The Man From Chicago ne (Hawaii)

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:17 am

Oh, look! It's an act of Congress from 1790! That means the Congress can pass different laws if they want, and the passed after 1790 equal protection clause--an actual part of the constitution--means women can pass on citizenship just as men can.

You lose. Abjectly.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:23 am

"but it wasn't done in consideration of the effect it would have on Divided Allegiance for offspring"

Demonstrate it has any effect.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:39 am

Actually, if you are interested in the Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Tw ... nstitution

And some legal intrepratations of article II:

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

The particular opinion/ comment quoted by diogenes is vague. It says nothing about the legal status of a father, citizen, alian, etc. It only says that the father is residing within the US. It says nothing about the duration of residence or status.

The recognition of either parent being a citizen is probably a more recent interpretation as at the time of the Constitution women were considered legally unimportant.

Was Obama born within the US- yes
Does he have a US citizen as a parent- yes
Does he have have a foreign parent that was representing another country (such as a diplomat or soldier) and was he claimed by that parent's country- no.

Dan Tibbets

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:19 pm

ladajo

Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 1158
Location: East Coast
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

Quote:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment:
Quote:
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

Quote:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and from Article 1, Section 8:
Quote:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:

Quote:
The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."

2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 366 U. S. 311 (1961).

3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. [Footnote 3]

So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm.

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.

I am trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. It sounds like you are saying that congress can change the meaning of an article of the Constitution without resorting to the Amendment process. Is that what you are saying?
I went like this:
1. Reviewed US Code to see what it says about Citizenship (Title 8 Section 1401)

2. Reviewed Constitution to see what it says regarding Citizenship and Powers of Congress. Article 1 Section 8, 14th Amendment Sections 1 and 5.

3. Determined that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to enact laws for the execution of the provisions of the Constitution (Article 1 Sect. 8 & 14th Amendment Section 5.)

4. Reviewed related US Supreme Court Cases and Decisions to see where Congressional Powers start and end in regard to the Citizenship Issue, as well as the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and its guidance in the matter. In this process, I then reveiwed the changes in opinion through the years culminating with the most current related decision, Rogers v. Bellei (1971)

5. Review of the Rogers v. Bellei (1971) 401 US 815 decision provides that the Court upholds the right of Congress to enact legislation to clarify and regulate the provisions of the Constitution, and that the Court found that the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is equal with "Citizen at Birth", and was envisioned so by the original Congress in that the decision cited:
"The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And in such that the Court found that the Congress has rightfully enacted legislation to provide provisions to clarify citizenship derivations that the Constitution did not.

So in short, to your question, Yes, the US Supreme Court has held that Congress has the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and also to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" and this includes legislating rules for naturalization, and citizenship issues that are not defined by the Constitution, in some much as that these legislations do not violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And, specifically, in that since the Constitution does not clarify "Natural Born Citizen", and that the intent of the meaning was clear in both the commentary and actions of the framers (1st Congress, Federalist Papers, Letters, etc - as you have cited as well), and that Congress has kept in that with its legislation.

401 US 871 is an interesting read. Give it a go. It really helped me. I was not aware of this case until I dug in to the circumstances of my topic, and obviously it has relavence in the bigger picture.

Edit: spelling spelling spelling...

Three points.

1. The Supreme court does not always get it right, especially when they have a split decision. They may have the power to enforce their decision, but that only means they are powerful, it does not mean they are correct.

2. If congress can change the meaning of a term, it renders article II completely moot. Congress could decide that "Naturalized" means "Natural born." They could redefine a year to be 250 days. This overlooks the fact that the contemporary meaning was Ratified by 3/4ths of the STATE legislators, and in accordance with THEIR understanding. I do not believe that statutory authority can override the meaning and intent of an Article of the Constitution.

3. Even if you accept this view, Your interpretation can be regarded as a conflict of Law. (Not at all uncommon.) Where one part of the law says one thing, and another part contradicts it or renders it moot. I have always believed in original intent as opposed to wringing new interpretations out of the text. The foundation document is a set of ideas and principles expressed in a crude form through writing. Words do not do these principles justice, but words are the only way the Founders had of conveying ideas into the future.

