Natural Born Presidents (Part 2)
The question of who is and who is not eligible to become president is back in the news again, due to Senator Ted Cruz (assumed future Republican contender for the nomination) releasing his birth certificate to the media. I should note before we begin that this is really the second part of a two-part article, as yesterday I detailed what might be called the history of birtherism in American politics. Today, we're going to look at the question from a legal and semantic point of view.
Any such examination must begin with the original language in the United States Constitution. From Article II, Section 1:
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.
As stated yesterday, this clause has never actually been adequately defined in a court of law. Which means that, for the time being, it is open to interpretation by all. It means whatever anyone claims it means, to put this another way, at least until we get a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the matter, one way or another.
The problems of interpretation all stem from the inexact nature of the English language. The first problem is the phrase "natural born." What, exactly, does "natural born" mean? The more common phrase in use today is "native born" (or "native-born," if you are a fan of hyphens), which would seem to have a clearer meaning: born on native (American) soil. But even if we take "natural born" to be the equivalent of "native born," questions still remain. If they didn't, then the Senate wouldn't have bothered passing a resolution stating that they believed John McCain was eligible to become president when he ran. McCain, of course, was born not in the United States, but in the Panama Canal Zone. Which leads to the question of whether anyone born in an American territory is eligible for the highest office in the United States. Would a Puerto Rican or a native of Guam be eligible to become president? Nobody really knows, but the answer would seem to be "yes," seeing as how few argued that McCain wasn't eligible when he ran.
But is where you were born really the issue? Or is to whom you were born more important? American citizenship is considered a birthright of any child born to at least one American parent. There are some legalistic rules surrounding this concept, but the basic rule says that a child born to an American citizen mother or father is automatically an American at birth, no matter where they are born. This is what Ted Cruz is arguing now, and the key point that the Obama "birthers" completely ignored for many years. If a child is born to an American mother, it doesn't matter whether the child was born in the Canal Zone, on board a ship or airplane in transit (not in any country), in Canada, or even (gasp!) in Kenya -- the child is still an American citizen at birth. But does this satisfy the "natural born" metric? Again, nobody really knows for sure, but as of now the conventional wisdom says that "an American citizen at birth" equals "natural born" for the purposes of presidential eligibility.
If it ever did become a court case, there might even be a surprising outcome no one has foreseen. Just for the sake of argument, would a child born by caesarean be eligible to become president? Any decent lawyer worth a darn could easily argue that an obstetrical operation disqualifies a child because they were not, by definition, "natural born." Nature would have been trumped by medical science, and thus (again, it could easily be argued in court) the birth was not "natural" at all. It seems a ridiculous conclusion on the face of it, but then ridiculous conclusions are a dime a dozen in the arena of the courtroom. How many Supreme Court decisions have enraged you because of what you considered their faulty logic or reasoning, after all?
It would be hard to tell (if it's even possible) how many of our 44 presidents were "natural born" and how many required the intervention of a doctor or midwife in some "unnatural" way. This sort of information isn't readily available, even in exhaustive biographies of famous men. So perhaps we've already had a president who was not "natural born" (under this definition of the term). It would take some serious medical and historical research to even know the answer to that question.
But maybe none of this even matters. It all depends on how you weigh your commas. Let's look at the original phrase once again: "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." The part that everyone skips over is the phrase between the first and second commas -- "or a Citizen of the United States." So, which comma is more important? Is it the first one or the second one? Did the framers mean "or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" or did they mean "a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States"? The phrasing seems somewhat redundant no matter how you read it, in fact. Why specify both? Could "a Citizen of the United States" become president even if they weren't "natural born"? It seems to say that this is acceptable (the use of "or" instead of "and" or "who was" to join the two phrases), which would mean the dreams some still have of a President Schwarzenegger could indeed be realized.
This defies the commonly-accepted meaning of the phrase today, but that doesn't mean that a court wouldn't agree that the entire "natural born" question is irrelevant, as long as a candidate is currently an American citizen, as long as he or she had lived here for fourteen years.
What it all boils down to is that Ted Cruz is free to run for president, as is just about anyone. Whether he can convince the country that he is eligible or not will likely be a matter of politics. He was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, but as long as he asserts that this fits the constitutional definition of eligibility, he'll probably get his name on the ballot.
