Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin
the Elg case dicta(deciding opinion) the court clearly states that none but one born owing single allegiance to the United States(born to 2 citizen parents) can be president.

I must have missed that. Could you post a quote?

269 posted on 02/07/2012 11:54:28 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
This is a 14th Amendment case in which they do cite WKA however, they distinguish native-born from native by the fact of the nationality of the parents at birth. Elg & Steinkauler were born to parents, after the parents had naturalized, thus the parents although former aliens were US citizens at the time of the child's birth and thus the children were born with a single allegiance. However, then the court goes on to define “jus soli” where a child is born a dual citizen and there is not mention of the presidency. Had the two been equal, there would have been no need to define the later dual citizen. Thus the court clearly is saying that the 14th does define A2, but then they fall into the ruse and purport that it also means something else. But the fact is, the lower court ruled that Elg was indeed a “natural born” citizen and the SCOTUS upheld that ruling thus upholding that the 14th does define A2 natural born citizen. Here is the short version, link provided for further reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Perkins v. Elg

No. 454

Argued February 3, 1939

Decided May 29, 1939*

307 U.S. 325
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

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

Page 307 U. S. 330

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. 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

Page 307 U. S. 331

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.”

Page 307 U. S. 350

(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.

The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

312 posted on 02/07/2012 1:45:09 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson