Posted on 04/30/2010 2:25:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
“Once again, the courts that have looked at the issue have seen it differently from you:”
They have?
Page 468:
Quote from Minor by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ “
Both Minor and Wong Arc Kim were cases defining “citizen.”
Boch recognized the definition of Natural Born Citizen as being born in country to two citizen parents.”...These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
That seems to dispute your contention doesn’t it?
British Law has no force in the US. Try citing a USSC Case to make your point...like this one....
Page 468:
Quote from Minor vs Happersett by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’
Oops.... that one doesn’t support your contension does it?
Never mind......LOLOLOLOL
In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.
The above is from the WKA syllabus. It shows a couple of other ways in which WKA's case may vary from Barry's on the facts. Barry did reside outside the U.S. and it is not clear it was his mother's intention to ever reside again permanently in the U.S.
I don't know if it's substantiated, but there is some talk that Barry lost or changed his citizenship upon his adoption by an Indonesian.
I think if this actually ever came up before the SCOTUS, there are many ways to distinguish WKA from Barry's fact pattern. At least enough to say, WKA is not dispositive, we need to discuss this issue in the context of the particular fact pattern now before the Court.
Once again, the courts that have looked at the issue have seen it differently from you:”
They have?
Page 468:
Quote from Minor by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ “
Both Minor and Wong Arc Kim were cases defining “citizen.”
Boch recognized the definition of Natural Born Citizen as being born in country to two citizen parents.”...These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
That seems to dispute your contention doesn’t it?
And in US Federal District Court: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY SUITS & STATUS
Allen v. Soetoro: Freedom Of Information Act Arizona District: Filed
Ankeny v. Daniels (and McCain) Indiana State: Dismissed
Indiana Supreme Court: Denied
Barnett v Obama, California Central District: Dismissed
formerly Keyes v Obama et al, 9th US Court of Appeals: Pending
Berg v. Obama et al Fed PA Eastern: Dismissed
3rd Circuit Appeals Appealed Brief FEC
Hearing 26-Oct-2009
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied
Berg v. Obama Fed DC District: Dismissed
Beverly v FEC, US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit: Dismissed US Supreme Court: Denied
Brockhausen v. Andrade, Texas State: Dismissed
Broe v. Reed Washington State Supreme: Dismissed
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et. al., Dismissed
Cohen v. Obama, DC: Dismissed
Connerat v. Browning, Florida Supreme Court : Dismissed
Connerat v. Obama FL Small Claims: Dismissed
Constitution Party v. Lingle, Hawaii Supreme Court: Dismissed; Reconsideration: Denied
Cook v. Good et al GA Middle: Dismissed
Cook v. Simtech FL Middle: Dismissed
Craig v. US: Judgment in favor of defendant; Dismissal Affirmed, U.S. Supreme Court: Writ Denied 29-Sep-2009
Dawson v. Obama California Eastern District: Dismissed
Donofrio v Wells: NJ State Dismissed; NJ Supreme Court Denied; Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied
Ealey v. Obama TX Houston: Dismissed
Essek v. Obama KY Eastern: Dismissed
Gopalan v Obama III et. al., CA Southern: Dismissed
Greenberg v. Brunner, Ohio Wood County Court: Dismissed
Hamblin v Obama/McCain Arizona District: Dismissed
Herbert v. Obama et al Fed FL Middle: Dismissed
Hollister v. Soetoro, Fed DC: Dismissed
Hunter v. Obama, US District Northern Texas: Dismissed
Jones v. Obama, Federal Court Cal. Central District: Pending
Judy v. McCain, US District Court Nevada North: Dismissed
Kerchner et al v. Obama et al., Federal District Court New Jersey: Dismissed; US Court of Appeals 10th District: Pending
Keyes v. Bowen Superior Court of CA: Dismissed
Keyes v. Lingle, Hawaii state: Dismissed
Lightfoot v. Bowen , Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied
Marquis v. Reed, Washington State Court, King County Superior: Dismissed
Martin v Lingle, HI State: Dismissed’ HI State Appeal: Dismissed
Meroni et al v. McHenry County Grand Jury Foreman et al., Illinois State: Denied
Morrow v. “Barak Humane Obama” Fed FL Miami: Dismissed
Neal v. Brunner, Ohio State Wood County: Dismissed
Neely v. Obama, Fed MI: Dismissed
Patriot Heart’s Network v Soetoro, DC Federal: Denied
Rhodes v. Gates TX West: Denied
Rhodes v. MacDonald GA Middle: Dismissed, Denied Rehearing, Sanctions Imposed
Roy v. Obama Fed HI: Dismissed
Schneller v. Cortes, PA Supreme Court: Denied; Supreme Court of the United States: Dismissed
Spuck v. Secretary of State, Ohio State, Erie County: Dismissed
Stamper v. US: Dismissed
Stumpo v. Granholm, MI State Court 30th Dist. Court (Ingham County): Dismissed
Strunk Fed NY Eastern: Dismissed
Strunk 2nd Circuit: Denied
Strunk v U.S. Department of State, FOIA Fed District of Columbia DC Circuit: Appealed
Sullivan v. Marshall, North Carolina Superior Court: Dismissed
Taitz v Obama, US District DC: Dismissed
Thomas v. Hosemann Fed Dist Hawaii: Dismissed
Terry v. Handel, Georgia State Court Fulton County:Denied
Welch v. Mukasey et al NY Northern District: Dismissed
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz CT State: Dismissed; Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied
Maybe we should try this one?
