Replies

You can't have it both ways, one way having Wong Kim Ark using the 14th amendment to hold that anchor babies are "natural born citizens" for presidential qualification purposes, and the other way that no US Court has heard the issue.
I think the issue has never been before the Court, and that it is plain error to read Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that anchor babies are constitutionally qualified. But you opened with the remark that dual citizenship is irrelevant to the question of constitutional qualification, which strikes me as an entrenched position on the other side.

"You can't have it both ways . . . . " I don't know why not. I am a real Constitutional Lawyer, admitted to practice before the U S Supreme Court and having argued Supreme Court cases; I get paid lots to render opinions based on my reading of existing cases, statutes, and other law; no doubt in my mind that if and when asked, the Supreme Court is going to hold that born in the USA is sufficient; but still hypothetical in that the Court has not yet been asked that precise question.

I don't know many lawyers that would agree with your proposition that anchor babies are not constitutionally qualified; and no I don't think dual citizenship is necessarily relevant to Natural Born status. Lots of Natural Born Citizens are dual citizens.

As set out below, lots of the Euro countries confer citizenship by right of birth on descendants of citizens who are citizens of other countries--there are lots of dual citizens in the US who don't know they are dual citizens.

My view is an entrenched position only in the sense that I think my opinion on the subject is correct. All these contrary views expressed here show a real lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court operates and decides cases.

But there is a real bottom line here and it is that Obama was born in Kenya, pretty clearly under circumstances in which he was not even a citizen at birth, and there is no way he is a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility question.

-- I am a real Constitutional Lawyer, admitted to practice before the U S Supreme Court and having argued Supreme Court cases; I get paid lots to render opinions based on my reading of existing cases, statutes, and other law; no doubt in my mind that if and when asked, the Supreme Court is going to hold that born in the USA is sufficient; but still hypothetical in that the Court has not yet been asked that precise question. --

Then I don't know why you resist being tagged as entrenched in your position. You agree that Wong Kim Ark is precedent that will determine the outcome if an NBC case is presented to SCOTUS.

You seem to have answered another question as well, in that you find "born in the US to foreigners = NBC" to be a correct read of the constitution as amended by the 14th, and a correct application of Wong Kim Ark.

Not that you personally endorse the outcome of anchor babies raised in foreign lands to be qualified; but you believe, based on steely-eyed analysis and study, via application of your expertise, that is the correct result.

I'm not going to argue the opposite side with you, in light of your being entrenched, and in light of my view being a minority view.

As for how the Supreme Court decides cases, all one has to know is the 1937 Miller case, and that in 2009, in Heller, the United States Supreme Court said, "The judgment in the [Miller] case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men's federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act." It took that total fabrication and parlayed it into an effective reversal of Miller.

“I am a real Constitutional Lawyer, admitted to practice before the U S Supreme Court and having argued Supreme Court cases; I get paid lots to render opinions based on my reading of existing cases, statutes, and other law; no doubt in my mind that if and when asked, the Supreme Court is going to hold that born in the USA is sufficient; but still hypothetical in that the Court has not yet been asked that precise question.”

“But there is a real bottom line here and it is that Obama was born in Kenya, pretty clearly under circumstances in which he was not even a citizen at birth, and there is no way he is a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility question.”

Lots of Constitutional lawyers had no doubt as to how the Heller ruling would come out and were wrong. Now we hear lots of Constitutional lawyers having no doubt that ObamaCare will be upheld. I certainly hope they are wrong, too. That said, I agree with you (as a non-lawyer) that the probability is that SCOTUS would find Obama to be eligible if the HI COLB were to be submitted into evidence uncontested.

You appear to have a surprisingly confident opinion (for a lawyer) regarding what you claim to be proof that Obama was born in Kenya. On what do you base this opinion?

Is it Lucas Smith's Kenya CPGH BC? My non-lawyer reading of the FRE is that this BC wouldn't even be admissible as evidence to challenge the HI COLB (if in evidence) unless it was authenticated by Kenyan authorities, a prospect fraught with credibility problems either way due to corruption and Obama tribal relatives in the government.

Judge Carter said that with equal authentication of BCs between HI and Kenya, he would feel compelled to rule in favor of the HI BC. This logic allowed Carter to make an “even if true” ruling that the plaintiffs could not prevail with the Smith CPGH BC.

It seems to me that only if Obama’s original vital records are called into question, such as amendment of an original Kenya birth location to change it to show HI, could a judge following Judge Carter's logic give priority to an authenticated Kenya BC.

I would be interested on how you came to conclude so strongly that Obama was born in Kenya and whether the evidence underlying your conclusion could meet FRE requirements.

There is a Cornell Law Review from 1950 titled "Presidential Timber" by Warren Freedman. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of that law review on the 'natural born' definition as it pertains to presidential eligibility. It seems this has been an on-gong issue since the WKA decision wherein Grey overlooked and overturned his own decision in Elk when he wrote this: [t]he claimant was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth, which required that he be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."] Complete jusrisdsiction did not include dual citizenship according to Grey some 16 years after the 14th was ratified. So why did Grey ignore his prior ruling? What was his motive? Political & financial, which later rulings prove to be a fact. Grey personally benefited financial wise from later SCOTUS decisions that were eventually overturned. He was a key figure that helped the statist usher in the 1st steps of the progressive agenda in dumbing down American citizenship to clog the electorate with government trough feeders.