Birthers and Perkins V Elg

US Supreme Court Records ^ | 24 April 2010 | Self

[danamco]

First your ping did not work at my side, but I saw it here today!!!

Second it did NOT take you long to get your "Knee-Pads fasten, huh???

[Mr Rogers]

First, we’ve been having a largely polite exchange of views on this thread. It seems to be ending this morning, with the bitter birthers showing up...

Second, if you argue in court like you do on these threads, it is no wonder you lose. EVERY case.

[Beckwith]

But this is still a free country.

Obama will fix that.

[OldDeckHand]

"Please answer YES, or NO, to the best of your ability."

I've given you the only answer I can give. I'm not clairvoyant, nor to I posses supernatural powers. Therefor, it is impossible for me to determine if he was born where he says he was born. But, if he was born where he says he was born, then he is constitutionally qualified for the office.

My answer would be the same for any presidential candidate, unless I had personally witnessed their birth.

[danamco]

“According to this case, no actions by his parents would rob him of being a native born or natural born citizen. He would have to reject that by some act such as accepting a foreign citizenship, or living as a foreign citizen abroad.

Since he lived in the US as a citizen from the age of 10 on, he wouldn’t have any requirement to re-register as an American. His mother also seems to have retained her US citizenship throughout her life.”

---

Would mind to discuss your weak opinion with Mario Apuzzo, Esq., an esteemed Attorney???

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

[danamco]

There are probably hundreds of links on that site that may useful for you to research!!!

[Mr Rogers]

It isn’t MY opinion. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of the parent cannot remove the citizenship one acquires by birth in the US.

Read the case this thread is posting...”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.”

Apuzzo doesn’t get a vote.

[danamco]

He always has a lower body part "classic expression" for you if your opinion differs from his weak "Knee-Padded" opinions???

See post 198!!!

[Uncle Chip]

if Obama was born where he says he was born, then he's a natural-born citizen, according to my understanding of the law as it exists today.

Is that the same law that the Senate understood when they drew up that SR511 for McCain in which they said that he was a natural born citizen because of birth on American territory AND his parents [plural] were both American citizens at the time of his birth, something that Obama clearly falls one parent short of???

[Uncle Chip]

You will have to forgive him as he is incorrigible. He posted this case Perkins v Elg only to find out from others that he didn’t understand it to begin with and the case proves the very definition of “natural born citizen” that he is trying to argue against.

[EDINVA]

“The Supreme Court would not remove him even if they had an open/shut case. The Constitution requires them to leave the job of removal up to Congress.”

I don’t know if you were around in the early 70’s, but it was the SCOTUS decision requiring the Nixon White House to release the then-recently revealed tapes that lead to the pressure on Republican Senators to go to Nixon to ask for his resignation in the face of a sure impeachment proceeding.

The SCOTUS decision itself did not bring about the removal of Nixon, but led the Congress to have to deal with it. That SCOTUS decision was the beginning of the end for Nixon.

Similarly, if the SCOTUS ever took an eligibility case and determined that NBC means what many here argue, i.e., that the Framers’ intent in embedding the ‘natural born’ requirement in the Constitution was to assure a POTUS born on US soil AND to two citizen parents, it would not take long for Congress to act. Any such SCOTUS decision would not, itself, remove Obama. It would surely lead to his removal by Congress.

[OldDeckHand]

"Is that the same law that the Senate understood when they drew up that SR511 for McCain in which they said that he was a natural born citizen because of birth on American territory AND his parents [plural] were both American citizens at the time of his birth, something that Obama clearly falls one parent short of??? "

If it's important for you to believe (whatever it is you just said), then believe it. I haven't been able to find a single opinion, either from a federal court, or written in a recognized law review journal, that supports what your asserting.

My recommendation: go to law school, write your opinion, and publish in your school's law journal. You can be the first.

[Beckwith]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of the parent cannot remove the citizenship one acquires by birth in the US.

Correctamundo!

The United States will not strip citizenship from an American citizen because of the action of others, including a child's parents.

That's why a child, adopted by a foreign national has the right to reaffirm his/her American citizenship. That right must be exercised in the six month period immediately following the 18th birthday.

If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he's still an Indonesian citizen.

[OldDeckHand]

"Would mind to discuss your weak opinion with Mario Apuzzo, Esq., an esteemed Attorney???"

Esteemed attorney?

Esteemed (definition)
2 a : to view as : consider b : think, believe
3 : to set a high value on : regard highly and prize accordingly

Whatever side you come down on in this birther business, I don't think anyone giving a fair reading of Mr. Apuzzo's CV, could describe him as "esteemed". Perhaps he's capable, perhaps he's competent, perhaps he's even a fine attorney. But, from what I have been able to gather from sites like Justia, his primary areas of practice are...

Car Accidents
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI
Injury Law
Municipal Law

I have not been able to find a single scholarly work published in any known law review journal, to say nothing of the "esteemed" journals. He has never been an attorney of record in a Supreme Court case, or any federal appellate case that I can find. I'm not even sure if he's admitted to the federal bar, although as a former JAG officer, that would seem likely. And, as best as I can tell, he is not now, and never has been on the faculty of any law school, in any capacity, to say nothing of the "esteemed" law schools.

Certainly, Apuzzo is free to opine about any matters - legal or otherwise - he chooses; it is still a free country, after all. But, why anyone would value such an opinion, is a mystery.

[Godebert]

"Of course you want me to move to nK - you’re an asshole. But this is still a free country...in spite of your hatred."

That's right.......I hate commies. You have a problem with that?

[Godebert]

"If Bozo was born in HI then yes, he is a Natural Born citizen. "

Not according to our Constitution and the founding fathers. "Natural born citizen' requires both parents to be citizens.

[cynwoody]

if the SCOTUS ever took an eligibility case and determined that NBC means what many here argue, i.e., that the Framers’ intent in embedding the ‘natural born’ requirement in the Constitution was to assure a POTUS born on US soil AND to two citizen parents, it would not take long for Congress to act. Any such SCOTUS decision would not, itself, remove Obama. It would surely lead to his removal by Congress.

I'm sure Nancy and Harry would expedite the matter right quick. Most of Congress and much of the country would simply disagree with such a precedent-breaking SCOTUS interpretation. You don't fit the law to current needs.

Maybe if it were to transpire that Zero was actually born in Mombasa, son of BHO, Sr. and red-haired tramp from Liverpool ... now that would be open/shut!

[OldDeckHand]

"If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he's still an Indonesian citizen."

File the appropriate paperwork with whom?

[Uncle Chip]

If it's important for you to believe (whatever it is you just said), then believe it. I haven't been able to find a single opinion, either from a federal court, or written in a recognized law review journal, that supports what your asserting.

You're not looking hard enough. Try to find someone who actually read it or the Constitution or the historical writings of Supreme Court Justices or talk to their cleaning ladies.

[OldDeckHand]

'You're not looking hard enough"

Then you should have absolutely no problem citing any number of articles published in known law review journals, of which there are dozens.

However, the opinions of non-lawyers, non-scholars or other internet bloggers I find absolutely and wholly without merit. Of course, without these people, birthers would only have the weather to talk about.