I do computer support for a bunch of lawyers. A law degree apparently does not require any common sense.
Berg too is either wrong, or is working for the Obama group. The constitutional definition, which Berg has assiduously ignored, is cited in at least four cases, from the beginning of the republic, and referred to in over one hundred, and has never been amended, though many attempts, twenty four, have been made to do so.
Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 on page 289 cites Vattel and repeats ‘...born in the country of parents who are its citizens’ in 1814, Chief Justice Waite repeats in Minor V. Happersett, its is cited by Gray in Wong Kim Ark., though the case is a mishmash, perhaps intentionally so since Gray was a Chester Arthur appointee, of irrelevent citations. (What does come clearly from Wong is that citizen and natural born citizen are distinct.)
There has never been another interpretation “though there have been doubts” from that provided by Marshall, who was a Minuteman, and Envoy to France, and clearly understood the meaning of jus sanguinis, because France one of the countries which based its citizenship definition upon the Roman legal theories from which jus sanguinis descends. You can bet that should either of the Kerchner or Donofrio cases get to the supreme court, the "about which there have been doubts" phrase is going to get lots of attention.
This issue may become very important as those covering for Obama see that the winds are turning. Ignoring the clear words of the founders, and even the clear words in 2008 of Senator Pat Leahy, Claire McGaskill, Hillary Clinton, in Senate Res. 511 http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
Note the clear quotation by former federal judge Michael Chertoff
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Read the wording of the Resolution. “Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The weasel word is ‘whereas.’ Natural born citizen was in is a term of common law, derived both from Vattel’s Law of Nations, and from the ‘law of nations’ of the time. Britain's citizenship was based upon feudal principals, jus soli. France was a jus sanguinis, or citizenship-derived-from-parents nation. Waite, Joseph Story, James Kent, a number of our great legal minds have explained this point. The Constitution does not define most of the terms it uses. Does that mean we don't understand ‘felony’ because it is supported only by the common law?
Senate Res 511 means every senator understands natural born citizenship, since they all signed it. They would lose a rigorous legal argument if they were cornered. But they won't be, because they are protected. They were more afraid of the consequences of having to face the Obama legal and polical machine than of lying about a legal fact - what is is, or black is white.
The founders were perfectly clear. Berg may be working for Obama. Let the supreme court assert that John Marshall, Waite, John Jay, James Madison, Joseph Story, Alexander Hamilton ... didn't mean what they said when they cited by far the most quoted legal source on citizenship in the nineteenth century, Vattel’s Law of Nations. (See Alexandrowicz ‘Studies in the History of the Law of Nations, Volume 2 1972).
Motive of an assertion doesn't matter. People may be ignorant or devious in pursuit of an end. The words of our founders were clear. Their intent is clear; there is a long long discussion, thousands of years, on the meaning to societies of citizenship in its many shades. Chief Justice John Marshall is all you need to know. To assert anything else requires an amendment to the constitution.
“...born in the country of parents who are its citizens.”
Don't be confused. There is no law which can make Obama a legal president, which doesn't alter Marshall’s citation in The Venus. Those in power know they must ignore the Constitution. They started with Obama. He told us his father and he were British subjects at birth. Natural born in British or U.S. law means citizenship derived from the parents (or father, when women were property of the husband). No law could change the citizenship of Obama Senior. Obama was naturally - unchanged by law - the son of a British citizn. He is, by British law, a British subject (a confusing term - American indians were subjects, and not citizens at our founding). Our representatives let it happen, and, probably a weakness in the electoral structure, electors are required in most states to vote with the party which nominated them. Now we need to enforce our Constitution, or accept that it doesn't protect us unless the legislature decides it should. We are not a nation of the people, we are a nation of the progressive wing of the Democratic party with an unconstitutional president and commander in chief.
I wrote insurance for several large firms in Atlanta and you are right. For that matter, the conversations I have had in my years has also produced some jaw dropping moments and I think “You passed the bar? The answers must have cost you a pretty penny because you are an idiot!”
Didn’t say it out loud of course. Just produced them with the laws disputing their ridiculous claims and generally never heard from them again.
As an aside, from my experience it seems most lawyers are used to blustering to get their way. Like the “I am an attorney” is so intimidating to folks that they just get all fluffed up and “prepared to file suit” and hope the person buys their bluff.