Because, as we started with, the entire matter is open to interpretation by all, at least until the Supreme Court rules on the issue one way or another. Or until the Constitution itself is amended to clear up exactly who and who is not allowed to be president. Until we get to that point, however, it's really anyone's guess what "natural born" truly means, and where the bar is ultimately set for presidential eligibility. I doubt there will be a "birther" movement that tries to keep Ted Cruz from running, but until one of these birther movements actually puts a case before the high court, the only answer is that it's open to anyone's interpretation who can and who cannot be president.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
which would mean the dreams some still have of a President Schwarzenegger could indeed be realized.
"I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwarzenegger Library, and the time that you took that car..."
"Hold it. The Schwarzenegger Library?"
"Yes. The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...?"
"Stop! He was President?"
"Yes! Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states..."
"I don't wanna know. President..."
-Demolition Man
I doubt there will be a "birther" movement that tries to keep Ted Cruz from running,
It wouldn't surprise me.
There are still many on the Left who blame Bush for 9/11...
Never underestimate the depravity of the political fanatic.. :D
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?
There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :
That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.
1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.
The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.
Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?
'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.
What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".
The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.
The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).
Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.
That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.
Completely and totally off topic. But man I love surveys. They really give you an insight into the lunacy, ignorance and utter, astounding stupidity of the lunatic wing of the Republicans.
Today's gem.
A survey of Republicans in Louisiana asked: Who do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?
Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame....
It actually explains a lot. Like why the lunatic wing think that it was Obama who was responsible for the $1t debt before he became President. Their level of insanity that the nut-jobs have managed to drill up over Obama means that basically anything bad that happened in the last 20 years = Obama's fault.
There are still many on the Left who blame Bush for 9/11...
define "blame him for." any assertion that the attack was his doing lies squarely in tinfoil hat territory. however, he does shoulder a share of the blame for not paying attention to the PDB on August 6, 2001, when his vacation was more important than a warning from the CIA. a more diligent president might or might not have prevented the attacks from happening; we'll never know.
JL
define "blame him for." any assertion that the attack was his doing lies squarely in tinfoil hat territory.
Agreed.. But tell that to the fanatics... :D
, he does shoulder a share of the blame for not paying attention to the PDB on August 6, 2001,
He shoulders as much of the blame as Clinton and all the POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSuim??) before him that never recognized the threat that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda presented..
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20... Nowhere is this more true than in the field of Counter Terrorism..
It's easy to look back and say, "we should have caught this" or "that should have been a red flag"... But, more often than not, there were very logical and rational reasons for what was missed.. It's only in hindsight that these things take on significance...
Their level of insanity that the nut-jobs have managed to drill up over Obama means that basically anything bad that happened in the last 20 years = Obama's fault.
It's really no different than the Left nutjobs who called Bush a war criminal, etc etc....
Either side has nut-jobs.. This is undeniable...
And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative of the Left.
[Before I get to the other comments, and before I address his content...]
gregnh -
Welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation automatically, my apologies for the delay in posting but we have to do this to cut down on the comment spam.
From now on, you should be able to post comments and see them appear instantly, as long as you post only one link per comment, at most (multi-link comments are also automatically held for moderation).
I'll address the content of your comment in a minute, but wanted to first extend a welcome to the site.
-CW
Michale [1] -
Somehow, I just knew that Demolition Man quote would appear here. Truth be told, I threw that reference in just for you...
:-)
-CW
gregnh -
You write:
There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.
But what about the 14th Amendment, which begins:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This was indeed positive law, made necessary by the Southern states which were attempting to strip citizenship from people born here to parents who had also been born here.
The definition of citizenship to those naturally born here was not immutable, the rights were being denied because the Southern states were attempting to change the definition on the fly. The Constitution was indeed amended to reflect a federal definition to trump the state definitions. The only reason the states tried this is because it wasn't specified in the Constitution. They certainly didn't see it as a "natural law" which is why it had to be written down and adopted in the 14th.
Also, I'm unaware that the Supremes have ever ruled on the matter, relating specifically to presidential eligibility. Do you have a case I can look at? Just because I haven't heard of it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I'm interested in your last bits -- do you think Cruz is eligible? Also, how would you define "US Soil"? Would Mitt Romney's grandfather have been qualified (he was born in the Utah Territory, before statehood)? Would McCain? Would a Puerto Rican or someone born on Guam? How about someone born in a US Embassy abroad? Or perhaps someone born on the high seas, in international waters?
