Posted on 12/02/2008 4:18:07 PM PST by joygrace
One attorney, practicing in the federal courts, believes Leo Donofrio’s (NJ) case is actually looking pretty solid – read this article at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
(snip)
Here is an updated case that gives examples of the citizenship classification. The case is Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). It expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s case definition of nationality (below). But the key is this case gives examples of what a citizen of the US is and what a native-born citizen (or natural born citizen) of the US is. Attached is the case with highlights....
(Excerpt) Read more at oilforimmigration.org ...
The case she cited was Perkins v. Elg, 307U.S. 325 (1939. Ed or Joe emailed the case to Leo.
I came across this article while searching for this case. It clarifies the unique issue of "natural born" citizen.
I think wong Kim Ark was robbed!
2 Chronicles 7:14 (English Standard Version)
If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
The problem here, if one exists, is that it is not clear if some or all of the precedent on “citizenship” applies to *eligibility to serve as President of the United States.*
IOW, you read a case, it says this person in this situation is a citizen. But that still doesn’t directly answer whether that person is a “natural born citizen,” a question that may not be determined solely by place of birth or solely by descent.
Law of Nations
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Case getting bleaker for British Citizen Obama.
Of course, if the birth certificate says a communist weirdo - frank marshall davis... ..(was he a child molester???) is his father then I guess he is eligible to be president.
Same would be true if Malcolm X is dear old dad.
Not so if Francisco Cundo is the daddy.
Wouldn’t it be a weird twist of fate if Malcolm X was the father - thus making him eligible - but Mommy Dearest said it was Obama, Sr on the birth certificate...thus making him ineligible.
One thing is clear, he doesn’t look like OBama Sr.
We shall see
Yes, the 1939 case of Perkins Vs. ELG shows who can be a natural born citizen, while the 1898, Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. defines a “native born citizen”. Some people get confused between native born citizen versus natural born citizen. The Supreme Court did not interchange the terms because they do not have the same meaning.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason
Good post! This case really is beginning to grow legs.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
In this case 0 could ‘unseal’ X’s coffin for some DNA testing... which would be futile? Who knows in this day and age.
ping
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
***
Section 212 - in its entirety is better ...
BTW: John Adams said that ALL good lawyers should keep a copy of the Law of Nations by their bedside ...
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Yes, the 1939 case of Perkins Vs. ELG shows who can be a natural born citizen, while the 1898, Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. defines a “native born citizen”. Some people get confused between native born citizen versus natural born citizen. The Supreme Court did not interchange the terms because they do not have the same meaning.
***
EXACTLY ...
Just as U.S. Law states:
“ALL U.S. citizens are U.S. Nationals, but NOT ALL U.S. Nationals are U.S. citizens ...”.
In this case:
ALL “natural born” citizens are “native born”, but NOT ALL “native born” citizens are “natural born”.
They are not the same.
A “native born” citizen is one born on U.S. soil under jus soli (Latin for “of the soil”).
A “citizen” can be born outside of U.S. jurisdiction, but still be a citizen under jus sanguinis (Latin for “of the blood”). Citizenship follows the citizenship of the father.
A “natural born” citizen possesses BOTH qualities - jus soli AND jus sanguinis.
THAT is the protection that the Founding Fathers built into the Constitution ... IMO.
EXCELLENCE
Do Donofrio and Wrotnowski have exactly what you have posted? I would trust so, but....
Chick, have you seen the .gif that is circulating on the Net where Malcolm X's face morphs perfectly into 0bama's? It's pretty creepy, but striking. Facial features are undeniably similar.
By jove you’ve got it! :-)
If true, what do we call him? President X,
Pres Jr X,
X Jr.
LoL!
Very, very interesting.
I hate to say this, but this is the first I've ever heard of the Law of Nations, though the Founders clearly made reference to it in the Constitution.
Apparently, clause 10 of Section 8, Article I, gives the power "to define and punish" to the Congress, as it relates to The Law of Nations.
Sadly, I have more faith in the SCOTUS to actually exert some authority in this issue, at this time.
I hope like hell that the Supreme Court takes all of these very good foundational precedent setting cases, and law being quoted here into consideration soon.
It appears to me, an ordinary citizen, who is quickly gaining a layman’s education in the legal underpinnings of citizenship, that there is MUCH to disqualify Obama for the office of President - even without the presentation of a valid birth certificate.
That makes it all the more astounding to me, and damning of the individuals involved, that an enterprise which has run someone for the highest office in the land, would not have the competent legal counsel on board to warn them of these ironclad roadblocks.
This is all just too astonishing for words. There’s a book in this, and I’ll bet someone’s already started writing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.