To put it simply, it is the IDEA which is important, not whether someone made a mistake in writing it down or used a poor choice of words. As an example, the 14th amendment is guilty of all sorts of mischief because it was so badly written. ( It was based on the Civil Rights act of 1866 which is far clearer in meaning and intent.) It has allowed Liberal Courts to reinterpret the laws to justify everything from Abortion on Demand to Anchor babies. It has caused most people to believe that if you are born anywhere on U.S. Territory you are automatically a U.S. Citizen, but of course place of birth has nothing to do with loyalty to a nation, and that is the Salient point of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause. Loyalty.

The founders did not believe that someone would be loyal to their country unless they were raised by a father that was loyal to their country. The way the Obama administration has turned out, the Founders would be smirking from 200 years ago.
Ok, I agree, they can disagree. That is the point of a Tri-partate system of checks/balance and turmoil, created on purpose.
However, in this case, it is a Consitutional Interpretation issue, which is the Purview of the Court. And, I also think that had the founders thought otherwise, the First Congress in its Second Session, would not have written this:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And subsequently, the Court has never taken issue with it, In fact has cited on it more than once as clear intent of the Founders.
One would hope that the First Congress understood the Constitution many of them helped write.
I also agree that there was, and has been an intent that a Natural Born Citizen has an attachment to the United States. Thus the sticking to a parental residency requirement. And the Court recognizes this as well.
As far as I can tell, the real grow in this area since the original framing of the Constitution, and teh very early first legislations by Congress until to day, has been a logical growth to include Constitutional recognition/clarification of equal rights "for all", and thus recognition of the equality of a US mother to a US father in regards to the child's derived Citizenship.
I also think that the Founders intended for the Constitution to evolve, but really only when it truly needed to, and thus that they did not think that 220 years later we would be living under the same Constitutional rules. They included the power of Amendment on purpose, to provide the needed flexibility down the road.
I do not see where the Court was out of line, nor Congress in this particular lane. Congress did not change the meaning, they clarified it. The Court looked at it (more than once), and agreed that it was within the power of Congress to do so, and that what they did met Constitutional Intent.

If Congress were to make a Statute that was un-Constitutional, it is within the Power of the Court to undo it.

It is like Obama directing Justice not to pursue Gay Marraige cases. He can do that, but inevitably someone will take it to Court, and it will be addressed, as I was recently so told by a Senior US District Judge.

I think this is the core of our original discussion. I did my best to separate your comments from mine.

The basic point is that women are fully equal now. And thus can pass on citizenship as men previously could.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:41 pm

TDPerk wrote:Oh, look! It's an act of Congress from 1790! That means the Congress can pass different laws if they want, and the passed after 1790 equal protection clause--an actual part of the constitution--means women can pass on citizenship just as men can.

You lose. Abjectly.

Don't be dense. No Act of Congress can override an Article (or Amendment) of the Constitution. I present the Naturalization act of 1790 only for it's insight into the minds of those men who wrote the constitution.

Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of Article II, no matter how earnestly they may wish to do so. Article II can only be changed by An Amendment. (A vote of Congress, including Senate, and approval by vote of State Legislatures in 3/4ths of the States.)

No one is disputing that changes in the law allowed women to pass on citizenship. They just cannot pass on Article II eligibility by themselves. Both parents must be Citizens. Under Article II, No Ambiguity regarding allegiance is permitted.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:44 pm

TDPerk wrote:"but it wasn't done in consideration of the effect it would have on Divided Allegiance for offspring"

Demonstrate it has any effect.

Seriously? You haven't been noticing the current effect of a disloyal President? I don't have time or space to list all of the ways in which this very unamerican man has made our nation less secure.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:04 pm

ladajo wrote:
ladajo

Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 1158
Location: East Coast
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

Quote:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

See, now here is where I quit reading. If you are going to trot out "US Code" in an effort to trump Constitutional law, I can't get any further trying to understand your point. It is flawed at the outset. Congress cannot override the meaning of an Article of the Constitution. I don't care what laws they pass, they do not have that power.

