So, Obama not a US citizen lawsuit picking up some steam

[Aiemond]

Tyrannical said:

As to being born on soil outside the US, it is obvious what the founding fathers ment. I am tired of dregging this up, please everyone read this. THIS IS WHAT THE EARLY AMERICANS THOUGHT OF IT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

"Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)"

So, if you talk about "doing what the founding fathers wanted" and "protecting the constitution" this is what it is. Obama, by the founding father's and early america's standards, is a natural born citizen even if he is born in Kenya. Because, as we all know, the people who have this lawsuit want the spirit of the constitution followed right?

Nice try, but......

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf (top of page nine)

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

The statute in effect at the time stated that the parent had to be a minimum of 19, while Obama's mother was only 18. When the statute was changed, it was specificaly mentioned that it was NOT retroactive. But that's what you get when you drag out some law passed in 1790.

That whole "renounce citizenship thing" of yours. Wrong statute. The below one mentions loss of citzenship through becoming a naturized citizen of a foreign country. Oh, and before you to quote happy with it, this is the current version, which is probably different then the one in effect in ~69 when Obama naturlized as an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and he was forced to give up other citizenships. Obama could have re-applied to be a US citizen when he moved back to the US, but the deadline for that was 6 months after his 18th birthday.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

 

 

the statute is not in effect, that is correct. But the usual argument for this is that we need to keep the constitution and laws in a way that the founding fathers wanted, am I correct? its obvious what the founders wanted in this case. Second, if you rea;lly think the US is going to DQ someone based on what his parents did when he is 8 years old, you are crazy. He is a minor, he has no ability to give up his citizenship that easy. The SC will not rule in favor of minors being able to lose citizenship based upon parents.