Replies

E) The Treaty of 1783 prohibited dual citizenshp and allowed that persons born in the country to alien parents held the citizenship of the father at birth subject to election upon majority. This makes Obama a British subject at birth. If he never renounced his British citizenship, then he is still legally a British subject and cannot be a natural-born citizen, even if he were born on the White House lawn. This principle was affirmed in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor and Shanks v. Dupont. For Obama to be a natural-born citizen he has to legally prove the place of birth and show that both of his parent adhered to U.S. allegiance.

First time i've seen (E) as an argument. I had been wondering about this because there were LARGE numbers of British Loyalists in the Colonies after the war. Were THEY British subjects, or forcibly American citizens? Good Point.

On a secondary note, I've recently discovered two legal scholars (others may have already known of them) that argue the Expatriation act of 1868 demonstrates conclusively that the writers of the 14th completely abrogated English Common law as the basis of American Citizenship. Here is a link to testimony before the House of Representatives (in 1997) by one of the Legal Scholars.

Another line of attack. :)