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
I was as proud as a peacock.
Right -- and a natural born citizen as well. One can be native born [soil] and not natural born [soil and parentage], but whoever is natural born [soil and parentage] is also native born. Young Steinkauler, by Vattel's definition, was both.
I don't think they did consider her parents citizenship status.
Sure they did. They noted that her father had been naturalized before her birth. Therefore she was both a native born citizen by birth on American soil and a natural born citizen because by birth on American soil and of American parentage. Elg was also both.
They didn't equate them. The government tried to deny her native born status, but the Court restored not only her native born status but raised her to an NBC status.
They quote approvingly of him being “native born” and that status allows him to run for President.
Unless they were being very sloppy, if they agreed with your concept, they should have said that he was both native born and natural born, and the latter allowed him to run for President.
It is possible for a court to write sloppy, but that normally isn’t assumed to be the case in a Supreme Court decision.
I agree with you about how it ought to be, but disagree with you on how I think a court will rule based on this decision. I also think no court will rule unless forced to by a carefully thought out case that leaves them no other option.
They made up their own definition: native born. The case supports the Vattel natural born definition — two parents who are citizens giving birth to a child citizen on our soil. The case has nothing to do with defining presidential requirements, nor is it an amendment to the constitution. So whether they erred or not does nothing to change the original Constitutional definition.
Anyone who wants it changed is going to have to amend the constitution, or find a preponderance of Supreme Court cases addressing a change to the presidential requirements issue, not monkey around with definitions to suit their desires.
I still believe billboards around the country with the presidential requirements and the original definition of natural born citizen would do plenty to get this case resolved once and for all.
Aside from all of this, I believe he is the only president to have spent his formative years on foreign soil. Military children born or being stationed overseas (such as McCain) are different situations.
Obama was never raised with respect and love for this country! He did not grow up saying the pledge, or singing ‘God Bless America’ - that is for sure. His only religious teachings were Muslim, and, from all accounts, his mother and grandparents were atheists and leaned toward communism.
He is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they said natural born. They knew that a child not raised in this society would not have the reverence and respect for the history of the country. That is why Barry bows to other leaders...he is not really an American in his heart. His allegiance lies elsewhere. It is his goal to weaken America. Our founding fathers did not want this type of person to be elected. We may as well open the doors to the whole world for our presidency if this situation is not addressed and addressed thoroughly. I believe this will set a precedent, and we will have make an amendment to our constitution to further clarify eligibility. At the very least, an amendment will have to written that all candidates must provide a legal birth certificate.
If this should come about, I would completely accept the Supreme Court's decision regarding Obama’s natural born status.
But...I believe you missing the entire point of my post. It is **NOT**just Obama’s eligibility.
Obama’s eligibility has merely focused a bright spotlight on a fundamental flaw in our system of self-governance. Surely, in the future there will be **other** constitutional issues that need and deserve resolution and the common citizen will be frustrated in finding clarification because all three branches of government will not acknowledge that the common citizen has “standing” to pursue resolution.
This needs to be fixed. I am a realist, however, and if it were fixed it would mean that those in the three branches of government would lose power, so therefore, I doubt it will be fixed. At best ( maybe) we will get piecemeal legislation . For example, Arizona requiring that candidates prove their eligibility before having their names placed on the ballot.
I told you yesterday what the score was with Elg and of course you didn't believe me. Elg's mother became a US citizen when her husband was naturalized as a US citizen. See 1855 Naturalization Act.
Her parentS were both US citizens at her birth and Ms. Elg was born in the United States. She meets the de Vattel definition as a Natural Born Citizen.
You're grasping at straws.
I told you yesterday what the score was with Elg and of course you didn't believe me. Elg's mother became a US citizen when her husband was naturalized as a US citizen. See 1855 Naturalization Act.
Her parentS were both US citizens at her birth and Ms. Elg was born in the United States. She meets the de Vattel definition as a Natural Born Citizen.
You're grasping at straws.
This is the role of the Supreme Court, or so it has been since Marbury.
"Anyone who wants it changed is going to have to amend the constitution, or find a preponderance of Supreme Court cases addressing a change to the presidential requirements issue, not monkey around with definitions to suit their desires."
Amend the Constitution? Why? There is no definition of natural-born in the Constitution (or in the US Code, for that matter), just as there is no definition of "speech" in the Constitution. But, when the Supremes extended speech to photographs and moving pictures, no one had to amend the Constitution. That is the role of the Supreme Court - to interpret the Constitution. Interpretation includes defining 18th Century language in a contemporary setting.
“He may not have had US citizenship due to his childhood in Indonesia.”
