Replies

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Page 307 U. S. 330

"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:"

"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages."

Page 307 U. S. 348

"The opinion does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship, and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them,"

Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen because he had 2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND he was born in St. Louis, MO (USA).

Elg is a citizen of the United States. Elg had 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) AND Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA).

Obama is a citizen of the United States. He is not a native-born American citizen He has 1 foreigner parent (Kenya) and 1 US citizen parent and born????? (but let's assume Honolulu for arguments sake).

Now add this:

THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1948
part 2 SECTION 5
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES: Citizenship by birth or descent

5--(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United kingdom and Colonies (Kenya) at the time of his birth.

So, Obama was a "subject" of the Queen for 21 years. At age 21 he would have had to pledge loyalty t the Crown to retain his British citizenship. He is said to have "divided loyalties."

Now, add this:

Earth Frisk Blog says they have contacted every hospital in Honolulu and says there is no record of Obama's birth at any Hawaii hospital and no record for Obama's mother at any Hawaii hospital.

All of Honolulu's hospitals were called or visited from November 20 through December 2nd, 2008. It was confirmed that OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE!

Then there is grandma Sarah who keeps saying Obama was born in Mombasa. If true, His mother, although an American citizen is discounted, because she was under age at the time of Obama's birth for him to be a "Natural Born citizen." The US law, in 1961, for children born to a single parent of American birth born in a foreign country, was --"must be a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which must be beyond the age of 14." Anna Dunham was born in November 1942 and gave birth to Obama in August, 1961. thus making her 3 months short of her 5 years beyond the age of 14.

Needless to say, as a non-lawyer, I don't have the answer to any of this, but all of this conjecture is directly attributable to Obama, because he chooses to throw money and lawyers at these allegations, rather than simply presenting his vault-copy birth certificate.

My grandson had to present his birth certificate to play Pop Warner football. Are you suggesting that Obama should do less to prove his eligibility for POTUS?

I'm not an Obamacrat, I have a copy of the Constitution in my hand, and I've only gotten this far on this thread, and so far, I've seen only Constitutional distinction regarding citizenship I've seen is 1) born in the U.S. or 2) naturalized in the U.S., with the caveat of being subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

So far, I haven't seen a third category in COTUS or law distinguishing something called "natural born" citizen as opposed to simply born in the U.S.