Revocation by a Naturalization Court
A naturalization court has authority to revoke its citizenship judgment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1451. However, Congress has strictly limited the grounds which support revocation. The only grounds are proof of concealment of a material fact, willful misrepresentation, or procurement in violation of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
A natural born citizen does not have a certificate of citizenship or certificate of naturalization to be revoked. A natural born citizen uses a vital statistic record of live birth to prove birth within the territorial limits of the U.S., but does not have a certificate issued by the Federal government that can be revoked. Consequently, Jindal and Rubio are natural born citizens.
A U.S. citizen can move out of the country and voluntarily revoke their citizenship. And voluntarily revoking your citizenship can be acts construed by the SoS as deemed to have voluntarily revoking their citizenship, i.e. an oath of allegiance to a foreign country with renouncement of U.S. citizenship to foreign authorities. See Vance v. Terrazas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=444&invol=252
Jindal, Rubio ... natural born citizens without a certificate of citizenship or naturalization that can be revoked.
Cruz, McCain ... citizens at birth and not natural born citizens (despite Resolution 511) because they each applied for citizenship and were issued certificates by the Federal government which could be revoked.
Terrazas of Vance v. Terrazas ... natural born citizen born in Maryland with one U.S. Citizen parent and one foreign national parent had his citizenship revoked after he signed and pledged an oath of renunciation of his U.S. Citizenship to Mexican authorities in Mexico.
“Cruz, McCain ... citizens at birth and not natural born citizens (despite Resolution 511) because they each applied for citizenship and were issued certificates by the Federal government which could be revoked.”
Where are these ‘issued certificates by the Federal government’ located at Sven?
Also how can you call Jindal a natural born Citizen? His parent’s weren’t naturalized until AFTER he was born. Rubio’s father wasn’t naturalized until AFTER Marco was born.
Obama has a certificate of Naturalization? No one has ever mentioned that before?
How would McCain’s certificate ever be revoked absent his renunciation of U.S. citizenship? He would be ‘natural born’ as both parents were U.S. citizens serving U.S. interests overseas.
McCain’s citizenship wasn’t OBTAINED through application, it was CONFIRMED through application, as are all children of U.S. military or foreign service who are born overseas.
The comparison to Myers is apples/oranges.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
And by your extension, your Obama?
Sven, look at your paycheck. If it doesn't say "SCOTUS" your opinions, interpretations of case law, administrative practice, and the allegedly relevant statutes and rulings are strictly your business and worth no more or no less than the opinions of the wildest-eyed VRWC "Birther" out there.
We are all parties to a massive distraction. While our President ignores governance to swan his way about the land on AF1 to play golf and to hook up with Reggie Love*, and there is no opposition Program, Plan, or Leader, why not direct your remarks to the High Courts as a friendly encouragement?
The SCOTUS has to date received and rejected many absolutely valid appeals they should have used to rule on citizenship and eligibility issues once and for all. Your charmingly off-base citations of often-conflicting Federal Codes, Regulations, Past Decisions and modern immigration practice are of little help, except to emphasize that official action must be taken. It's not FREEP, the Bar at the Elks Lodge, or the better one at the VFW that's going to decide this. It simply has to be the Supremes, who to their everlasting discredit and the endangerment of the Republic, have absolutely taken a course of studied evasion.
The SCOTUS. It's the real [people on that court ... Scalia, Alito, Thomas ... who are the appropriate target of the bandwidth at our disposal. Perhaps they are left with a modicum of shame over the Court's failure to address the issue.
Apropos of nothing at all: As a DC Insider, can you tell me if Reggie was on the Mideast jaunt or stashed somewhere along the route?