Thread: An Official Ballot Challenge To Mitt Romney's Eligibility To Be President Filed In Il

Reading the paperwork on this I found out some things I wasn't aware of pertaining to our citizenship statutes back in the 1940's such as the statute listed in this challenge, U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 Sect 201, 54 Stat. 1137 which provides provides the law by which a person born outside the U.S. is bound by in order to qualify legally as a U.S. citizen. For some that do not know, according to Mexican law at the time when Mitts dad George was born in Chihuahua, he became a Mexican citizen according to their law. That citizenship was passed to Mitt at his birth in 1947 despite the fact he was born in Michigan. The filing states this means Mitt was born a dual citizen and a born dual citizen is not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen eligible for the presidency as our founders intended. Reading the challenge, they bring out the SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett which is binding precedent defining a natural born citizen. They also cite The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 289 (1814) as well as the case Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830). It goes on to say:

Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:

"By virtue of this law, in order for George Romney to have become a U.S. citizen he would have to be naturalized".


I noticed in the link a comment by a reader who stated that this is also a backdoor sublime challenge to Obama's eligibility too.

Well, it will be interseting how the media responds to this.


Update: Ballot Challenge to Mitt Romney’s Eligibility Filed in Illinois | The Post & Email

Really you should try and keep all of your birther agendas in one thread or else they could start ending up in the "conspiracy" nut job section where they belong.

But by all means try and post numerous threads on the same thing and let's see what happens?

Do you think you are the first birther to ever grace this forum to attempt such a thing?

Originally Posted by goldendog

Really you should try and keep all of your birther agendas in one thread or else they could start ending up in the "conspiracy" nut job section where they belong.

But by all means try and post numerous threads on the same thing and let's see what happens?

Do you think you are the first birther to ever grace this forum to attempt such a thing?

Unfortunately he's not the last.

Originally Posted by I Know These Things

So threads on presidential ballot challenges aren't allowed here?

It's allowed. People responding to the issue with skepticism is also allowed, and you'll find most people give this particular issue little or no credence.

I count myself among those that think it's a spite issue as opposed to anything that really matters. Obama was born in Hawaii and that's good enough for most people. Objecting to his presidency based on some obscure interpretation of the law just seems like nothing more than sour grapes and trying to convict him on a technicality. I felt the same way about Clinton being impeached for lying under oath in a deposition for a civil suit.

It seems nitpicky and stupid to me, and trying to twist the rules to overturn Obama's presidency isn't really the issue at all for most people, it's about getting rid of him for other reasons. I'd prefer people were honest about why they think hitting below the belt is justified in this case.

Is he that bad that you are willing to try to throw him out on some ridiculous technicality? And if Mitt Romney is elected (he's almost certain to get the nomination) are the Orly Taitz's of the world going to go after his citizenship with the same fervor?