Posted on 04/29/2010 9:14:44 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
You have an interesting interpretion of Minor v Happersett.
In the US Supreme Court’s decision in Perkins v Elg from 1939, some have ‘argued’ that the case of Steinkauler indicates that one has to be born to US parents. Nothing in the ruling indicates that this is a requirement. In fact, the Steinkauler case is a good example that US birthright citizenship cannot be taken away by the parents of a minor child. Furthermore, it shows that the term ‘native citizen of the United States’ is sufficient for Steinkauler to eventually run for the presidency.
“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. [caps, mine]
And yet, based on Steinkauler, some people still insist that native and natural born are two different concepts. It’s clear that natural born fully encompasses native born.
The US Supreme Court went further in this 1939 decision:
“The status of young Steinkauler and his right to protection from the Government of the United States depends primarily upon his nationality. Nationality is either natural or acquired. The one results from birth the other from the operation of the laws of states.”
The Indiana decison was “tested” by an appeal of the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, who rejected the case.
Seven Obama eligibility lawsuits have been presented for Writ of Certiorari (acceptance) conferences at the US Supreme Court. The Justices have refused to hear any of them. It only takes the concurrence of four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case before the full Court (the rule of four). That means even the four strict constructionist, traditionalist, conservative Justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) have not been persuaded that there is a constitutional issue worth adjudicating.
Let’s say Puerto Rico wages and wins a war against America for their independence. They were American citizens at birth. However, by engaging in a war against the country of their birth, they would be effectively renouncing their American citizenship. America would void their citizenship. Likewise, Puerto Rico would probably not acknowledge as its citizens any Puerto Ricans who did not recognize the newly acquired sovereignty of Puerto Rico who continued to assert their American citizenship.
Obama acquired his British citizenship at birth, after our war for independence. (And I don’t say that to be a smart alec.) So while Obama may not actively seek to enjoy the rights and protections of his British citizenship, that doesn’t change the circumstances of his birth.
He acknowledges his British citizenship. He doesn’t deny it.
Yes. The son was a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be POTUS because he was born in the U.S. to two (naturalized) U.S. citizen parents. His father became a naturalized U.S. citizen prior to his birth. His mother was automatically considered naturalized through the marriage.
From 1790 to 1922, the wife was automatically naturalized when citizenship was granted to her husband; a separate filing was not required. An Act of February 1855, stated "any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen." [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
According to the Supreme Court, the denial of certiorari is not to be construed as the court having taken a position on the merits of a case.
Almost all of the eligibility cases thus far have been dismissed on the basis of standing. If there is not a proper case to be heard, the court isn’t going to entertain it.
A natural born citizen is a citizen not made by civil law.
A natural born citizen cannot be changed by an amendment to the Constitution..the law cannot be changed once the Founders placed natural born in the Constitution.
That is the key we have been missing..this is the strong check..
We have forgotten natural law and its true meaning..
Can man change natural law? Who were citizens at the ratification.?
“The laws of nature, which all nations observe alike, being established by a divine providence, remain ever fixed and immutable” Emperor Justanian
An amendment to the Constitution that is ratified by the several states absolutely can change the law regarding who is a natural born citizen. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Amendments to it are binding and become part of the Supreme Law. The Founding Fathers wanted us to have the ability to amend the Constitution because they understood that they could not possibly foresee and address every potential issue that would arise.
The evolution of societies and the ever changing nature of the physical boundaries of nations (e.g. USSR split into multiple sovereign nations) demands that a country be able to dictate who are its citizens and the requirements and restrictions placed upon their citizenship.
There is only one path to natural born citizenship that is absolute and unchallenged: a person born to two U.S. citizen parents. That does not mean, however, that there are not other possible paths to natural born citizenship. That’s for the SCOTUS to determine. That’s why I believe we need a SCOTUS ruling not only on Obama’s birth circumstances but also on those born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents. Right now the latter are considered natural born citizens but even the State Department stipulates that they may not be so for Constitutional purposes.
Show me where congress or the courts can change natural law?
man cannot change natural law.
All definitions of words and the classifications used to categorize those words come from man. A man is a human by natural law. He is a natural born citizen by man’s law of man.
-PJ
By man’s law. The “of man” at the end should have ben deleted. I posted too quickly.
Geez! ben = been
Natural Born is Gods Law it cannot be touched by man..that is why the Founders placed a natural law for President.
Open your eyes. It is pure genius.
What I’m saying is that the FF didn’t explicitly define the term “natural born citizen.” So it is up to the SCOTUS to interpret the definition of it by determining what the FF intended by specifying such a requirement for POTUS.
So while it is clear that blue is blue and green is green. It’s up to the SCOTUS to decide if greenish-blue qualifies as blue or green or is its own color.
Where does God say who is natural born? I’ve never read anything about natural born citizens in the Bible.
No, I’m not being sarcastic.
That said, what the FF should have defined more clearly was the process for confirming the eligibility of candidates, given that they laid out requirements in the Constitution.
-PJ
Amen.
According to the Supreme Court, the denial of certiorari is not to be construed as the court having taken a position on the merits of a case.
Almost all of the eligibility cases thus far have been dismissed on the basis of standing. If there is not a proper case to be heard, the court isn’t going to entertain it.
Agreed. We ain’t gonna get him on this issue.
man is on the planet because of God.....when the Founders said..natural born..it is Gods law..not mans law....man cannot change Gods Law.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.html#II.%20Natural,%20Common,%20and%20Civil%20Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.