Also, you are confusing the distinction between "citizen" and Article II eligibility. They are not the same thing. (It even says so in Article II.)

ladajo wrote: I think this is the core of our original discussion. I did my best to separate your comments from mine.

The basic point is that women are fully equal now. And thus can pass on citizenship as men previously could.

As for women being equal, and able to pass on citizenship, there is no dispute with that. They simply cannot pass on non-divided allegiance without an American male.

The entire purpose of Article II is to prevent divided allegiance. This cannot be achieved with dual nationality parents. (Prior to 1920, this wasn't even possible.) One will teach love of America,* the other will teach love of Kenya. Considering what Barack wrote in his book, that love of Kenya thing is pretty powerful in him. So much so, that he's been interfering in Kenya's domestic affairs.

* Actually, Stanly Ann had disdain for America. She was known to have denounced America and Americans during her life. Barack Sr. probably loved it more. He WANTED to become an American, as evidenced by his immigration request.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:54 pm

Diogenes, you are being dense here. You are conflating the specific wording of piece of legislation done in 1790 with it's being the only thing the constitution CAN mean. This simply is not the case.
The Constitution is the granting of the authority to pass a law to Congress, not mandating the specifics of the that law is passed. Congress passed one law in 1790, it passed a different one later. Neither was unconstitutional, although they are different.
What's more, the equal protection clause demands that the sex of a person cannot be used as grounds to, for example, say a male can pass on American citizenship where a woman cannot. Foreign law, which you have cited from time to time, has nothing to say on the topic we are bound to respect in the slightest.

"Seriously? You haven't been noticing the current effect of a disloyal President?"

Of course I have. I don't think he's culturally American in any sense.

It just wouldn't be any different if both his parents were American citizens who'd never left the country. He's what you'd get if Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn had had politically successful child.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:00 pm

"Both parents must be Citizens. Under Article II, No Ambiguity regarding allegiance is permitted."

So as far as your concerned, if two people immigrate here and have a child here who grows up American, and say serves in the armed forces--that child cannot be President? By grounds of what divided allegiance?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:00 am

Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
ladajo

Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 1158
Location: East Coast
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

Quote:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

See, now here is where I quit reading. If you are going to trot out "US Code" in an effort to trump Constitutional law, I can't get any further trying to understand your point. It is flawed at the outset. Congress cannot override the meaning of an Article of the Constitution. I don't care what laws they pass, they do not have that power.

Also, you are confusing the distinction between "citizen" and Article II eligibility. They are not the same thing. (It even says so in Article II.)

ladajo wrote: I think this is the core of our original discussion. I did my best to separate your comments from mine.

The basic point is that women are fully equal now. And thus can pass on citizenship as men previously could.

As for women being equal, and able to pass on citizenship, there is no dispute with that. They simply cannot pass on non-divided allegiance without an American male.

The entire purpose of Article II is to prevent divided allegiance. This cannot be achieved with dual nationality parents. (Prior to 1920, this wasn't even possible.) One will teach love of America,* the other will teach love of Kenya. Considering what Barack wrote in his book, that love of Kenya thing is pretty powerful in him. So much so, that he's been interfering in Kenya's domestic affairs.

* Actually, Stanly Ann had disdain for America. She was known to have denounced America and Americans during her life. Barack Sr. probably loved it more. He WANTED to become an American, as evidenced by his immigration request.

The Constitution gives the power to Congress to make the laws. The current US Code does not go against the Constitution. THis was in fact upheld by the Supreme Court, who Constitutionally have the right to determine if something is Constitutional or not. I agree with intent about divided loyalty, in the beginning. However, times have changed, life has evolved, and so has intpretation and implementation. I think the law and Constitution are all in line currently. You have at least one US parent, you (and the parent) meet residency requirements, and you are "Natural Born". I believe the intent of the residency requirements is to address your concern about divided loyalty.

