The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized
But then, you go on to say this:
Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.
Why don't you know? You provided it yourself, as a fact stated in the decision, at the beginning of your own article.
I've said before and I'll say it again, that I've long enjoyed your many lengthy and well-reasoned responses in defense of your religious beliefs on the Religion Forum. But, this, somehow, is completely out of your element. You've made an embarassing and very basic blunder.
You're also covering ground that has been covered much more thoroughly on Free Republic, on the vedritable avalanche of threads regarding the eligibility question that have been posted with replies into the tens of thousands, since early 2008.
You're capable of better than this, Mr. Rogers.
The long and the short of Elg is that she was a natural born citizen because both her parents were citizens and she was born in the United States. There is nothing controvertible in this decision that can be used in an attempt to deride the so-called "birther" Constitutional argument.
“The long and the short of Elg is that she was a natural born citizen because both her parents were citizens and she was born in the United States.”
The long and short of it is that they consider her a citizen, a native born citizen, and a natural born citizen based on her birth, and make no reference to her father or mother’s citizenship as relevant to any of those.
As stated in the decision, it states, “was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here...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.”
The failure to mention her mother may be due to them considering it irrelevant or assuming she was a naturalized citizen per the link I provided a moment ago in another post.
Please also see post 97. I explain how I think a court will approach the question of a natural born citizen, based on how Indiana’s courts did when Obama’s NBC was challenged.