Why
should the [alleged] issue of divided loyalty have been decided for us by law by
the Framers in 1787 rather than by the voters today?
I
don't think Caly-fornia voters thought for a moment that we might become a
province of Austria as the result of the recent election.
I
don't geddit, not for the first time in constitutional law, I must
admit.
rs
sfls
-----Original Message-----I don't see why the dual citizenship issue (which is very interesting) has any relevance tim to a plain text requirement of being a "natural born citizen." Example, I am a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. (I believe that those born of U.S. citizens abroad also count under the phrase). I am also a citizen of Britain and Europe by descent, although I didn't take up my passport and voting rights until the Justice Department changed its stance on active dual citizens. The old stance would have made me renounce my U.S. citizenship before taking up that of Britain and Europe which I had no intention of doing.
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mairi Morrison
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Utah senator wants amendment to let foreign-born be president
That said, I'm sure there are quite a few of the same sorts of questions that could arise with respect to divided loyalties between immigrants and dual citizens of at least certain countries. I suspect the issue wouldn't arise much for U.K. U.S. citizens but might with other dualities.
Mairi
