Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericanVictory
It does not matter whether our courts are or are not bound by Indonesian law because in the 1960’s our own law did not allow dual citizenship. If the One became an Indonesian citizen at that time his U. S. citizenship would have been lost.

Under the 14th Amendment, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural-born citizen. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, a U.S. citizen does not lose his citizenship by becoming a dual citizen of another country, unless he also voluntarily renounces his U.S. citizenship.

66 posted on 06/19/2009 4:06:19 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
Under the 14th Amendment, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with the definition of "natural-born citizen" and the phrase does not even appear in the Amendment. The 14th did not define, re-define, clarify, or in any way whatsoever alter the meaning of "natural-born citizen" as used in the main body of the United States Constitution.

69 posted on 06/19/2009 4:46:58 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian

There is sufficient evidence that he was not born in Hawaii to warrant discovery if the courts would stop ducking by invoking standing. We don’t know whether or not he voluntarily gave up his U. S. citizenship because he refuses to reveal the information that would reveal whether he did or not and in fact has spent very large sums of money avoiding providing that information. Further, his minions have persisted in using an altered document as “proof” which is generally a tactic that raises an inference of fraud.


73 posted on 06/19/2009 5:30:07 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court held that if a person was born in the U.S. and one parent was not a U.S. citizen then your natural born citizenship was in doubt. The Supreme Court has left it at that and not resolved the matter further. We don't know if Obama was born in the U.S. and even if he was his status as a "natural born citizen" remains in doubt,as the Supreme Court said in 1874.

But we don't know if Obama was born in the United States and there is enough evidence that he was not to warrant discovery into that question even if the evidence is not itself admissible. Correspondingly we don't know for sure if he in fact ever "acquired" U. S. citizenship. If he never acquired U. S. citizenship then the decision that you cite does not apply. Further, even if he acquired U. S. citizenship, which is very much a question, we don't know if he voluntarily relinquished it or not.

79 posted on 06/19/2009 6:43:43 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson