Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

[Sorry screen name in use]

Well said John Valentine!!!!

[kabar]

Wrong. Armed forces members married to US citizens on orders to be overseas are always considered as having US natural born children regardless of where the child is born.

The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. It is not confined to the Armed Forces.

[Roccus]

Those are all good questions, but if Donofrio is not contending such concerns in his case, then how would they ever be brought up in court?

...by SCOTUS requiring the NJ SoS to present whatever documentation (if any) it used to vet the candidates. The COLB that has been published seems to be no better than a note from his mother so I doubt SCOTUS will accept that as proof now or in the future. This is what I believe will lead us back to the long form BC.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer and I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!

[jla]

Thank you very much, my prev post was an imagined scenario though as I already knew the child would certainly be eligible to run for POTUS.

Actually I post on these threads for the benefit of lurkers or other interested parties so they don't go away thinking all of FR are a rabid pack of lunatics, many who now tout a document, our Constitution, that they obviously never once read. Though now, because some hack lawyer wants to become famous the Constitution is the hot topic with the boys gathering outside WaWa or AllParts stores.

[MrB]

I for one hope to color him gone

[MileHi]

I understand it is the way they are being practiced. It sure is not the way they are written. The 14th is being misread for political reasons to conclude that black is white and up is down. If you buy that horsehillery then you must the the “collective right” interpretation of 2A since some liberal judge told you that is what it means.

[DrC]

“What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.

Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.” If the framers had wanted to simply tie eligibility to being native-born, they would have used that term. In reality, at the time of the Constitution, native-born children were NOT automatically citizens. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Whoever suggested natural born is restricted to a person who is a US citizen both jus sanguis and jus solis has a good idea. But if that were the intent of the framers it’s hard to understand why the first Immigration statute labelled those born abroad of 2 US citzens “natural born.” Admittedly, this was repealed 5 years later with identical language that still accorded such individuals automatic citizenship, but removed the term “natural born.” The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

However, this does not preclude viewing “natural born” as being restricted to individuals whose allegiance is undivided.

[Mr_Peter]

"For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a citizen."

So what's your point? He's disqualified because of a C Section? Stop wasting our time posting this crap. Never going to happen.

[CodeToad]

“The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. “

Except there are conditions about those non-military parents and none on military parents on orders.

[classified]

“No person, (except a natural born citizen), (or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the office of President…”

If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

A U.S. citizen who was born on U.S. soil but one of his parents was born in another country could have become President only during the time that the Constitution was being adopted. After the Constitution was adopted, this person would not be qulified. And the reason he would not qualify is 1) He doesn’t fall under the definition of a Natural Born citizen and 2). He was not a U.S. citizen during the period when the Constitution was being adopted.

Is this correct?

[Uncle Chip]

Actually I believe he could be a citizen at best (not natural born) or an illegal alien. There is no way they can put him as natural born having a father that was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Here are 2 cases that may help:

Case 1: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S> 325 (1939) this expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY 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. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939)

Elg is a Citizen of the United States. Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.

Case 2: 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. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).

‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939). Citizenship Matrix = 2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)

THANKS -- IT DOES HELP !!!

[EternalVigilance]

The end of the constitutional republic?

[kabar]

No, what I am saying is that actual practice will have a major impact on whatever ruling, if any, SCOTUS makes in this case. Our current laws imbue anyone born on our soil, except for the children born to accredited diplomats, full citizens of this country entitled to all of the rights and privileges that entails. You may consider the 14th amendment to be “misread,” but it is being misread by our own government.

[MileHi]

It has not been read that way by SCOTUS. They may address it now.

[Helen]

Bump to ya’

[kabar]

Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.”

Aside from the current contretemps over whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency or not, this is a distinction without a difference. Can you cite any differences between the citizenship of a native born and natural born citizen under existing law and practice? How is birthright citizenship, jus solis, any different from jus sanguinis citizenship under law?

The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

It makes sense because we were a new nation whose residents were formerly citizens of other countries. For very real and practical reasons, we recognized two forms of natural born citizenship, jus sanguinis and jus solis. They are different for very obvious reasons.

[Helen]

“pretty sure” and “solid tradtion” do not apply when interpreting the Constitution.

[kabar]

See my post #164.

[BP2]

Does anyone here remember how Barack Obama, Sr, acquired his British Citizenship? From Kenya, or via the UK direct on his travels?

It's a very relavant question in how the Justice may discuss this issue tomorrow...

[Uncle Chip]

NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants.

Good Point!!!!