Here’s a few suggestions that would be helpful:
A) There’s no legal proof that Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama was born in the United States. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a birth certificate would be self-authenticating, as long as a verifiable, certified copy is presented in court and passes reasonable scrutiny.
B) The Supreme Court provided an exclusive definition of natural-born citizen in at least TWO landmark cases, Minor v. Happersett AND U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the latter of which confirmed the definition in the former: all children born in the country of citizen parents
C) The Minor definition left NOTHING open to question. It reviewed other combinations of parents and place, but only characterized one combination as natural-born. The others were dependent on solving doubts in the 14th amendment and in following statutory law on naturalization,.
D) When WKA discussed Common Law citizenship, it was only being applied to resident aliens, who had permanent residents and domicil. Obama’s papa was deported and his Mama was an emigrant (to Indonesia).
E) The Treaty of 1783 prohibited dual citizenshp and allowed that persons born in the country to alien parents held the citizenship of the father at birth subject to election upon majority. This makes Obama a British subject at birth. If he never renounced his British citizenship, then he is still legally a British subject and cannot be a natural-born citizen, even if he were born on the White House lawn. This principle was affirmed in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor and Shanks v. Dupont. For Obama to be a natural-born citizen he has to legally prove the place of birth and show that both of his parent adhered to U.S. allegiance.
Couple of comments:
B) Only in your imagination did WKA confirm that NBC = two citizen parents. Ankeny got it right. You will be hearing a lot of Ankeny as all these case proceed.
D) Obama’s father was a legal resident alien at the time of his birth. His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Once you are born a citizen, nothing your parents do can take away your citizenship. Once a citizen, Obama’s citizenship exists completely independent of his parents.
E)The Treaty of 1783 did not ban dual-citizenship. It dealt with how how untangle the mess caused as the population separated themselves into Americans or Englishmen. Nowhere does it specifically ban dual citizenship. It merely states that a British subject and his heirs who own property in America were afforded the same property rights by law that native citizens enjoyed.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor revolves around the citizenship of a child that was born in NY City to a English subject. The court specifically ruled that if he was born in NYC in that period after the declaration of independence and before the British occupied NYC, then he was a natural born citizen American citizen regardless of his fathers citizenship. If he was born before or after that period he was British because he was not born on American soil.
“B) The Supreme Court provided an exclusive definition of natural-born citizen in at least TWO landmark cases, Minor v. Happersett AND U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the latter of which confirmed the definition in the former: all children born in the country of citizen parents.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to WKA, if any birthers care to read an actual decision, instead of living in WND-land...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
First time i've seen (E) as an argument. I had been wondering about this because there were LARGE numbers of British Loyalists in the Colonies after the war. Were THEY British subjects, or forcibly American citizens? Good Point.
On a secondary note, I've recently discovered two legal scholars (others may have already known of them) that argue the Expatriation act of 1868 demonstrates conclusively that the writers of the 14th completely abrogated English Common law as the basis of American Citizenship. Here is a link to testimony before the House of Representatives (in 1997) by one of the Legal Scholars.
Another line of attack. :)