The more I thought about this issue while writing this, the more questions arose about what is and what is not "US soil" so I'm interested on someone else's take on it.
-CW
michty6 -
Oh, you bet I'm going to mention that in Friday's column. Best example I've ever seen of a quantification of the Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Heh.
Michale -
Either side has nut-jobs.. This is undeniable...
And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative of the Left.
OK, I think I'm going to have to bookmark this comment, so I can cite it later when you attempt to paint all Dems by the idiocy of a few.
:-)
Don't say I didn't warn you, when it happens.
-CW
gregnh,
As I am wont to do.....
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
And let me say that you have definitely added a new facet to the discussion. And did so in a completely logical and rational manner.
I am not sure I buy into it, because it invokes the "creator" concept which, in turn, would lead me to the question, "what if their isn't any 'creator'".
In other words:
"There is no fate, but what we make"
-Linda Hamilton, TERMINATOR II
When one takes the "creator" theory out of the equation, then all that is left is statutory or man-made laws..
Regardless of all that, awesome first comment...
CW,
Somehow, I just knew that Demolition Man quote would appear here. Truth be told, I threw that reference in just for you...
I have to admit, it did have a kind of -Red Flag In Front Of A Bull- feel to it. :D
The more I thought about this issue while writing this, the more questions arose about what is and what is not "US soil" so I'm interested on someone else's take on it.
My first inclination (following gregnh's lead with regards to "natural" law) would be that "US Soil" would be such that was "US Soil" naturally. Thinking it thru, I realize how unwieldy that would be, because of the "creator" issue mentioned above and because of the fact that where does the line stop at "natural". The 13 original colonies??
So, just going with my gut....
"Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut"
-Jeff Daniels, SPEED
.... I would say that any state or territory that has official recognition passed by Congress of same would constitute "US Soil"...
The downside to this is that it would disqualify children born to military parents stationed overseas and a whole host of others as well...
So, I have no good answer..
But I AM pretty damn pleased with myself for that Movie Quote Tri-fecta!! :D
OK, I think I'm going to have to bookmark this comment, so I can cite it later when you attempt to paint all Dems by the idiocy of a few.
Fair enough.. However, after reading what I posted, I wanted to qualify it as such:
And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative or NON representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative or NON representative of the Left.
.... as that reflects better what I wanted to say...
However, that smacks too much of "moving the goal posts" so I'll own the quote as it was originally written.. :D
It just occurred to me...
Using gregnh's rather strict definition of POTUS eligibility, McCain and Cruz would NOT be eligible for POTUS..
But Barack Obama would!!!
Howz THAT for karma, eh!? :D
Michale,
I seem to have heard that a wing of a Canadian Hospital was given to The Netherlands during the war so that the heir to the Dutch throne would be born on Dutch "soil". The Dutch, equally gracefully, gave it back a few days later.
I disagree about McCain's eligibility. He was born in a US Possession. US Territories count as the US for citizenship. I'll even include US Military Bases as US territory.
But Canada doesn't count. gregnh's point is about the phrase "natural born". Canada is in no way US soil.
But I'm agreeing with Ann Coulter. How's that for "the world turned upside down"
I seem to have heard that a wing of a Canadian Hospital was given to The Netherlands during the war so that the heir to the Dutch throne would be born on Dutch "soil". The Dutch, equally gracefully, gave it back a few days later.
Now THAT is just classy.....
I disagree about McCain's eligibility. He was born in a US Possession. US Territories count as the US for citizenship. I'll even include US Military Bases as US territory.
I'll give you the US Possessions.. But military base?? I think that's a close call.. Now Embassies?? That is, ostensibly, US territory, so it COULD count as "natural born"...
But, to throw another wrench at a monkee, all of those would be considered "man made" by gregnh's definition..
My brain hurts...
"That's why I don't like to talk about Temporal Mechanics. It gives me nose bleeds"
-Geordi LaForge
db -
I agree, that is pretty classy! Leave it to the Canucks... hey, if an embassy can be "native soil" of another country, why not a hospital?
