Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.

This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...

Question! Are you saying/claiming parentage, both father and mother, has no bearing as to eligibility for POTUSA?

Not that it's not otherwise a fair question to ask; I'm just puzzled what in anything I said on this thread prompted you to ask. Nevertheless, I can answer:

My understanding of "natural born citizen" sees the law in light of what James Madison said early on. I trust this quote has been posted to F.R. so many times already a link isn't necessary:

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

So as to native birth, parentage is not an issue. That is the main thrust of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. (That case recognizes exceptions to the general rule of jus soli for children of diplomats, etc. And I'll grant that citizenship for children of temporary visitors (e.g., birth tourism babies) can be legitimately questioned as derived from that case.)

And that is what I think Madison meant when he said "in general place is the most certain criterion," because the VAST majority of births occur within the U.S. and are properly documented.

"Sometimes from parentage" is relevant as to births outside of the U.S. On this the case law is less settled, though the most recent relevant SCOTUS case seems more open to the concept than in the past.

Justice Iredell and Justice Paterson addressed this in the Talbot case. One can expatriate themselves from a state citizenship without it having any effect on their United States citizenship.

This was reinforced in Murray v. McCarty by Judge Roane,

“We are told by Judge Paterson, in the aforesaid case of Talbot v. Jansen, and I entirely subscribe to the doctrine, that the situation of America, in this particular, is new, and may produce new and delicate questions; that we have sovereignties moving within sovereignties; that allegiance to a particular state is one thing, and that to the United States is another; that a renunciation of the former allegiance does not draw after it a renunciation of the latter; and that a statute of the United States, on the subject of expatriation, is much wanted.”

If you read the entire opinion and not select paragraphs, you’ll see Justice Paterson determined Ballard renounced his citizenship in the state of Virginia, but never consummated a residence outside of the U.S. Consequently, Paterson opined Ballard forfeited his state citizenship, but not his U.S. Citizenship because he never set up a domicile outside of the U.S.

In Obama’s case, he moved out of the U.S. and his mother notified the State Department on a passport renewal application she and her son planned to live in Indonesia indefinitely. The State Department ask passport applicants where they are going and when are they returning to the U.S. to establish intent. Declaring an intent to live outside of the U.S. indefinitely is the first step for expatriation.

In Talbot v. Jansen, Ballard established he did not intend to expatriate himself by sailing to sea, not establishing a domicile in a foreign land and returning to the U.S. after he captured a Dutch ship with a whole bunch of treasure on it.

What’s your name, attorney? You know mine; let’s hear yours.

Usually people ask for a name when they figure the person is one worth getting to know or has something to contribute to discourse they value. Here you label me "clueless," adding in a few other choice morsels, and then proclaim you are not going to bother reading anything further, that I'm not worth your time.

NOW you ask my name? LOL. You have this rather backwards. But in this you get points for consistency--your legal analysis exhibits a good bit of reverse thinking, too.

I decline the request as lacking sincerity.

Why ignore the argument about Talbot and his Fench citizenship?

From Iredell’s opinion:

“The first point to be considered is whether Talbot, at the time of his receiving the commission and at the time of the capture, was a French citizen.”

“This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject.”

Talbot took an oath to France and became a French citizen but Iredell said he didn’t lose his US citizenship by such an act.

In Obama’s case, he was a minor child and could not legally decide to give up his citizenship no matter what his mother said.

There is also Chief Justice Rutledge’s opinion in Talbot:

“The doctrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude, but it is not necessary to give an opinion upon it in the present cause, there being no proof that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic was with a view to relinquish his native country, and a man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”

Obama’s mother wrote “indefinitely” not “permanently”. And we know from her passport records that she continued to renew her US passport continuously throughout her life.

Your explanation of your take from Madison was considerate and enlightening for me. However, I tend to believe that parentage does have substance as to eligibility for POTUSA. Before addressing your reasons for disregarding parentage I want to say that without parentage as a factor the two sons of Egypt’s deposed President Morsi who were born in the USA would be granted eligibility by place of birth only. A person holding to a different societal structure, as in for example the Koran, from our Constitutional should not be eligible for POTUS. I believe the Founders had such in mind especially as to Muslim nations. As to your points I say 1) I believe Madison’s opinion was just one among many in the arguments for the new Constitution. In the final vote there were also arguments for parentage to be included and Washington affirmed the inclusion of the word ‘natual’ which was not explicitly set for congresspersons. 2) I think that in arguments involving U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark that it established ‘citizenship’ for a certain class(s) of persons. It did not establish or reestablish ‘natural born citizen’ requirement as set for POTUSA.

I want to say that without parentage as a factor the two sons of Egypt’s deposed President Morsi who were born in the USA would be granted eligibility by place of birth only.

One problem that many here make is to conflate eligibility with electability. The Founders weren't trying to preclude any and all notions of foreign background or influence. To illustrate that, consider a person born in the U.S. (to citizen parents) who live here till age 14 and the goes abroad for secondary and university education, living and working till age 35 or later. Such person would have spent his/her most critical formative years insofar as education and identification of political values, etc., in a foreign country. Foreign influence? By the ton. Is that person still eligible if such should return to the U.S? Yes. Is that person likely at all electable? Highly unlikely unless its decades after return.

