Determining Obama's eligibility

[blackwell33]

The Right Side of Life Could FactCheck.org be Plainly Stating Obama’s Biggest Citizenship Problem?

theobamafile.com reported today a fact that is the premise of Donofrio v. Wells: Barack Obama’s citizenship status at birth, Leo Donofrio claims, is what ultimately matters when considering his eligibility as President.

Could FactCheck.org be providing the most damning evidence in plain sight to support Leo’s conclusion?…

Article:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. …

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

Again, Leo Donofrio’s case is premised on Barack Obama’s citizenship at birth, regardless of what a COLB (certificate of live birth, which isn’t the full, “vault” copy) has to say. And, in theory, it doesn’t matter whether or not Barack Obama’s citizenship changed a day, month, year or years after he was born; it’s at birth, according to Leo, that counts.

If you will recall from one of Leo Donofrio’s interviews, he mentioned that even the Founding Fathers had to “grandfather” themselves into the potentiality of being President, thusly (from Article 2, Section1):

…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…

Remember: the Founding Fathers were originally born (at birth) in another country, namely (in some cases), England. They were therefore born as His Majesty’s subjects. And, like Barack Obama, they would have had dual citizenship (for a time) as well! That’s why, according to Leo, they had to put in this clause, else they would have never qualified.

Why did this matter so much? The first Americans literally fought with blood, sweat, tears and treasure to found a new nation. The Founders didn’t want, say, an English monarch to therefore be able to take on the office of President; too much undue foreign influence. The same holds true today.

So, unless Barack Obama was born before or on September 17, 1787, he would not qualify for this clause.

[old1]

DoubleJ it takes a while to wrap your head around things that happened 222 years ago in a much different society. Look at it this way. Our founding fathers were for the most part British Lawyers schooled at England Law schools. They were trained in British Common Law. I suggest you Google British Common Law, Natural Born. Read what the words Natural Born meant back in 1787. This phrase was well known to our founding fathers back when they drafted our Constitution. As I stated they added a requirement for POTUS that they knew they could not qualify for. They had a good reason. They did not want a British Usurper to become President at some future date and defeat our country from the inside out. Well, their fears have now become a reality. We have a British Subject sleeping in our White House. Their protective language is still there but our people in power refuse to utilize it to protect America from this attempted takeover. Keep up the search for the truth. We need everyone we can get to save America. Welcome to the fight!

[DoubleJ]

Old1 you make a good point, I will look into it a little deeper. After reading up a little more it seems that the phrasing "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was put in to exclude American-born people from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. Since his mother alone was a citizen and not his father this has caused me to question my initial thought process. Thanks for the info.