Replies

You're bogus.

You don't read at all, do you? Your chart gives three types of citizenship and gives the Ark case as legal reference for natural born citizen. But the majority decision clearly states that there are only two types of citizenship - citizen at birth and citizen by naturalization. It also clearly states that except for a few clearly defined cases children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth regardless of the nationality of the parents. The Elg case is irrelvant because Obama returned to the U.S. when he was 10, long before he reached his majority. He had never lost his U.S. citizenship so there was no citizenship to reclaim. In short, you use as justification Supreme Court decisions which contradict your position. How much more bogus can you get?

You need to tell me why it's bogus and produce documentation to back you opinion up.

OK, let's quote the Ark decision, Justice Gray writing for the majority:

"The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." and

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

By the way, it's not my chart. It was produced by an attorney practicing in the federal courts system.

The it might have helped if he or she read the Ark and Elg decisions before putting together such a ridiculous chart.

The it might have helped if he or she read the Ark and Elg decisions before putting together such a ridiculous chart.

From now on, any of your posts to me will be run by this attorney, who you hold in so little regard.

Here is this attroney's response to you.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is not the holding by the Supreme Court as you are referencing. The importance of the case is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is, a native born American Citizen is, and a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. The Supreme Court holding gives the example of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. What a natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND a person is born in the mainland of U.S.

John A. Bingham, one of the Framers of the 14th Amendment, specifically commented on the meaning of a natural born citizen in the legislative history of the 14th Amendment. (See this link for confirmation and corroboration of the meaning:

http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)

The meaning of natural born citizen is corroborated by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision and Perkins v. Elg, the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Besides being a lawyer, I am an accountant as well. We know that two plus two equals four (2+2 = 4). There is no dispute in that. Also, the similiar logic applies with the meaning of what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. To be one as defined under U.S. Supreme Court case law and the English Common Law adopted by the U.S., you have to be born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the U.S. mainland.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is. Regardless of what people in the mainstream media and in our federal government try to do, they still can't change the fact of the meaning of what a natural born citizen is. What is occurring right now is straight up a coup de'tat seeking to destroy the Constitution as we know it.

Either way, three of the candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero are not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008. Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, then the 2008 presidential election and its results are void. Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within are federal government are trying to pull. That is a fact that is not in dispute.