I am Foreign Born, of a Foreign Mother, by an American Father, and I am as American as the next guy. Maybe even more so given my 26 years of service to the Navy. And for more fun, my wife of many years is Turkish Born, raised, and only became an American Citizen a few years back. One of our Children was born abroad, and he is just as Natural Born as I am.

It makes not difference if you derive from your father or mother, what matters is that you meet residency, (and does the sourcing parent). This is what the Supreme Court found, when they dug through all this (Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)).

Like it or not, Obama meets residency, and so does his citizenship sourcing mother. His father (whomever that may be) matters naught.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:47 pm

TDPerk wrote:Diogenes, you are being dense here. You are conflating the specific wording of piece of legislation done in 1790 with it's being the only thing the constitution CAN mean. This simply is not the case.

My usage of the Naturalization act of 1790 was intended for two purposes. To show that the First Congress (The delegates to the Convention more or less.) Regarded Foreign born Children with American Parents to be "Natural Born Citizens" (Putting a big hole in the Jus Soli argument) and to show the disdain that the members of the first congress had for the idea of allowing citizenship to pass through a foreign father. As indicated by the language, they expressly forbid it. THAT was how they felt about the subject.

I posted the excerpt of the act just to allow people to see how the first Congress viewed the matter. As to your suggestion that Article II could have a different meaning, what would that be?

TDPerk wrote: The Constitution is the granting of the authority to pass a law to Congress, not mandating the specifics of the that law is passed. Congress passed one law in 1790, it passed a different one later. Neither was unconstitutional, although they are different.

IF it seeks to redefine a constitutional term, it cannot do so. Only an Amendment can change the meaning of the Constitution. Once the words had been agreed upon by the convention, and sent to the states for ratification, the concepts embodied therein were no longer modifiable.
The constitution can only be changed by the Amendment process.

TDPerk wrote: What's more, the equal protection clause demands that the sex of a person cannot be used as grounds to, for example, say a male can pass on American citizenship where a woman cannot. Foreign law, which you have cited from time to time, has nothing to say on the topic we are bound to respect in the slightest.

Let us not confuse the distinction between "Citizen", and "Natural born citizen." They are NOT the same thing. Let me show you how Article II makes this very distinction.

Article II.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen..."

If they meant the same thing, the terms would not be separated with an "or" .

Sure, Women can pass on "Citizenship", but they cannot pass on "Natural Born Citizen" status without an American Father. Nowadays, An American father cannot pass on "Natural born citizen" status without an American Mother. The defining rule is divided allegiance. We are not supposed to tolerate it.

TDPerk wrote: "Seriously? You haven't been noticing the current effect of a disloyal President?"

Of course I have. I don't think he's culturally American in any sense.

It just wouldn't be any different if both his parents were American citizens who'd never left the country. He's what you'd get if Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn had had politically successful child.

What you are saying is that the methodology agreed upon by the founders isn't fool proof. That is not a good argument for ignoring what the law says. Many laws do not work out exactly as predicted. Should we simply ignore their requirements? There are a LOT of laws I would like to ignore.

As for Barack being the offspring of Bill and Bernadine, that may be figuratively closer to the truth than most people realize. There seems to be connections between these people going back to at least 1981, (Columbia University) Perhaps further. Barack's book mentions that his mother Worked as an Au pair for some prominent family in Chicago in the summer of 1960. People have joked that She babysat Bill Ayers. Who knows?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:54 pm

TDPerk wrote:"Both parents must be Citizens. Under Article II, No Ambiguity regarding allegiance is permitted."

So as far as your concerned, if two people immigrate here and have a child here who grows up American, and say serves in the armed forces--that child cannot be President? By grounds of what divided allegiance?

Look dude, I didn't write the rule. Whether it is unfair or not is immaterial to the fact. It is what it is. The founders were VERY concerned about having a President (The closest thing that we will have to a King.) who was not completely loyal to the nation. European Monarchies had been cross breeding for generations up till then, so the founders were VERY familiar with the idea of one foreign country obtaining influence in another through ties of blood. The decided they didn't want any of that, Just as they decided they didn't want the religious wars of Europe.

