In all actuality, because obama was born with foreign citizenship, he was not born with US citizenship.
The only place in the US Constitution where citizenship is defined is in the 14th Amendment.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
It's that part '....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...' is where the confusion sets in. When asked for clarification of this phrase, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the 13th Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase in the 14th replied:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. "
But, obama, by his own admission, was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain. Therefore, he was not born subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US and can not be a US citizen.
Of course not. President Obama could never be an oxymoron, even if Obama had never been elected. For an oxymoreron they have to be opposed or opposite. For exaple a "only choice", or "larger half".
Because when writing the constitution they didn't think of everything, that's why there are amendments, and the like. As of yet no one opinion on the matter had been accepted though. (Note the ruling from various judges every other week flip-floping between Obama is natural born and isn't.) When a standardised, accepted definition is formed I'll be able to tell you one way or the other for "A Dual National natural born citizen."
Of course, "Obama" is just a name, that's not exclusively linked to one individual, so "President Obama" will never be oxymoronic.
Well, as for the most part you never update your constitution to be current with the times, it probably is. If you lot kept it up to date, it probably wouldn't be.
The only place in the US Constitution where citizenship is defined is in the 14th Amendment.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
It's that part '....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...' is where the confusion sets in. When asked for clarification of this phrase, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the 13th Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase in the 14th replied:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. "
But, obama, by his own admission, was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain. Therefore, he was not born subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US and can not be a US citizen.
Much less a natural born one.
Even obama can't say that about his parents.
For an oxymoreron they have to be opposed or opposite. For exaple a "only choice", or "larger half".
Additionally there's no standardised definition for natural born citizen, and dual citizenship exists.
As of yet no one opinion on the matter had been accepted though. (Note the ruling from various judges every other week flip-floping between Obama is natural born and isn't.)
When a standardised, accepted definition is formed I'll be able to tell you one way or the other for "A Dual National natural born citizen."
Of course, "Obama" is just a name, that's not exclusively linked to one individual, so "President Obama" will never be oxymoronic.
Or atleast, they never recorded the definition. Personally they may have known it.
If you lot kept it up to date, it probably wouldn't be.