constitution. Those of you who think we can are just acting like children who want to pretend that they have no parents enforcing rules.
Sorry, but the Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen, not just “a” citizen.
That’s the fundamental law of the land, and it’s too late to pretend it’s not in the Constitution.
The question the Supreme Court should be addressing is whether the dual citizenship Obama inherited at birth precludes him from being a natural born citizen. On its face, I would think it does, but I’m hoping the Supreme Court will rule on this.
We cannot just ignore the Constitution. Those of you who think we can are just acting like children who want to pretend that they have no parents enforcing rules.
***
Exactly ...
The question is whether a dual national can be a natural born citizen.
The history of United States jurisprudence STRONGLY suggests that the Founding Fathers were NOT limited SOLELY to the tenets of English Common Law, but rather, borrowed librally from many legal scholars.
In the libraries of Federalists and anti-Federalists were well-thumbed copies of Blackstone, Grotius, Huber, and Vattel. These authors and the established practices of European states influenced not only the drafting of Article I and its reference to the law of nations but other constitutional provisions: the Due Process Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article III’s grant of jurisdiction to federal courts.
Most of these writings purport that dual nationality and natural born citizenship are wholly incompatible ...