This may help you out a little, posted on a Conservative site. Also is your spouse eligible to run for the office of the U.S. Presidency???
The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on December 27, 2009
First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills, our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.
Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese IIIs 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.
It was like fate that the word dual jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law. ~ Joseph Bassette
Meeses full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:
1) America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land
2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so
3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress
Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term natural born citizen from Article II and replace it with citizen as well as Congressional activities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.
Oh, wait, they didnt need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.
Does it make it law? absolutely not!
Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!
Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nations national security & sovereignty that it does.
This entry was posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm and is filed under Corruption, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, US Congress Legislation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Of course not. Should my wife choose to become naturalized (and she's not required to) she'll be in the same boat as the current Governor of California (who, unless the Constitution is amended, is ineligible for the Presidency).
My California-born son, on the other hand, will be at the age of 35 no less eligible than the current, sworn-in occupant of the White House.