Welsh Dragon wrote:
From the Answer, Para.20:
To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of
the United States, or is or ever was a citizen of Kenya or a British subject, those
allegations are denied.
Para 20 in the amended complaint is full of errors but putting it to one side it does seem to me that President Obama was a British Subject from birth to December 1964 and a Kenyan citizen from December 1963 until probably his 23rd Birthday (although it may have ended earlier than that).
Could the statement in in the Answer cause a problem futher down the line?
I am hoping (against hope) that they have been following the debate on dual nationality and are going to play rough and tough. YOU prove that Obama ever went to the British or Kenyan embassy. We have no record of him ever doing anything abroad or in the USA that claimed or pre-supposed British, Kenyan, Indonesian or - let us throw in the kitchen sink - French nationality. We do know that when in the USA he was under the full protection and jurisdiction
of the United States. YOU may think that he was also Kenyan, British or Indonesian, but YOU will have to ask those countries, because as far as we are concerned there is nothing in your claim.
You may think this preposterous or counterproductive, but ask yourself what the answer would be if it were not about Obama, but about Eisenhower or Ford. Do you really think the answer would have been different. The USA claims full sovereignty over its subjects, and does not mind or care that other countries may have different ideas about that. Perhaps this could be interpreted as drawing a line on dual citizenship. NOT forbidding it, but NOT recognizing it on the territory of the United States
. Perhaps they should ask Hillary the question when she is in Geneve. Yes, in Geneve. Vattel would have liked that.
(Just saw that Justin has raised my point, but more succinct and better)