Posted on 07/28/2009 5:29:21 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Interesting theory - as I read what is below - you are basically say since the father isn’t/wasn’t a citizen, and since citizenship is conferred by the father, then he can’t be a citzen.
But then we have the Minor case - where they clearly divide citizenship into two seperate buckets - native born and naturalized by law. That is then followed by Wong Kim - while the site you listed below says that isn’t settled law - it is still a precedent in defines native born as being born on american soil. On top of all that, you have three individuals : Chester Arthur, John Calhoun and Charles Curtis who all held the office of President and/or vice president with no better citizenship claim than the current occupant holds - as well as numerous individuals (including John McCain and the modern conservative wellspring - Barry Goldwater) who ran and fell short.
From the site: The claim that english common law is not american law also can’t fly - our courts have long used english common law as precedent when no american law supersedes it.
As to consulting the founders and the gentlemen around the time the 14th ammendment was passed, I’ll give you Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, William Seward, John Adams, James Madison and Lincoln’s attorney general all arguing contrary to your quotes...
I’ll grant you this - i’d like to see, personally, the court battle contesting the Wong Kim decision, and the subsequent legislation that would supersede the Articles that currently define who is and is not a native born citizen. I think it’d be fun and informative. I’ll also grant that an argument can be made for a more restrictive interpretation for citizenship - this is precisely what you are arguing.
That being said, I still don’t think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy that started this whole discussion. Have a good night.
Why do we have to believe rags and sites that gave us Obama by giving us McLame?
Yeah, hopefully someone will post the citation. I can find this referenced on this site and by googling, but no one ever mentions the source of the law - frustrating. I am also not finding it on find law - but that is keyword driven, so not so surprising.
Basically - though - If I understand you - no one whose parents were under the age of 19 at the time of conception could become citizens. Is that correct?
I guess ask and I shall receive. 7 Fam 1130 - just downloaded it from the State Department.
It only applies if Obama was not really born in Hawaii, but somewhere overseas.
Many thanks to Dj Mac Wow for the cite in the other, current, ongoing thread.
If that's the case, why are you busily debunking this issue on so many bc threads?
Perhaps this is just an analytical exercise on your part, or maybe you're trying to perform some sort of community service for us poor misguided Freepers.
I've looked at your posts on this subject, and most are long and very involved. That's a lot of effort for someone who doesn't "think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy."
Firstly, the law didn't state "conception", but birth. Secondly, I may have left out an important detail (recollection and all), that this law only applied to children born in a foreign country to one US parent.
As I said earlier, the exact statute was posted here on FR many, many times back in November, when the issue was burning up JimRob's bandwidth. It's here.
Okay, assuming the account of her travel is correct, consider this: if one were to travel abroad - even for an extended period of time - would that mean one's citizenship was forfeit?
Additionally, it would be nice to know the name of the father on the birth certificate. If it was indeed Obama Sr., he is instantly a British citizen also by birth.
Assuming that is correct, does it make a difference? Is there some provision in the Constitution or statute that declares dual citizenship holders ineligible to be POTUS? Last I knew, US law gives little attention to dual nationality. Now if you are a citizen and apply to become a citizen of a foreign country, then you risk losing your US citizenship. But that is nothing like an accident of birth that makes one a dual citizen.
Please spend some time reading the above posts about immigration and citizenship laws.
It isn’t a “conspiracy theory” it is a fact.
Not what the neighbor says.
Of course I guess you just think she is a liar right.
Actually, I have know idea. My guess would be that it doesn't. Tell me why you think it might be the same?
I think his name is Barry Dwayne, Steven, Ted, Frank or some such and not whosane...
I forgot Adolf...Barry Adolf.
Well I think a black child with a white mother in 1961 in an expensive part of town just might be a bit more memorable than you claim...
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.