Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
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 facts as stated in the decisions:
"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.
The father later returned to Sweden and formally renounced his US citizenship.
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.
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court found:
"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.
Page 307 U. S. 326
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."
In a bit more detail, it found:
"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,
Page 307 U. S. 329
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.
Notice they also quote approvingly of the decision involving Steinkauler:
"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".
This is true later on, when the Court says:
"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".
You can read the full decision at:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html#328
Is than an imbecile laughter, or just it takes that little to entertain you???
Anyone who would use such an analogy in connection with wanting to get to the truth about 0bama’s eligibility is - on the wrong team, to put it mildly.
God forbid that we, as searchers for truth, go to a primary source, the actual authors of the words themselves, for the original intent, the definition, the clarification and the understanding of what our own Constitution says and means.
Instead we are ridiculed by elitist statists who want us to accept politically-tainted and intellectually-dishonest secondary and tertiary sources that deliberately ignore those primary sources, and throw temper tantrums just like Obama and call others names when we don't accept their subterfuge.
"But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II include the parliamentary rule jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark,
a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, whop was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968."
George Romney was never put on any state presidential ballot to be challenged. The point doesn't make the argument. And we have a logical disconnect in his argument. American parents who have children overseas who can receive foreign citizenship at birth also satisfy the natural born citizen clause? And by the same logic, that allegiances of foreign parents, who could be illegal US travelers, who give birth to children inside the US and thereby pass on their foreign citizenship via jus sanguinis to their offspring are also natural born citizens?
We see on the same page Where Meese says,
"Although any citizen may become a member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, One must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United State was a prime concern."
What Ed Meese has proposed is a dilution to the natural born citizen clause if not a contradiction to what he has written here. If the US Constitutional Founders were seeking the safeguard, as Ed Meese said, of the natural born citizen clause to keep the presidents loyal to ONLY to the United States, there is noway he can honestly conclude that foreign born citizens and who acquired duel citizens at birth are natural born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.
"Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma"
No wonder why the title say it's an "Unresolved Enigma."
If you are fair about my posting history on this subject, I have said MANY times, that this is a undecided Constitutional issues. While the Supreme Court in MANY cases has offered opinions in dicta with respect to the import of natural-born, it has never been the central legal holding of ANY Supreme Court case. So, plainly as a matter of law, the issue is undecided.
But, it's also my position that it is clear that if this issue should ever be brought up in the foreseeable future, the Supremes will affirm the prevailing and conventional wisdom - that birth in America subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and irrespective of parentage, will constitute a natural-born citizen.
The poker “gambler attorney,” as your custom is to belittling others’ opinion, is speaking directly to you:..........
It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume. I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.
That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?
The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.
When and where did I do that???
I translate it as a personal threat!!!
Thanks. I must have been at a good part of my neuro-cycle.
Due to CFS, my IQ goes up and down three times a day by about 30 points in a wave pattern as predictable as the tides and with neuro-naps of at least a half hour required in the troughs. If I try to post too early in the day (before 11:00 am) or to push past a scheduled neuro-nap to keep posting, I am prone to gaffes.
I must apologize for instances when my memory, follow-through and ability to sustain interactions are sporadic.
I just looked; I hope the poster and his source are as serious as a heart attack.
Dang, if my “highs” were like your “troughs”, I’d be hitting the big time.
:-)
Freepmail coming your way!
Then again explain the logic that five democRATic Senators fooled everyone by produce the Senate Resolution 511???
Makes absolutely NO sense and Soetoro/Hillary were among those sponsor!!!
Yes, interesting.
And so is the opposition by far. If I or we contested every gaffe they made, we'd never get off FR. ;-)
To make a conservative mad, tell him/her a lie. To make a liberal mad, tell them the truth.
“It is very clear that the Supreme Court differentiates between native born and natural born citizens as this 1952 Supreme Court opinion [(Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717)] clearly demonstrates.”
Ummm....natural born citizen isn’t found in that decision. MAYBE it wasn’t required, since he wasn’t trying to run for the office of President.
However, the facts it lists:
“At petitioner’s trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States, served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan, and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan’s surrender, he registered as an American citizen, swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation, and returned to this country on an American passport.”
indicates it is very hard to lose one’s citizenship by birth in the USA.
You ask, “Do Natural Born Citizens take oath of allegiances to the United States?”
But the Court says, “In 1939, shortly before petitioner turned 18 years of age, he went to Japan with his father to visit his grandfather. He traveled on a United States passport, and, to obtain it, he took the customary oath of allegiance.”
So it seems the answer is yes.
LOL -- how very true
The logical inference in this Supreme Court case as taken with the others Supreme Court cases, the phrase usages and explanations make who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen.
indicates it is very hard to lose one’s citizenship by birth in the USA.
Kawakita v. US indicates that he is only a citizen with split allegiances, and was explicitly a 14th Amendment citizen.
Kawakita renewed his United States passport, once more taking the oath of allegiance to the United States.
No natural born citizen should be asked to take an oath of allegiance since it is naturally known that he is, and not required to receive a US passport. I did not have to pledge an oath to the United States to get my passport.
So it seems the answer is yes.
No, the answer is no.
“No natural born citizen should be asked to take an oath of allegiance since it is naturally known that he is, and not required to receive a US passport. I did not have to pledge an oath to the United States to get my passport.”
Did you apply in 1939?
Currently, no citizen takes an oath of allegiance to get their US passport. There isn’t a passport of “natural born citizens” and another for “questionable loyalty citizenship by birth’.
“The logical inference in this Supreme Court case as taken with the others Supreme Court cases, the phrase usages and explanations make who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen.”
Well, another logical inference is that the traitor wasn’t running for President. In other cases, native born and natural born are used interchangeably, and that seems to be the current consensus of legal authority.
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.