Michale -
I know you were being facetious with the "13 colonies" bit, but there was a huge (I mean HUGE!) political stink when Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase. "It's not in the Constitution!" the "strict constructionists" of the day cried. If they had gotten their way, the United States would STILL just be the original 13 colonies, the lands they had claimed to the West (but to the East of the Mississippi River), and the Northwest Territory. Call it the 13 original states, plus Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Oh, and Maine (used to be part of Massachusetts), Vermont (used to be part of New York), and West Virginia (used to be west Virgina, if you can dig that creative use of capitalization).
That would be it. Nothing to the west of the Mississippi, no Florida (you'd still be in New Spain), and of course no Alaska or Hawaii.
Glad Jefferson won that argument?
Heh.
-CW
That would be it. Nothing to the west of the Mississippi, no Florida (you'd still be in New Spain), and of course no Alaska or Hawaii.
Glad Jefferson won that argument?
In it's long long long history, St Augustine (established 1565, Nation's Oldest City) has changed so many hands. French, Spanish, English, Spanish again, Colonials, America...
With my luck, we'de be under Cardassian rule by now if Jefferson had his way... :D
Ted Cruz fails eligibility for the same reason Obama told us, knowing that few would understand, that he is a ‘naturalized citizen’. Obama said "I am a native-born citizen of the U.S." That is the language of the 14th amendment. American Indians were native-born, and not made citizens. U.S. code based upon the 14th Amendment, a naturalization amendment, made Obama and Cruz, citizens at birth, because their mothers were citizens, but could not make them natural born citizens, as Wong Kim Ark resolved. The 14th Amendment using Article 1 Section 8, Congress’ authority to create “An Uniform Rule for Naturalization”. The 14th Amendment's author made it absolutely clear that his bill (S61) did not touch natural born citizenship, nor did it mention it. Here is what Congressman John Bingham said to the House in 1866:
The above quote was made twice on the floor of congress during debate of the 14th without a single objection.In Minor v Happersett the supreme court entered into the record the language of the 14th and then in it's decision said this;
Interesting also are some more comments in WKA case.Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
In Luria v. United States.
Just to cite a few. In all throughout different courts there have been 27 justices to cite the meaning of the term of art "natural born Citizen" as meaning being born of two citizen parents.
As for our current pResident, if we believe the narrative put forth he was born a British subject.
PS: Thanx for the warm welcomes.
As for our current pResident, if we believe the narrative put forth he was born a British subject.
"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed..."
-Austin Powers, THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME
:D
gregnh -
Well, I am happy that you came back and responded, so allow me to continue your welcome here. And again, sorry for the initial delay...
You raise several interesting points, and several interesting court cases. First, the bit about the Indians -- that's a good and relevant point, as they (along with ex-slaves) were born in the USA of parents who were born in the USA. Hadn't considered that aspect of it, personally.
But I have to ask, point-blank, what's your opinion on Obama's eligibility, given that he was born in a US state (Hawai'i) of an American mother and a non-American father?
But while you provide fascinating documentation of the "within the jurisdiction of" clause (this was, I assume, when the whole concept of "embassies are actually 'foreign soil' legally" was being developed among the international diplomatic community -- which is just an assumption on my part, feel free to correct me if I read that wrong), you don't proactively define what it means vis-a-vis the territories and possessions of the United States. So let me repeat the unanswered questions:
Also, how would you define "US Soil"? Would Mitt Romney's grandfather have been qualified (he was born in the Utah Territory, before statehood)? Would McCain? Would a Puerto Rican or someone born on Guam? How about someone born in a US Embassy abroad? Or perhaps someone born on the high seas, in international waters?
What, exactly does "jurisdiction" mean? Since you seem to know what you're talking about on the subject, I am interested in your take on all of those. I find them lodged in misty vagueness in my own mind, if truth be told.
I am going to have to look up the reference to your quote which begins: The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known..., for some needed context. It seems to be suggesting something, but I'm not sure what, exactly, so I'd like to read the whole opinion.
