Birthers and Perkins V Elg

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one, so what follows is just IMHO on how the case of Perkins v Elg affects the definition of natural born citizen. I offer it, not as definitive, but as evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past in a way that might well lead to its ruling in favor of Obama, if the case is based on the citizenship of Obama's presumptive father.

"The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since."

Both parents were originally Swedish. The father was naturalized as a US citizen the year before Marie was born. It is unclear to me if her mother was ever naturalized - one sentence would indicate yes, the other no. Some say the mother would have been automatically naturalized when her husband was...and I don't know how naturalization law read at the time. The summary states " A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States."

Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.

When Marie was 4, her mother took her to Sweden, where she and her mother lived as Swedes. This was IAW a treaty the US had with Sweden.

Marie was just short of 21 when she asked about returning to the USA. She was 22 when she returned.

The government argued that she was not a US citizen at all, IAW a treaty signed with Sweden.

"1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.

2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.

3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329."

"6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . " was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.

This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.

7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349."

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,

14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the

"inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."...

... As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles."

Notice they found that her citizenship rested, not in the citizenship of her father, but in being born in NY. This is true even if the child has alien parentage. They later cite "According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country." In that case, the parents were NOT US citizens.

"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. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."

Notice that "native born" is used as sufficient basis that "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..."

The Court makes no distinction between "native born" and "natural born citizen".

"Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

Please note that the Court rejects the idea that she lost her "native born American citizen" and had instead remained a "natural born citizen".

Here are Alinsky’s Rules for those who haven’t seen them lately:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

Hmmmmm.....

"By the way, beating up on a non-lawyer is beneath you or any jurist. "

First, I'm not beating anyone up, nor am I questioning anyone's intellect. If the subject matter was engineering, or probably any number of other subject, I would defer to you and/or other's professional experience and training. But, those aren't' the subject(s) - the law is the subject, and specifically the practical application of law. If you want a relevant practical legal opinion, you should seek out the advice of a practicing attorney.

"So your a lawyer, and an economist? Is that right? You see what is happening. I presume your are of a certain age because of your moniker, so... tell us...what do you think we can do?"

I'm not an economist. I have an education with an emphasis on economics, but I've never put that education to any kind of professional use. I was an active-duty JAG officer for almost 25 years. One of the reasons I retired was that I did not wish to work for one, Barack Obama.

"With all your eloquence, and knowledge, in the end, you seem distant. As a jurist, you seem unconcerned. "

I've never heard anyone characterize me as "distant", or "eloquent", for that matter. But, I believe - like many others - that law should be applied absent emotion. If that makes me sound "distant", so be it.

"When did the job stop being “of the people, for the people”, for surely it is no longer by the people."

A representative republic is not "mob" rule. We expect our legislative representatives to establish laws and regulations. We expect our judiciary to review those laws and the Executive's application of those laws for constitutional infirmities. And most importantly, we expect the individual branches of government to respect their own limitations, and the authority of their co-equal counterparts.

If the laws regarding the inspection of a presidential candidate's credentials for office eligibility are deficient, then we should expect the legislative branch to remedy those deficiencies. If they refuse, or refuse to apply existing law, then we should replace them. It's as simple as that.

The Court has established that some problems or defects cannot be remedied by the Court. That is a sound principle. This (Obama's current term) happens to be one of those "things".

I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate's claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama's current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.

'You mean -- the presumed de jure &de facto, right??? "

Not according to the law.

'And yet none of them, even Nancy Pelosi, have ever declared that he is a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified to be President"

Can you point out for me in the US Code, or the US Constitution where it's the responsibility of the US Speaker of the House to declare anyone "eligible" for the office of President or Vice President?

"That's your presumption but it still doesn't make him a natural born citizen or qualified for the office that he sits in, does it??? "

No, that is the opinion of every judge in every case that has heard the birther, claims. If it's my opinion, it seems that it has been supported by a large number of Judges, including those currently sitting on the US Supreme Court. How about that?

"You mean "failed" or "refused" to do so."

Argumentative.

'You mean -- the presumed de jure &de facto, right??? "Not according to the law.

according to the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Can you point out for me in the US Code, or the US Constitution where it's the responsibility of the US Speaker of the House to declare anyone "eligible" for the office of President or Vice President?

I think you need to direct that question to a whole lot of state Secretaries of States who accepted Pelosi's affidavits at face value.

