Seriously? You gotta be kidding? Try this one on for size. (Page 26)
Link:
http://archive.org/stream/digestofselectbr00robe#page/n19/mode/2up
Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
Republic of Hawaii.
Which Supreme Court ruling are you referring to?
The Supreme Court since 2008 has refused to review any of 20 lower court rulings specific to Obama.
OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY AT THE SUPREME COURT
Anderson v. Obama—Obamacare is unconstitutional because an ineligible person signed it into law.—Petition for rehearing, denied. 2012.
Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.—Obama is not a natural born citizen.—Certiorari Denied. 2012.
Berg v. Obama—Obama is not a natural born citizen, not born in Hawaii— Application for a Stay, denied and Certiorari Denied. 2009.
Beverly v. FEC—Federal Elections Commission should have checked Obama’s eligibility—Certiorari Denied. 2010.
Craig v. US—Obama is not a natural born citizen.—Certiorari Denied. 2009.
Donofrio v. Wells—Neither McCain nor Obama is eligible. —Application for stay denied. 2008.
Farrar, et. al. v. Obama, Ga. Secretary of State—Obama not a natural born citizen.—Application for Stay, Denied, Certiorari, Denied. 2013.
Herbert v. United States, et. al.—Obama is not a natural born citizen.—Certiorari Denied. 2010.
Hollister v. Soetoro—Obama is not a natural born citizen.—Certiorari Denied.
2011.
Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.—Obama is not a natural born citizen.—Certiorari Denied. 2010.
Keyes v. Bowen—Require California Secretary of State to confirm Obama eligibility.—Certiorari Denied. 2011.
Lightfoot v. Bowen—Stop certification of California electoral votes; Obama is ineligible.—Application for Writ of Mandamus and Stay Denied. 2009.
Noonan, et. al. v. Bowen & Obama—Application for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition challenging Obama’s right to receive votes in California. Application denied. 2012.
Purpura v. Sibelius—Affordable Care Act signed by illegal President. Certiorari Denied, Petition for Rehearing Denied. 2012.
Rhodes v. MacDonald—Army captain shouldn’t have to deploy to Iraq until Obama proves his eligibility.—Application for stay of $20,000 sanction denied. Certiorari denied. 2011.
Schneller v. Cortes—Stay Pennsylvania election results until Obama proves his eligibility. Application for Stay denied; Petition for Writ of Certiorari dismissed for lack of payment of filing fees. 2009.
[ex-rel.] Sibley v Obama—Quo Warranto action to remove Obama from office until he proves his eligibility, also sought a Writ of Mandamus to bar Obama from running for reelection without proof of eligibility. Certiorari denied. 2012.
Sibley v DC board of Elections—Obama is ineligible. Certiorari denied. 2013.
Welden v. Obama—Obama is not a natural born citizen. Certiorari denied. 2012.
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz—Election results should be stayed, Obama is not eligible.—Application for stay denied. 2008
Luria v. United States
edge 919 explains it quite clearly in post 467:
"Read it and weep.Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.There it is. A direct quote. And notice, absolutely nothing about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was 15 years earlier than this UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court in Luria v. United States. And even though it says "native citizen," Minor exclusively defined native citizens as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. No lower court trumps this decision. All you've shown is that judges in Indiana, Arizona and Georgia are ignorant of actual Supreme Court precedence."
There have been 207 Obama eligibility lawsuits filed in local, state and federal courts. There have been 90 state or federal appellate level rulings and there have been 20 appeals to the US Supreme Court. In 317 civil actions, Luria v. US has not been cited successfully for any plaintiff challenging Obama’s eligibility. Luria was a naturalized citizen/fradulent use of a Certificate of Naturalization/renunciation of citizenship case.
Obots/anti-birther lawyers have also cited to Luria v US in order to demonstrate the equivalence of “native born” with “natural born” when
Courts have used the former term as the qualification for president.
The courts just don’t believe that two citizen parents are required in order to be natural born:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
If you can find any textbook or any other kind of book referencing a two citizen parent requirement, I would love to see it.
Derivative citizenship existed from the Naturalization Act of 1790 to the 1907 Expatriation Act, at least.
Here is one cite:
Naturalization Act of 1855 (10 Stat. 604) Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.
Derivative citizenship has been asked and answered innumerable times.
Ah, I see, up until 1907. The term “derivative citizenship” has not been mentioned in any Obama eligibility lawsuit that I am aware of.
What relevance do you think it has today?
Whether it has been mentioned in any eligibility lawsuit or not is irrelevant, you questioned the two citizen parent requirement.
The two citizen parents stems from the mother’s citizenship being derivative of the father’s.
Your post is correct. Case in point. Both Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilsons mothers were foreign born. They got their U.S. Citizenship through ‘Derivative Naturalization’ via the ‘Act of February 10, 1855’ by marrying their U.S. citizen husbands. With that said, both Herbert and Woodrow were born to TWO U.S. citizen parents which later qualified them for Article 2 Section 1 to be president.
Seriously? You gotta be kidding? Try this one on for size. (Page 26)
Link:
http://archive.org/stream/digestofselectbr00robe#page/n19/mode/2up
Thank you but I’m looking for a reference that is relevant to what is being discussed here: presidential eligibility under Article II’ Section1. A simple statement like: “In order to assume the office of President, a candidate must be the offspring of two American citizen parents” would suffice nicely.
I’m looking for something succinct and definitive that would counter judicial rulings on eligibility under Article II, Section 1, like this:
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Hmmm...citing “A digest of select British statutes by Samuel Roberts” to say that the US follows Vattel instead of following the English rule...although no court agrees, not then and not now.
Citing a book that is obviously wrong on the law isn’t very useful. It merely proves that Sam Roberts didn’t pay much attention to the law as used in the courts and Congress.