In United States v. Rhodes, Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne (December 7, 1804 – June 8, 1884) addressed the issue as follows:
To be a Natural Born Citizen one has to be born in a State, or Condition of, Allegiance to the USA. A person with Dual Nationality due to having parents of differing Nationality, who both acknowledged the Birth, is not so born. Their Allegiance is, by definition, divided. Subsequent acquisition of Nationality produces the same problem.”
No, that one doesn’t help either.... does it?
I’m sooooo confused!
I think we both know the answer. I hate B.O. too but that doesn’t mean I buy into a weird theory that a British law on dual citizenship trumps American law any more than I buy into the theory that an Israeli law on dual citizenship disqualifies American Jews from the oval office.
Honestly I tried to find a USSC decision that supports your contention ....but none did....sorry.....
SCOTUS dicta on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” (i.e. two citizen parents, born in country):
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vittal’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vittal)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vittel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vittel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vittal)
Better luck next time!
You tried that the last time we exchanged thoughts...LOLOLOLOL........
A dismissal is not an Evidentuary Finding and you know it....Show me a case where a Court said that Obama met the requirements of eligibility to be President as you contend.....you can’t, because they haven’t...
No Cigar..... try some one in the 3rd grade, maybe they’ll buy that arguement.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
See ya Sonny...your momma’s calling ya!
Seems to me a child born of a US mother and a British father has dual allegiance.
You're right that there's been talk about this, but this talk is contradicted by posted US State Department policy. One does not lose citizenship via marriage or adoption; there is no way to casually "lose" citizenship. One must formally renounce citizenship, and there are rules for that:
Further, a parent can't renounce for a minor, and
- 1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
- 2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
- 3. sign an oath of renunciation
Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship..
There may be ways to use 0bama's different circumstances in a case, but this isn't it.
“British Law has no force in the US.”
Odd. Birthers keep telling me that British law makes Barry a citizen of the UK forever, regardless of the fact Barry hasn’t ever claimed it or indicated any interest in it, and that this affects US law on who is eligible. But I agree with you - British law doesn’t determine US law. In WKA, it is cited as being the common law at the time the Constitution was written, and therefor instructive in what the Founders intended - original intent.
Now, let’s go thru some of the cases you cite:
Minor vs Happersett
“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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’”
This acknowledges that at the time it was decided (1875) there was not unanimity on the status of a child born of foreign parents in the US. Some said yes, some said no, and the court in that case did not make a decision.
At a minimum, this shows the birther claim that ‘everyone knows’ 2 citizen parents are required is false - everyone did NOT know that. And in 1875, the court left it open.
United States v. Rhodes (1866)
“To be a Natural Born Citizen one has to be born in a State, or Condition of, Allegiance to the USA. A person with Dual Nationality due to having parents of differing Nationality, who both acknowledged the Birth, is not so born. Their Allegiance is, by definition, divided. Subsequent acquisition of Nationality produces the same problem.”
I had a problem finding the text of this decision...seems it is a decision by the Circuit Court in Kentucky.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20825887/United-States-v-Rhodes-27-f-Cas-785-1866
When the Supreme Court cited it, they didn’t use the passage you want, but this one:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
I admit I may be missing something, since I haven’t read Rhodes carefully, but it seems the part the SCOTUS endorsed differs from what the Circuit Court found - and it is the SCOTUS that sets precedence for the USA, not the Circuit Court in Kentucky.
You then list:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vittal’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
Actually, natural born citizen does not appear in the text. Neither does Vittel.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
You’ll have to point out the passage if I am to address it. I don’t have time to read every case in full searching for something the computer cannot find in the text.
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vittal)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
Again, the computer can not find natural born in the text. I found this:
“The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the State of South Carolina, because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.”
but I doubt that is what you wanted. What passage proves your case?
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vittel)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
Again, natural born citizen doesn’t seem to be found. Is there a passage you found relevant?
I did find this:
“For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.”
which supports the interpretation used in WKA that citizen and subject are interchangeable, depending on which country is writing, and that a natural born subject in English common law prior to 1789 is therefor instructional.
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vittel)
Couldn’t find the text. Do you have it?
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vittal)
Same - couldn’t find the text. What passage are you referring to?
I’ve had this list posted to me before, but I cannot find what the folks are referring to. If someone will post the text, maybe I can comment. Otherwise, I find WKA pretty clear - as did the dissenting opinion, as did the Indiana Supreme Court.
Opposed to this there are ZERO birther cases making any progress in the courts. Wonder why?
Dual allegiance and nationality, Just Like Obama. But my daughter loves America and shes so beautiful. Obama thinks we suck, but that's OK, its his opinion. He's entitled to it.
The court disagrees. In WKA, they found that WKA was born in the USA, and that sufficed for him to be a natural born citizen, since the phrase is the same as natural born subject, and common law at the time of the Constitution was that a natural born subject was one by birth in a country, even if BOTH parents were aliens.
“I don’t know if it’s substantiated, but there is some talk that Barry lost or changed his citizenship upon his adoption by an Indonesian.”
Not possible. The acts of the parent or of a minor child cannot make someone lose US citizenship if they were born here.
I thought one has to pledge allegiance to a country in order to become a citizen. I apologize if i erred in that thought.
That certainly seems reasonable, but the courts have made a mess of things (IMHO). I disagree with their finding in WKA, for example, but that doesn’t get me anywhere...
Like Obamas citizenship vs Sarah Palin. Shes a Natural born, no wild cards. Pure Americana... but Osamas got that Kenyan Muslim deal thing going ... like, what is that? It just doesnt seem ... I'm looking for the word .... Natural! Thats it! Un-Natural. I guess he's like an Un-natural born citizen with that Kenyan thing problem.
gnip
All good info. I knew that, but forgot 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.