Did any of those justices hear the case on the merits or declare Obama to be a natural born citizen and thus qualified under Article II???

By your own words, the best you have is a Presumed President, presuming of course your definition of "natural born citizen" that differs from the traditional historical one handed down to us through the writings of the Founders, and scholars, and lawyers, and Justices of the Supreme Court in words easily understood by engineers, businessmen, farmers, doctors, janitors, cleaning ladies, and yes, even by lawyers and professors who are all collecting their public pensions.

I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate’s claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama’s current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.

It appears, that the SOS for 50 states did not do their jobs when accepting Nancy Pelosi’s statement of BO’s eligibility, ie. they removed his constitutional qualification from the statement. Does perjury fall to the level of removal from Office? Surely this is not the intent of the people, nor their will.

"It appears, that the SOS for 50 states did not do their jobs when accepting Nancy Pelosi’s statement of BO’s eligibility, ie. they removed his constitutional qualification from the statement."

Ah yes, the great internet meme about Pelosi's affidavit to the states about Obama's eligibility. Don't believe it.

It is perhaps possible that some states accept a pro forma affidavit from the major parties attesting that their candidate is eligible for the office they aspire to. But, the two states that I'm most familiar with - Ohio and Florida - require the appropriate party representative (or candidate themselves) to complete and sign under penalty of perjury the state's propriety form. Neither state accepts a pro forma affidavit as a "Deceleration of Candidacy"

With respect to Ohio specifically, you can find photocopies on-line "Deceleration of Candidacy" that is signed by former presidential candidates, and have been posted by historians who have researched particular individuals - John Glenn's form - signed by Glenn himself - is available.

That Canada Free Press story was bunk.

Here are Alinsky’s Rules for those who haven’t seen them lately:

Since you spoke so eqloquently, the above bears repeating...
E...

A bit more info from another post:
What many people do not understand is that a person to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, must first be a native born citizen.

There are only three types of citizenship and all have equal rights: native born citizenship; naturalized citizenship; and, citizenship-by-statute. Note: Natural Born Citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to be President of the United States.

Native born citizenship (jus solis) was created by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens, (who were unable to attain citizenship due to a treaty with the Emperor of China), and who claimed U.S. Citizenship because of his birth on U.S. soil. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. (jus solis) under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Naturalized citizenship is granted to those born in a foreign land who become U.S.citizens, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, for example.

Citizenship-by-statute is granted to those born overseas to U.S. citizens (jus sanquinas). There is a whole array of legal statutes covering this, but this type of citizenship has the same rights as the other two types.

Since there is NO RIGHT to be President, the eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.

I understand birthers will continue to disagree that Barry was eligible. However, it seems clear to me that there IS a reasonable case to be made on the other side that Barry is a citizen, a native born citizen, and a natural born citizen as used by the US Supreme Court.

Both her parents were citizens at the time of her birth. She was born in the US. There is no comparison between her and Bozo. Your whole premise falls apart if Bozo was born in Kenya. The law is clear that he would not be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the fact he had only one US citizen parent.

If Bozo was born in HI then yes, he is a Natural Born citizen. If he wasn't then he isn't. Simple as that. There is a reason he doesn't show his BC or any of his records. That reason is yet to be determined but the fact he spends so much money in keeping this case out of court speaks to the strong possibility he wasn't born in HI.

nonsense, this is what I asked;

Are you satisfied that Obama is qualified? The reason I repeat the question, is that you rarely give straight answers.
You tend to allude, or let others draw conclusions that can be later found to be their own interpretation of what they thought you said.
So, yes or no, is Obama qualified to be POTUS, based on your education and experience.

clairvoyance:
1. (Psychology) the alleged power of perceiving things beyond the natural range of the senses See also extrasensory perception
2. keen intuitive understanding
from French: clear-seeing, from clair clear

So your saying that you do not possess a keen intuituve understanding???
The event has happened, there is no future casting involved.

Are you satisfied that Obama is qualified, is based on now known facts. You seem to be good at disqualifying others facts. But, I am asking for your opinion, based on your professional experience, and knowledge.
YES or NO, are the only acceptable answers. You ask it often enough in court, surely you can answer it here.

om·nis·cient (m-nshnt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.

Certainly, no person is asking this of you.
Please answer YES, or NO, to the best of your ability.
You are doing exactly what I felt a lawyer would do.
Please don’t play lawyer with me. Thank You.

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.