No, I just kept reading after you stopped; you missed the point at the very end of the current form of the legal code.
"This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date." Awww, look at that, they made it retroactive. Don't it suck?
Sucks for you...
I missed nothing. As I stated this has already been discussed on this board and all you had to do was do a search:
http://www.lpsg.org/2268306-post344.html
That's the proof that *yawn* this has already been discussed. But I know you and Vinyl need it explained (even though you won't get it) this is actually for the others so they know just how intellectually challenged you are:
A legal Professor quoted by the
Chicago Tribune made the same
error as you and had to issue a
correction. This demonstrates how feverishly Obama and his supporters are trying to misconvey the facts.
I foolishly read the last sentence as applying to the entire
provision, � 1401(g); but the last sentence refers to the "proviso,"
and thus just to the clause that begins with "Provided." Public Law
89-770 enacted both the "Provided" and the last sentence mentioning
the "proviso," without repeating the first clause -- this supports the
view that the "proviso" refers only to the "Provided" clause.
Volokh
Once again, this time from the
State Department Website:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
State Dept
You know why it clearly states that? Because the retroactive proviso did
not retroactively change the age requirement in U.S.C. Title 8 in place in 1961.
The change in language modified the number of years required of the citizen parent to have resided within the United States from 5 years to 2 years after attaining the age of 14. Also it made the change to the code after the word Provided retroactive.
This language covered only the provision for qualifying time to meet the separate 5 year and 2 year requirements,
not the requirement itself. Therefore the modification was not made retroactive. The requirement of 10 years overall and 5 years after age 14 was left from the 1952 version to govern the interval from 1952 to 1986.
No other revisions modified it and the most current revision of the INA passed in January 2008 does not modify the language of paragraph (g).
This is confirmed by review of the current IRA regulation found at the U.S. State Department website which clearly states that:
For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
And even if the the law had been changed retroactively it would have been argued in court that
citizenship at birth cannot be conferred retroactively anyway.
And the Constitution defines what is allowed to happen at that point. As it stands, Quo Warranto could be persued, and they could get to the end and declare that Obama had never been eligible to run in the first place. And then they'd go, "Shit. We can't actually do anything about it." And Obama would laugh at them.
Nope. He wouldn't be laughing because they can most certainly do something about it.
Yes, it allows for the President to claim Executive Privilege and block disclosure of his records unless two people, both of whom you would deem Obama lackeys, decide to side against him. The only way to override at this point what be by a court order, which is not going to happen. The courts have made it clear how they feel about this with Orly.
Nope. A quo warranto case places the burden on the office holder. The only obstacle to the other cases was standing and jurisdiction. The courts never
"made it clear how they feel" because the cases were
not decided on the merits. As I stated, the courts will have access to the documents and so will congress.
So I stand corrected, there are two ways to get around the EO, but one is extremely unlikely given precedent, and the other is basically impossible unless no fewer than 8 Democratic Senators are assassinated. How did this help your case? Do you think that the courts will side with other Birthers after Orly Taitz has stained the matter with her bullshit?
Should a Quo Warranto case be brought, the burden of proof is on Obama. All former legal technicalities would not be available and the only question is...is Obama eligible and he must demonstrate that he is.
I do enjoy needling you until you decide to finally reveal the sources you're using so they can be properly torn asunder.
You have yet to tear anything asunder except your dignity.
It's amusing imagining you squirm as you attempt to retroactively hunt down evidence to support your tower of lies.
There are no tower of lies...just you being wrong all day long.
