Frantzie “…he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed”
Well, yes it is disputed. If that was the issue I would most certainly dispute. A recognized allegiance by birth is (to me at least) an anathema. Kinda like recognizing all Germans are…, all Jews are…, all ect..
The up front issue here is related to simple, straight forward written words at the foundation of our concept of law. Uniquely American from the git go.
Rab
Then you are just ignoring and denying the U.S. Constitution and 10,000 years of history. The purpose of citizenship was always to define the rights and obligations of allegiances to a sovereign, nation or otherwise. The War of 1812 was fought in great part due to Britain’s refusal to acknowledge the right of a person to expatriate from a natural born British allegiance to a naturalized allegiance to another sovereign, such as the United States of America. This difference put Britain at odds against the 18th and 19th Century naturalization laws of the Continental European nations and the United States of America. The natural born citizenship cluase was recommended by John Jay specifically to keep Britain and the British Crown or any other sovereign from asserting a legal claim of allegiance and fealty against the person of the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army. It was just such a conflict between allegiances, fealty, and loyalties which formed the dispute between William the Conqueror and his heirs versus the French sovereigns.