They wrote stuff into the document to PREVENT it. As you have previously pointed out, it is quite possible that Naturalized Americans can be far more loyal than "Natural born citizen" Americans, but that doesn't change the meaning of the law. It is what it is. That was the measuring stick the founders (and states) agreed upon, and it should remain in use until it is changed legally.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:16 pm

ladajo wrote: The Constitution gives the power to Congress to make the laws. The current US Code does not go against the Constitution.

The current US code cannot redefine the meaning of Article II. Period. Whatever it may say about defining a "citizen" it cannot change the eligibility requirements through statute.

ladajo wrote: THis was in fact upheld by the Supreme Court, who Constitutionally have the right to determine if something is Constitutional or not.

So does the Congress and the President. Andrew Jackson over-rode the Supreme Court. So did Abraham Lincoln. The Supreme court is the arbiter of Constitutionality when the other branches allow it.

ladajo wrote: I agree with intent about divided loyalty, in the beginning. However, times have changed, life has evolved, and so has intpretation and implementation. I think the law and Constitution are all in line currently. You have at least one US parent, you (and the parent) meet residency requirements, and you are "Natural Born". I believe the intent of the residency requirements is to address your concern about divided loyalty.

The problem is, the meaning of the law isn't defined by the latest whim of the public. If the public wants the law changed, it should push for an Amendment. Absent an amendment, the law remains in force.

ladajo wrote: I am Foreign Born, of a Foreign Mother, by an American Father, and I am as American as the next guy. Maybe even more so given my 26 years of service to the Navy. And for more fun, my wife of many years is Turkish Born, raised, and only became an American Citizen a few years back. One of our Children was born abroad, and he is just as Natural Born as I am.

I hate to point out the irony, but under the law prior to 1920, you would have been considered a "natural born citizen" because the Mother Automatically became a citizen upon marriage to an American male. It is with some amusement that I notice your defense of the very right of women which deprives you of this status.

Separating the wife's citizenship from the Husband's has caused all sorts of unexpected consequences. Anyway, I was aware of this because you had mentioned it previously, and I have long felt that your advocacy of your position is the result of your situation. (Hey, i'd vote for you!

)

ladajo wrote: It makes not difference if you derive from your father or mother, what matters is that you meet residency, (and does the sourcing parent). This is what the Supreme Court found, when they dug through all this (Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)).

They weren't deciding an issue of Article II eligibility. Again, there is a distinction between the article II meaning of "citizen" and "Natural born citizen." (They are separated with an "or" in the sentence, meaning they are not the same thing.)

ladajo wrote: Like it or not, Obama meets residency, and so does his citizenship sourcing mother. His father (whomever that may be) matters naught.

As I have mentioned, I believe Obama's father is in fact an American, and if this is so he meets the "technical" rigor of the law, but he certainly violates the spirit of it. Some would argue that the legal system regards the husband of a marriage to be the father, whether he be the biological father or not. If THAT is the manner in which Barack would be regarded by the court, then he LEGALLY has a foreign father, but I don't believe in playing such games. Perhaps years ago when it was impossible to determine for sure, and the courts had to make SOME ruling, but now DNA can identify the father with certainty, and the legal system should adjust it's rules accordingly.

Anyway, i've got a few bits and pieces of new stuff to mention about Barack's origins. I'll post them in the other thread eventually.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:18 pm

"Look dude, I didn't write the rule."

You are evidently deluded enough to propound that the 1790 is all that controls, when Congress explicitly in the Constitution has the authority to pass different rules later.

And they did.

"but that doesn't change the meaning of the law. It is what it is. "

And it isn't what you need to be for your squawking to have any relevance.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:28 pm

"I hate to point out the irony, but under the law prior to 1920, you would have been considered a "natural born citizen" because the Mother Automatically became a citizen upon marriage to an American male. It is with some amusement that I notice your defense of the very right of women which deprives you of this status."

I don't think there should be any such thing a controlled substance, prohibition is bad, m'kay?

But what you're using needs a warning label.