Rogers v Bellei
That is one heck of ruling!
It is almost as significant as M v H.
Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.
“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.
M v. H definition stands.
That is one heck of ruling!
It is almost as significant as M v H.
Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.
“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.
I agree, but for some reason the Obama defenders believe it somehow supports their argument. For a look at another interesting case, I advise you to look at: Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879
This case out and out says that a woman is a citizen because her Grandfather was a citizen, which made her father a citizen, which made HER a citizen.(Which made her Husband therefore a Non-Indian.) It also says that a child of a foreigner and a citizen should be handled in exactly the same way.
If I read this correctly, this court would have decided Obama was not even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen."