That’s the McCain case, right? When he was born, he was within a loophole that meant he was not a citizen. Later, Congress closed that loophole and declared all persons in it retroactively to be citizens from birth.
The issues isn’t about whether Obama’s a citizen; it’s whether he’s a natural-born citizen. The problem is that the Constitution does not define the term. The intent of the founders seems to be to exclude European royalty from becoming president (there were proposals that various princes take the job), not to exclude all immigrants. But, in any case, it’s still a vague term. At it’s simplest, it means that you have to be a non-naturalized citizen, and, indeed, the term “naturalization” would imply that those who are citizens but who didn’t go through a citizenship process are natural-born.
But the Birthers aren’t interested in simplicity. Their starting point is that Obama isn’t a citizen and they look for ways to call that into question. There is plenty of evidence in addition to the birth certificate that prove Obama was born in Hawaii – the birth announcements and the official ledger of births confirm it. But then the conspiracy kicks in . . .
Not specifically thinking of McCain, just that the principle that if the new law favors you over the old law, its effects can apply unto you retroactively. That’s a feature of the French law system. I dont know if it exists in US law.
What I had in mind, if that effect does exist, is that focusing on the specifics of the law at the time Obama was born might be pointless anyway if, since then, new laws regarding the question of natural born citizen have passed, and that Obama can claim their benefit. In that case, if you want to throw a tantrum about the subject, you shoud focus on what the law is today, not was it was in 61.
I think that their repsonse would be more along the lines of “you can shove that latin bullshit right up your ass, commie.”
eta: I don’t mean this as a joke or a political jab, it is my honest answer to the OP, based on my observations.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Blacks never were citizens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision affirmed it. The 14th Amendment rectified that.
There isn’t any good case law that settles this one way or the other. The new law is not retroactive, in any case. The meaning of natural born citizen for many things is vague. For a president it is completely undefined by the courts for an Obama-like case if he were indeed born outside the U.S.
No. If Obama was born in Kenya today, he’d be a natural-born citizen. But if he was born in Kenya then, he would not.
The courts may have “bent over backwards” in the Dred Scott decision, by the way, but the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment foreclosed that issue.
Right. If citizenship passed down by blood ad infinitum, I would at least be a US, British, Irish, and German citizen, and possibly hold more citizenships.
Quoth Exapno:
That’d be extremely amusing, if it were true. If Kim Jong Il, or Qadaffi, or someone, decided that they didn’t like how the US presidential election was going, all they’d have to do would be to declare all but one of the candidates to be citizens of their country, and presto, now Kim Jong Il can decide our president for us.
Hmm, come to think of it… Do we have any proof that Orly Taitz isn’t actually a North Korean or Libyan?
<mini-hijack> Who was the 1st President born to parents who were born citizens (i.e. post-1776) My WAG is Pierce.
Thanks Bricker, that answers it.
BTW, outside of citizenship status and on, is there a principle of “new law trumps the old one if it benefits you” in US law ?
Did some wiki research, the answer’s Lincoln.
New law always trumps old law, as long as the Supremacy Clause or similar doesn’t prevent it.
Yes, but I believe Capitaine Zombie was referring to the “principle of favorability”, the notion that the more favorable set of legal effects from either version of the law is to be applied to events that happened before the law was changed. AFAIK in US law a new law has to explicitly decree retroactive effect and set specific terms of application (and only when dealing within certain constitutional constraints), in order for that to happen. (Within the US subunits, I know the principle of favorability is part of the Puerto Rico state laws; it may also happen in Louisiana, since both use Code Civil systems.)
Whoa (or woah)… that would mean McCain really isn’t a natural born citizen, in that citizenship was not inherent at the moment of his birth.
Congress passed a law saying that he (and all other folks born in the canal zone during that time) were citizens at birth retroactively. If we accept that Congress has the right to define natural born citizen in that manner, than he is a natural born citizen by definition.
Whoa, according to whose law? Dual citizenship bars you from being president? It will bar you from working at NSA (so they told my son), but there is no way it can bar you from being president.
**
**
I doubt any of them have given it that much thought. I don’t think most Birthers are really interested in the legality of Obama being President. Birthers don’t like the idea of having someone that doesn’t look like them president. It’s a lot easier to make racist comments about that “socialist, America hatin’ furriner” when you convince yourself he is not really American.
It’s not true or rational. It is what some birthers are loudly proclaiming.
When I went over to Freerepublic.com I literally saw heads exploding on screen.
And I don’t use “literally” lightly. 
Actually, McCain does have dual citizenship, or at least he is qualified for it. The Republic of Panama recognizes anyone born in the Canal Zone as a Panamanian citizen, since by treaty it was Panamanian territory. I am not certain whether he has to apply for it in order for it to be recognized. However, during the last US election a member of the Panamanian government was asked if McCain would be eligible to be President of Panama because of his birth, and the official said that was correct.
He should have ran for Prisedent of both countries at the same time, to hedge his bets.