Replies

No, Obama’s NBC status is definitely not an open and shut case. There is significant evidence on both sides of the argument. But whether or not a SCOTUS ruling would overturn the will of the people, this issue, IMHO, should be decided to firmly establish the law and set legal precedent. I don’t believe it is an absolute that Obama would have won the election had the question of his NBC status been widely known. So one could argue that the will of the people was preempted and thwarted.

Regarding Elg’s mother’s citizenship status, I believe she was automatically naturalized when her husband became so. I’ll try to find the relevant law and post it here. If I am correct, Elg would be a NBC as stipulated.

Buckeye is correct. US law used to automatically naturalized the wife of any US citizen. This means that at the time that of Marie's birth she would have been a Natural Born Citizen because both of her parents were US citizens. So under the law before about 1925, Marie would be a NBC. The old law made the wife of a US Citizen automatically a US citizen without any need for Naturalization, which made it almost impossible for a married couple to not have an NBC child since both parents were always US citizens. (Back then citizenship was also in most circumstances inherited from the father because it was considered to be the natural order of things. This principle of bestowing citizenship through the father dates back to the Roman Empire and beyond. (In fact, this principle only begins to change after the advent of women's suffrage and the feminist movement begins to cause confusion in the established norms, but I digress).

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.

But whether or not a SCOTUS ruling would overturn the will of the people,

Why not? They do it all the time. As they should when that 50% + 1 will is in conflict with the Constitution.

this issue, IMHO, should be decided to firmly establish the law and set legal precedent.

Indeed they should. It's their FReaking job.