1 A - Marie had two foreign born parents, at least one of which was naturalized at her birth, but both of whom expressly rejected US citizenship.
1 B - Barry had one parent who was a citizen by birth, and a father who was not a US citizen at all.
2 A - Marie was taken to Sweden at 4 and raised as a Swede with Swedish parents.
2 B - Barry was raised primarily in the USA, by his mother and grandparents. His presumed father has no record of ever living with the mother, abandoned both (if possible) at a very early age, and only saw Barry one time. In addition, he was not a legal husband at the time, since he was already legally married to another woman.
3 A - Having spent most of her life abroad, Marie was a citizen by birth, a native citizen, and a natural born citizen. A native born citizen is presumed to be allowed to run for President.
3 B - Barry, having lived most of his life in the US and with no evidence he ever accepted any other citizenship, ran and was elected President, and certified by Congress with no dissent.
I understand birthers will continue to disagree that Barry was eligible. However, it seems clear to me that there IS a reasonable case to be made on the other side that Barry is a citizen, a native born citizen, and a natural born citizen as used by the US Supreme Court.
One doesn't remove a President from office lightly. To override the decision by the people as accepted by Congress would require an "open/shut" case - and I don't see this as "open/shut". While I think birthers have a reasonable interpretation, it doesn't seem to be well supported by the law - and certainly is not so overpowering as to justify removing Obama from office, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.
Just IMHO. Thoughts?
Not quite.
From your lead above:
Being born of a Naturalized Father enabled the designation "natural born" to the child [Young Steinkauler] born in the US.
Barry does not qualify, by his own admission.
You're right on. As Edwards Pierrepont wrote (it would have been in 1875 or 76), Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States
. I'm quite sure the Court would agree today, if they ever took a case.
One doesn't remove a President from office lightly. To override the decision by the people as accepted by Congress would require an "open/shut" case - and I don't see this as "open/shut".
The Supreme Court would not remove him even if they had an open/shut case. The Constitution requires them to leave the job of removal up to Congress.
As a matter of fact, there is dictum here in which this Court approves earlier dictum in Steinkauler that a person who becomes a citizen by right of birth in the US is eligible to run for president (Natural Born) even though his father was not a citizen.
Parental citizenship has ceased to be an issue because of the 14th Amedmdent.
And in fact, as I have pointed out, under current law in many of the Euro countries, where a grandfather who immigrates to the US and has a son born in the US who in turn has his own son born in the US; both the first generation son as well as the second generation grandson are both citizens of the Grandfather's country of birth (as well as "natural born" citizens of the US), even though they may not be aware of the fact.
None of this has been of great concern with respect to the Obama situation--at this point, everyone in the knowledgeable political establishment, as well as those of us who have studied the issue here know that Obama was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital, in Mombasa, in what is now modern Kenya.
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.
Steinkauler's father was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth, just like Ms Elg's parents were. Both were native born (modern usage) and natural born.
BHO Jr's father was not a citizen. So even if he was native born, he was not natural born.
At some point the meanings of "native born" and "natural born" diverged. Prior to that they were pretty much synonomous. Even in Vattel's "Law of Nations" and many later instances, they are considered the same. (Vattel uses "Les Naturels ou Indigenes" to describe those born in a county of parents who are its citizens".
But they no longer are the same, but it's "native born" that has changed. Native born means "born in the country", and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.
Nice try, but a bit too much of a parroting of Where native and natural coincide especially Part Two
I haven't had time to read the comments so perhaps someone has already answered the question. Both of my mother's parents were from Sweden. My grandfather became a US citizen, my grandmother did not automatically become naturalized through him, in fact never did become a citizen. My mother was born in 1921 so we're talking about the same period of time.
The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized
But then, you go on to say this:
Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.
Why don't you know? You provided it yourself, as a fact stated in the decision, at the beginning of your own article.
I've said before and I'll say it again, that I've long enjoyed your many lengthy and well-reasoned responses in defense of your religious beliefs on the Religion Forum. But, this, somehow, is completely out of your element. You've made an embarassing and very basic blunder.
You're also covering ground that has been covered much more thoroughly on Free Republic, on the vedritable avalanche of threads regarding the eligibility question that have been posted with replies into the tens of thousands, since early 2008.
You're capable of better than this, Mr. Rogers.
The long and the short of Elg is that she was a natural born citizen because both her parents were citizens and she was born in the United States. There is nothing controvertible in this decision that can be used in an attempt to deride the so-called "birther" Constitutional argument.
What strikes me is that in both Elg and Steinkauler the fathers had become US citizens before the child’s birth. That is significant, and is not true in Barry’s case. And that has made all the difference.*
*with apologies to Mr. Frost
A few facts to consider:
Marie’s parents were both U.S. citizens (naturalized) at the time of her birth even though they later went back to Sweden. She was a Natural Born citizen.
obama place of birth has not yet been certified by documents. Regardless if he was born in Hawaii ,with only one American born parent he is a Native born Naturalized citizen( Elk and Ark cases U.S. Supreme court). A native born citizen is not born with full alligiance to the U.S. and thus NOT a Natural Born citizen and eligible to be President. There is no question what our founding fathers meant by Natural Born citizens ( both parents U.S. citizens) and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times already.Example Minor vs. Happensett the Supreme court said that children born to PARENTS that were citizens were Natural Born. This issue was rised prior to obama taking office but the democratic leadership in Congress blocked the hearings that were requested. For obama to legally be president it would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to remove Article 2( natural born citizen clause) from the Constitution. Do you think It’s fair to “overlook “ the constitution so that obama can be the legal president of the U.S.
Each person does have a theory and I wish to give one that will not win me many friends. It could be that such a long form does not exist. If the now president was not born in a hospital and elsewhere, I believe it would be incumbent on the mother or relatives etc to attend the record offices. Supposing Stanley Ann Dunham did not immediately inform the authorities. She might have done this when she divorced the father three years later. As was done by various people, they gained a COLB long after the claim of actual birth.
Now the political backers of Barack Hussein Obama, would not wish to risk any delay in ratifying the nomination of their man. For without the long form, persons opposed to him could delay his nomination. This until such times as there was a resolution. A resolution that may have engaged either the Congress or the courts. Any delay would have possibly put Hilary Rodham Clinton up front and center as the nominee.
True this is only a theory. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama would not have been alive to testify, nor Barack Hussein Obama Sr. A long form may not exist, at least not in the style that we have been shown.
Both her parents were citizens at the time of her birth. She was born in the US. There is no comparison between her and Bozo. Your whole premise falls apart if Bozo was born in Kenya. The law is clear that he would not be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the fact he had only one US citizen parent.
If Bozo was born in HI then yes, he is a Natural Born citizen. If he wasn't then he isn't. Simple as that. There is a reason he doesn't show his BC or any of his records. That reason is yet to be determined but the fact he spends so much money in keeping this case out of court speaks to the strong possibility he wasn't born in HI.