Totally incorrect. Nothing that happened to him in Indonesia between 6 and 10 has any relevance to his citizenship status (including natural born) here.
“Obama was never raised with respect and love for this country!”
Irrelevant for the purposes of law. Many natural born citizens are evil people who hate America. Bill Ayers is a natural born citizen who hates America.
I have a slightly different question about his eligibility. Since the president has amassed a huge group of lawyers to protect his previous work history and college history, what is the possibility that he’s hiding that info because he committed fraud (if he was actually a US citizen), by applying for resources for college by stating that he was a “foreigner” ..??
And .. if that is true, did he LIE about his status, or was he really a foreigner ..??
I just became curious about this because it seemed that the documents that were being hidden were mostly related to his education .. and I just can’t help but wonder if he lied about his status in order to receive grants to school - grants that he would not have been eligible for as a “natural born citizen”.
On April 1st - a story was floated (supposedly as an April Fool’s joke), that Occidential had released Obama’s application (under the FOIA) and the application stated that he listed himself as a “foreigner”. While it was reported that this article was put forth by AP, I never could find any disclaimer by AP that they didn’t write the story .. nor did AP seek after the person who purportedly lied about AP putting forth the story. Weird.
To me .. this makes it even more curious.
If this is ever proven - that he listed himself as a foreigner - when he was actually a natural born citizen - I do believe that is FRAUD - and after all this time, is that still punishable ..??
I have no earthly idea how you can even begin to believe such an insane statement. In America, it is impossible to lose one's citizenship. It is also - as a practical matter of law - for minor children to lose their US citizenship.
The abdication of citizenship is a laborious and active, not passive, course of events. It cannot be "lost", it may only abdicated, and then only under very specific circumstances.
Not quite.
From your lead above:
Being born of a Naturalized Father enabled the designation "natural born" to the child [Young Steinkauler] born in the US.
Barry does not qualify, by his own admission.
Obama's case is a bit different than Marie's situation since her parents were doubtlessly US citizens at the time of her birth in the US. Also, citizenship law had changed significantly and had been radically reinterpreted by the courts in the years from 1930-1970. In fact, laws were changed to the point of making it difficult to even determine what an NBC was. The courts and Congress allowed dual citizenship, and marriages of mixed citizenship to be possible, which is something that the Constitution had never conceived of. These things made it difficult to know which parent was the controlling factor in inheriting Natural born US citizenship. In Obama's case one parent was not eligible to pass on US citizenship outside of the US, while the other was not a US citizen at all.
Before the Civil War and when the Constitution was written, a person became a citzen in only 2 ways A)by blood to US citizen parents or B)by naturalization. The 14th amendment changed that by adding a vague definition of Ius Soli which now adds the possibility of obtaining US citizenship by place of birth rather than by blood. The problem is that inheriting US citizenship by blood is clearly NBC but obtaining it by place of birth is not defined as NBC in the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark tried to deal with this question. It established that Wong was a US citizen, but not whether he was an NBC.
The Naturalization Act of 1855.
"In 1855 allowed alien women to acquire citizenship by marrying a United States citizen, or upon his naturalization. A woman’s citizenship was directly tied to that of her husband. Women and children automatically received naturalization upon the husband or father’s naturalization. "
But, once again, like Elg, they are also considering the citizenship status of his father at the time of his birth when they came to that conclusion, as quoted from the case here:
"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."
So as the Court noted, he was a "native born citizen" whose father was a citizen of the U.S. before he was born. So then by all means, by virtue of those two factors, he could run for the Presidency. Those two factors together qualify him as a Article II natural born citizen per Vattel.
They made up their own definition to apply to the case at hand. The case has absolutely nothing to do with natural born citizen requirement to become president of the United States. Was the child a citizen, yes, that is what they ruled. Was the child running for president? No, this case had nothing to do with that.
Such is the import of any SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court only rules on the "case at hand", right?
The principle of judicial review was established over 200 years ago with a case about judicial appointments. But, that principle has been applied to every case since - almost all of which have NOTHING to do with judicial appointments.
This is why the Supremes are so judicious with the granting of cert, because despite the merits of the individual case before them, whatever they hold as a matter of law, will be applied to all subsequent cases. So, they cherry-pick the cases that best allow them to establish precedent. Thousands of appellants petition for certiorari, but about 100 (on average) are granted cert. Why is that?
If you ever have time, you should search for the number of cases where Roe v. Wade is cited, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion rights. You might be surprised how frequently Roe - and its principle of "right to privacy" comes up.
Good to see you answer the Steinkauler question for the moonbats.
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.