The same with the Egyptians. I don't know about their birth circumstance (whether they would be considered chidren of a foreign diplomat), but accepting they are citizens at birth, their eligibility says nothing to their manifestly huge electability problem.

A person holding to a different societal structure, as in for example the Koran, from our Constitutional should not be eligible for POTUS. I believe the Founders had such in mind especially as to Muslim nations.

What I've read suggests instead the Framers had in mind more an ambitious European prince or monied aristocrat--i.e., the sort of person able to attempt political mischief of the sort centuries of European history demonstrated to our Founders and Framers.

Washington affirmed the inclusion of the word ‘natual’ which was not explicitly set for congresspersons.

Yes, but understanding "natural born" to largely overlap with "native born" (as Madison suggests), the distinction with naturalized citizens is maintained without any further need or justification for importing in a notion of citizen parents.

2) I think that in arguments involving U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark that it established ‘citizenship’ for a certain class(s) of persons. It did not establish or reestablish ‘natural born citizen’ requirement as set for POTUSA.

The context of WKA was not Article II. But the majority opinion analyzes the meaning of "born in . . . the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by tracing the history of the common law meaning of "natural born subject" and seeing how the jus soli meaning of that term became the rule of "natural born citizen" under our original Constitution and then how that principle was codified as the first part of the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm not going to lay all that out here as of now. You can see how what I'm claiming is true under the WKA opinion by reading this post

Not willing to stake your name on it. Duly noted.

What's the "it" here? You bailed out and avoided addressing two-thirds of my points. (Like "why the heck are you bringing the Federal Rules of Evidence into a discussion about a letter Hawaii sent to the AZ SOS" which isn't about any federal case?) I understand why my taking your argument apart with questions like that makes the discussion uncomfortable for you.

My staying anonymous is a sign of my humility. I'm not out to make a name for myself or claim any credit for anything. :)

He’s perfectly free to not reveal his name. But if he doesn’t, he’s just an anonymous person who claims to be an attorney but who isn’t willing to put his name to the claims he’s making.

Say what we will about media folks, they do have it going for them that they put their names to what they write so if they lose credibility there is a real cost. Putting your name on an affidavit is even more credible because there can be a real LEGAL cost. I have given my name publicly in a legislative hearing and put it on an affidavit with my testimony and claims. I stand unashamedly by what I have said.

If he doesn’t want to do that with his claims that is his business, but it is only fair for the readers here to know that. Larry Klayman signed his name to a letter explaining this legal reasoning. Three other attorneys agreed with the reasoning but I didn’t ask to be able to use their names publicly so I haven’t. A worker at the HDOH whose name I’m not at liberty to reveal had said that the HDOH would never issue a verification for Obama’s birth facts. Mike Zullo spoke to multiple Secretaries of States’ offices and they all said they would not have accepted Bennett’s letter of verification as proof of eligibility. The attorney for Nebraska’s SOS relied on the argument that Nebraska doesn’t have to care what Hawaii told Arizona.

The readers here can weigh all that against one anonymous newbie to FR who only posts about Presidential eligibility and who says he’s an attorney.

I have a full copy of the WKA proceedings and referred to it before my previous blog. One thing I sense is that there is a difference of application between the two conditions of eligibility and electability. I take that the Founders certainly wanted a nation that did not have a king and that is why a vote system was established starting with all three branches of government down to the people. We apparently differ substantially on this. The Founders did not expect that the political ‘electability’ environment of today would/could cancel out their intent for eligibility, although there were some who warned of this. Morsi was a graduate student who got a PhD and actually worked as an educator in the USA and there is no record of his being given diplomatic status that I could find. I can’t accept your notion that persons like Morsi’s sons would not/could not be elected when I read and see the throngs for Obama and having a gut feeling that the real Muslim influence and intent is not completely exposed. Again, The Codified 14th Amendment cannot wipe out any original intent of the status of ‘natural’ born and neither does it try to define any such manipulation. The Founders wanted a very strict foundation for POTUSA and that is why I take it that They wanted more than just a one legged support by having a two legged foundation based on place and heritage of birth.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that CpnHook’s credibility will be either enhanced or diminished by his revealing that his real name is Bob Johnson or Juan Garcia or whatever it is. There is absolutely no upside to him for revealing his name. If you don’t like what he has to say, it won’t matter if he’s a lawyer. Shoot, I see that all the time here. According to posters here, they know more than most the sitting judges in America, including those on the Supreme Court. Truly amazing. With no legal training whatsoever.

So believe who you want. To me, CpnHook writes a compelling argument. I believe him because of the content of what he writes, not because he claims to be a lawyer in three states. I’ve read enough of the cases cited to know who has a better grasp on the legal ramifications of those cases.

And, as for the credibility of a lawyer willing to sign a letter, the credibility depends on the lawyer’s expertise, not on his willingness to sign a letter. There are plenty of incompetent lawyers signing affidavits every day.

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.