Lots of property cases involved who was or was not a citizen, and the book you cite completely blew it on the law as it was practiced then and now.
You left this out of the title of the book:
"according to the report of the judges of the Supreme Court made to the legislature, appear to be in force"Furthermore, there is actual historical evidence that those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers were not born U.S. citizens:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a non-citizen at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States
Both of those determinations were made by U.S. Secretaries of State AFTER the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Must it further stipulate that they must also be human beings with ten fingers and ten toes? You are carrying the notion of specificity to ridiculous lengths if a statement as to what constitutes a natural born citizen isn't sufficient. It is axiomatic that if one cannot achieve even the basic definition, one is certainly incapable of achieving the more stringent definition.
You should just try to understand what occurred and why. The founders were intent on breaking from their status as English Subjects, and establishing a new standard based on natural law. People who were not actually privy to their intentions simply got it wrong when they reverted back to English "perpetual allegiance" law.
State courts, and various legal authorities who were out of the US Constitutional loop contributed to this erroneous substitution of British Law for American Law. Since the differences between the two were trivial at first, the distinction between one and the other was slowly lost over time, and again thanks to the erroneous works of people such as Rawle.
I’m looking for something succinct and definitive that would counter judicial rulings on eligibility under Article II, Section 1,
I have no comprehension of why you give any credence to what any modern court says. They are simply prattling on what they believe "PRECEDENT" to be. There is no effort to get to the kernel of truth from the founding, they simply repeat the previous opinions of previous judges.
Wong Kim Ark was either Wrongly decided, or subsequently Wrongly interpreted. It is from that fork in the road that all subsequent mistakes have materialized. Again, I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to what any modern court has to say on the issue.
Stop lying. Plenty of courts agreed up until Wong Kim Ark. Beyond that, it is incredibly stupid to give any credence to what modern courts say about anything. I simply have no respect for the opinions of any of these modern courts.
You are still suffering from that delusion that something is correct merely because a court says so. The courts are wrong on Kelo, Wickard, Roe, and Lawrence. They are so far wrong on eligibility too.
Citing a book that is obviously wrong on the law isn’t very useful. It merely proves that Sam Roberts didn’t pay much attention to the law as used in the courts and Congress.
The book isn't wrong. It is subsequent legal opinions which were wrong. Three of those judges that helped write that book were Constitutional conventions Delegates and/or Pennsylvania state convention ratification delegates. They KNOW what the Constitutional convention intended. Rawle did not.
The book was also reprinted again in 1847. If the book were wrong, you would think someone would have pointed this out in the intervening 30 years.
According to the Second Edition preface, the book was widely read and highly relied upon. (Read the Whole Preface to get an idea.)
Wouldn’t it need to be a modern court or the 113th Congress that would have to rule against Obama being Article II, Section 1 eligible?
There’s been 115 years to overturn or reinterpret US v. Wong Kim Ark yet it continues to make sense to judges.
Justices Scalia and Thomas have cited Wong in Miller v. Albright (523 US 420) 1998.
http://law.pinfolio.com/us/folios/523000082
The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. Gray specifically states that birth in the U.S. to parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. is one of the agreed upon facts on which he ruled.
Judges have consistently applied US v. Wong Kim Ark to Obama’s eligibility and their rulings have not been overturned by higher courts. No court has ever ruled that US v. Wong Kim Ark does not apply to Obama.
For example: Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
And:
Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
And:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
That ship has long sailed. From my perspective, the issue is no longer about removing Obama for lack of eligibility, it is about correctly assessing what was the Delegates intent when Article II was written and ratified. (Obama isn't going anywhere, and the truth really no longer matters politically.)
I am long accustomed to modern courts getting stuff wrong, (Kelo, Roe, Lawrence, Wickard) so I don't expect them to be concerned with accuracy. This has become an academic discussion.
There’s been 115 years to overturn or reinterpret US v. Wong Kim Ark yet it continues to make sense to judges.
And yet that is not proof that it is correct. Roe has had 40 years of making sense to judges, it is, however, a completely nonsensical ruling. Even some Liberal lawyers will admit it is bad law, unsupported by anything other than Judicial fiat.
Justices Scalia and Thomas have cited Wong in Miller v. Albright (523 US 420) 1998. http://law.pinfolio.com/us/folios/523000082
Depending on how it is interpreted, Wong can be correct, or it can be wrong. When Wong is quoted in support of a legitimate action of the 14th amendment, then it is correct. When it is quoted to support such things as citizenship for "Anchor Babies" or "Birth Tourists" then it is completely wrong.
Wong itself is not completely clear about it's decision. I argue that since the ruling omitted the words "Natural Born" it likely means the courts recognized that 14th amendment citizens were not the same as "natural born" citizens. (Just as did the Minor Court) Other people interpret it to mean that they are, despite the fact the court (and the 14th amendment) conspicuously omits those words.
Wong is sort of like a Rorschach test. People tend to see in it what they WANT to see in it. Subsequent courts have simply accepted the most liberal possible interpretation of Wong, and as far as they are concerned, they have no interest in revisiting the thinking in Wong.
I will point out that both Ann Coulter and George Will disagree with the common interpretation of Wong.
If you look at the court system since the nation was founded, you will notice that the most cockamamie decisions are subsequent to Roosevelt's appointments. One of the most insane rulings by the Supreme court, Wickard v Fullburn (A farmer can't grow his own wheat to feed his own cows) was entirely decided by Roosevelt appointed Judges.
Prayer in Schools? Something which had been going on since BEFORE the nation was founded? According to the Roosevelt/Truman judges, it was a violation of the 14th amendment!
Loons, all.
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.