Replies

Here’s the problem, as I see it.

There have been several SCOTUS rulings on Citizenship in which the SCOTUS has blurred the lines. In one case, Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) in particular, the SCOTUS used the term “Natural Born” to describe the Citizenship of a person who was born here-yet her parents were Swedish, but Naturalized U.S. Citizens. Her parents had taken her back to Sweden during her minor years and reaffirmed their allegiance to Sweden.

The argument centered around these Satutes (but they also cited others)...

1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.

2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.

3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.

4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.

She won her Natural Citizenship rights back. In fact, the Court rules that she was a dual Citizen of both. And this case has served to win arguments in lower cases on both sides of the issue. IOW, it is vague and easily misunderstood and applied.

0bama will argue using this case, IF it ever goes to Court. And he’ll argue the principle of greater harm. And, he’ll win. The Court is too weak to clarify the earlier case and decide based on factual, Constitutional merit.

That’s why it needed to be done BEFORE the elections.