Since we're getting into the weeds, for a long slice of American legal history, citizenship between one American and one non-American seemed to be determined awfully arbitrarily -- it mattered (a lot) whether the father or the mother was the American parent, which seems inherently discriminatory these days. In actual fact, it seems backwards, logically. The mother is the easiest parentage to prove, after all, and yet was legally discounted, whereas the father is merely deemed to be parent based on what the two parents said (not medical proof, to put it another way), but the law was backwards on the issue.
If Obama had been born somewhere outside Hawai'i, for instance, the laws at the time stated (I'm doing this from memory, forgive me if I get it wrong) that for him to be granted automatic citizenship, she would have had to be a native-born American and had to have lived 5 years in America before her (?) 19th birthday, which she fell short of by a few months. So should that hair-splitting (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the birthers are right and he wasn't born in Hawai'i) determine his eligibility for the presidency?
Anyway, like I said, glad you responded, and I will bookmark this comment thread to refer to (especially for those case citations you made) the next time the whole Ted Cruz/eligibility question comes up. I truly am interested in the legal history, here, because I feel that far too many people are brushing it aside.
At heart, I love a good constitutional debate. Call me a sucker for the love of argument, if you must.
Heh.
-CW
Well to start with McCain was, [is], not eligible. What happened in '08 with SR511, that Obama co-sponsored, was to declare McCain an NBC. However that non-binding resolution has a few flaws. First it mentions
They are clearly referring to the 1790 Naturalization Act where it states;
This provision was removed fives later because congress could not make a law to define what was a natural law. This is why again when debating the 14th they made it clear what was a natural born Citizen in debate of the language.The part they did get right was the two parent rule. But why would the Senators not make the leap to realize Obama's dilemma of a one parent Citizen? I submit a deal was made to ignore this fact and go along with the narrative of him being "native" born.SR511 also states that McCain was born on a military base.
He was born in Colon at the Colon Hospital which IIRC is about 40 miles from the military base, but either way it was not on a US military base.George Rommney's eligibility was hotly debated as well because he was born in Mexico. There where scholars and congress critters who came down on both sides of the issue but Rommney left the race before it was resolved. If we are to follow the rules of jus sanguinis and jus soli then it generally accepted to mean sovereign territory by two of its Citizens. A place like Guam might be considered if, like in McCain's claim, born on a military base. Being simply born in Guam does make you an NBC. International waters or airspace is generally considered to be the country of the craft's registration.Now to get to our pResident. According to the British Nationality Act of 1948 Barack was born to a British subject and therefore became a British subject at birth. Don't take my word for it you can read right from the Obama campaign!
Sneaky....The Kenyan constitution does state that if you do not denounce your other citizenship and sware an oath to Kenya then you citizenship does in fact expire. But they give you a two year grace period so the date Aug 4, 1982 should read Aug 4, 1984. Big deal Greg...Well it is.Enter the British Nationality Act of 1981.
The UK was terminating the title of "subject" and replacing it with "Commonwealth Citizen" in this act. So the date above is relevant because the commencement date of the BNA 1981 was Jan 1, 1983 while Obama was still considered a Kenyan Citizen thus being a British Subject then became a "Commonwealth Citizen" of the UK.We have a Brit in the WH!Now to address the "birther" issue of being born somewhere else besides the US You are correct in citizenship transfer by a single mother. She must be a US citizen and have resided in the US for a minimum of 5 years before her 19th birthday.
.We have a Brit in the WH!
Ziiiinnngggg!!!!!!
You have -with logic, rationality and facts- shown that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS..
Kudos
I wonder what the Weigantian Peanut Gallery will say to THAT!? :D
Thanks for the Kudos.
Now for the politics of it all because the rule of law seems to be long gone.
By making a deal with the
devilcandidate Obama over such an important rule of law you allow him to commit any breach of law he decides to because you broke the law in making the deal. To this day McCain speaks highly of Obama and supports most of his policies. He, McCain, is a powerful man in DC so underlings will toe the line with the exception of a couple of "Wacko Birds" who take their oath seriously. But they are not enough.The problem with now allowing a GOP ineligible candidate is that AII S1 C5 is forever gone. Notice without even hinting he was running the libs marched out to declare Cruz eligible. They don't care if he is running or not they just want to legitimize Obama's presidency.
The only hope we have in preserving the Constitution is to have a successful challenge to the term of art natural born Citizen" while Obama is still in office.
Having said that I will now go buy a PowerBall ticket!