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
Should I be ashamed to ask questions relating to the Constitution?
Should Mr. Lakin be ashamed to ask question about the Constitution, should YOU be ashamed to ask question about the Constitution??
Should anybody be ashamed to ask questions about your dear leader and criminal in the White House???
Just BUCK-OFF, you FINO!!!
Yes, you did say that, and no, I’m not going to go back thru various posts to prove it.
Living under Hitler has nothing to do with living under Obama. If you think this is the equivalent of Germany in 1939...well, let your words reveal you.
President Obama deserves the same legal protections President GW Bush had - no more, no less. The law provides protection to the evil as well as the good, which is important. There were and are a lot of folks that want to call GWB evil and use the law to hunt him down...
What I have maintained and continue to maintain, and what is NOT traitorous to maintain, is that if Obama was born in Hawaii, then the phrase “natural born citizen” as applied by the courts includes him.
You do not have to agree with my assessment.
As for Lakin, he had orders to deploy and he refused to go. I deployed too often to have any stomach for people deciding which wars they want to support, or wanting to decide for themselves who is the President. The orders are backed by Congress when they funded the operation.
In the military, you don’t get to pick which orders to obey. IF THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL - such as when I was ordered to falsify a legal document, or if someone orders you to commit a war crime - THEN you can refuse...but you always do so at your own risk.
There is nothing illegal about deploying to Afghanistan.
This is the equivalent of an officer in 2003 refusing to go to war because he didn’t think GWB REALLY won the election. Those aren’t decisions for the military, and I say that as a former military officer.
During Kosovo, I had folks on FR calling me a baby killer because I said that deployment was legally binding. So be it.
Now there are folks who think I’m a horrible person because I say Obama IS the President, and will be so until Congress removes him or there is another election. So be it.
But if y’all are right, then EVERY order given since Jan 2009 is illegal, and the entire military should just quit. That means you do not understand the role of the military in a democratic society. The Founders were FAR more afraid of the military choosing political leaders than they were of someone born in America becoming President, regardless of his parentage.
“Should Mr. Lakin be ashamed to ask question about the Constitution...”
MISTER Lakin could ask anything he wants.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL Lakin doesn’t get to decide who is President, or the criteria for natural born citizen. The military doesn’t get to pick who they want to follow. That decision is made by the states, the voters, the Congress & the SCOTUS.
And the states put Obama on the ballot. The voters voted. The Electoral College voted. Congress certified Obama without ANY dissent, or objection from Palin or McCain. And the SCOTUS has already refused to hear a case about Obama’s father.
Did you take the Anthrax vaccine?
Yes, and supported charges against a guy in our unit who refused. Didn’t like ‘em, didn’t think they were worth much, but...took them.
Also got smallpox and anthrax at the same time in one arm. My arm swelled up, and for several months I had a hard ridge like a pencil in my triceps. Went to see the doc, who was from Jamaica, and in a heavy accent he told me, “I do not think you will die...” It went away after 3 months.
“And the SCOTUS has already refused to hear a case about Obama’s father.”
You say this with such a gleeful happy “pride” and I’m sure you also popped the Champagne bottle at the same time!
It is no wonder that I said what I said, hmmmm!!
You saw that link didn’t you???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
Really???
Barrock Hussein Obama
Hmmmm,...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
Actually, I thought the SCOTUS should have taken the case and formally ruled one way or the other. However, by refusing to take it, they accepted the idea that Obama was a natural born citizen IAW standard interpretations.
Yes, really - a LTC doesn’t decide the election of President. You thought he did?
All I need to know. It explains EVERYTHING!!!
Yes, I know...on the USS Danamco, EVERYONE is a skipper!
Answer....see post 390. Night, Night!!!
“Night, Night!!!”
Have the orderlies arrived with your meds?
Good morning!
I am glad you asked. If you call these meds(?), then YES!
They includes OPC-3, Acai, Multi-vitamin, Advanced Vitamin B-complex, Vitamin C, Resveratrol, all in an Isotonix form, and all of them in one "cocktail" in 14-oz of water, very first thing on an empty stomach every morning. Before bedtime, which you know is pretty late/early(?) I take one serving of Prime Secretagogue (HGH Enhancer) in 8-10 oz. water!!
At 79 I do all maintenance for our house, last year pressure cleaned exterior and painted with three coats. I just done our asphalt driveway with patching and two coats. You see my "meds" even helps to still having a little "fun" with my wonderful AMERICAN wife once in a while, yet my peeing is now a little slower than years ago. So the "meds" seems to be working pretty good for me.
Last week I gave blood at our church my readings were B-pres. 120/84. Temp. 96.8. Pulse 74. H-5'8". W-140 lbs. So all in all, yes I like them and it seems that my "meds" are working pretty good, even if I eat eggs and Buffalo meats and fish and have a beer or wine with it. No smoking, however!!!
How are your meds working for you???
You cannot compare Apples to Oranges!!!
Wen you took an Oath - if you did(?)- as an officer in the military, what did you swore to???
NO apples or oranges...is the deployment backed by the full government of the USA? Yes. Did he go? No. Did he resign his commission? No.
He wants to overrule the voters, Congress & the SCOTUS on who the President is, based on...Internet rantings. He’ll need more than your good wishes to keep him from losing, just as every other birther loses every case.
I don't sink that is a military secret or classified. So once more, if you took an Oath in the military, what was that Oath about and to whom or what did you swore???
I haven’t tap danced anything. The Constitution says ‘natural born citizen’, and by the definitions used by the courts, Obama qualifies.
That is how he was put on the ballot in 50 states, and why Congress certified him, and why the Supreme Court rejected a case brought against him.
That is how our government works. The military doesn’t choose the President. The Founders were far more afraid of a junta than they were of someone born in America with a British father.
But of course, you would have to pay attention to the Constitution and not just rant to understand that.
But of course, you would have to pay attention to the Constitution and not just rant to understand that.
Talking to yourself again I see....
Mr. Rogers, could you please answer the simple question, so that we then can have an intelligent conversation, is that too much ask???
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.