From a thread I posted a while back:
The court in Perkins v Elg approvingly cites the AG:
""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..."
Notice they mix 'native citizen' with the right to run for President, which you say is the different meaning NBC.
They also rule:
"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."
Again, they mix without distinction native born with natural born.
In fact, they had no need to use NBC at all in Elg, but they did...in a mix with native citizenship. She wasn't asking to run for President, but just to be a US citizen. Nor does the court distinguish, such as saying, "Not only is she native born, but she is natural born" - the sort of wording one would expect if they considered there to be a difference between the two.
Am I misunderstanding?? Aren’t both these cases citations based on comments of third parties and not the actual statements of the court??
And you've been told before that both his parents were US citizens at the time of Steinkauler's birth and he was born inside the United States. The Supreme Court give good background on subjects when they describe them as native born when they are also natural born citizen as I said in the above post to you. To summarize again, his parents were US citizens when he was born and he was born in the US of A, and which makes Steinkauler a natural born citizen under the de Vattel definition which is the intent and meaning behind US Constitution natural born citizen clause.
Again here, the Supreme Court in their opinion gave a good background of Miss Elg which you missed in your post. Ms. Elg was born inside the United States to parents at the time who were US citizens that makes her a natural born citizen, which it says in their holdings of that 1939 Supreme Court case. And again, Ms. Elg falls under the De Vattel definition of a natural born citizen.
All natural born citizens are native born, BUT not all native born are natural born citizens. The Supreme Court does not mix and match when the subject is ONLY a native born as they did in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case.
You are a friggin chump.
The salient point is that no one can impair another’s citizenship or their status.
In this case the parents were “Naturalized Citizens” of the USA and later returned to the country of their birth.
Further, the citation of advice from the then Attorney General cites a completely different case, to support Elg’s claim of citizenship and HAS NOTHING to do with Elg’s eligibility under the Constitution 2,2.
You are a friggin moron and are here for the sole purpose of obfuscation.
You problem lies in the fact that you are a simpleton and person of no skill other than a someone who quarry’s rocks for the pittance of their sustanence.
Please leave.
You are too easy.
I hope I didn’t leave anyone out on these jackasses.
Honestly, hitting them with a Clue by four wouldn’t fix their kind of stupid.
Their special....like in Southern “Ain’t you special...?”
Take a hike dumbo’s. I don’t think the kids on triple A, Pee Wees could stand your driveling tripe.