[DannyTN]

1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been recinded?

3) Question: With regards to "Natural Born":

• I understand the definition under Vatel's The Law of Nations that the definition is Two American citizens and born on U.S. soil.
• Under the 1790(?) definition adopted by Congress, which is of questionable value since Congress cannot retroactively define terms in the constitution, by adopting laws, the definition is born of two U.S. Citizens or if the Father is a U.S. citizen.

What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds? Would the equal right amendment retroactively allow the Mother to pass "Natural Born" citizenry even though under age given the laws at the time?

[El Gato]

What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds?

None, the equal rights amendment was never ratified. It doesn't exist.

That said, the 1790 act was replealed in 1795, as far as "natural born" citizenship" was involved. The 1795 and later acts required to US parents for citizenship. Later acts allowed for just one US citizen parent, with restrictions. But again, just for statutor citizenship, not Nautural Born (meaning needing no statute or law, citizenship.

[Sibre Fan]

1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

Specifically, probably nothing. Even if Judge Carter is made aware of the decision, it is not binding on him. However, as a general matter, this opinion is focused on the same issues that Judge Carter focused on in the hearing (standing, political question). And, the cases cited include Supreme Court cases on the issue (which are binding on the California court). So, there's a chance that Judge Carter's opinion will read similarly.

2) Are any of Orly's plaintiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?

Orly has one active-duty plaintiff, but was unable to tell Judge Carter whether he has any pending orders from Obama or whether he would defy those orders if issued. So, I don't think that the active-duty plaintiff will be considered materially different from the Kerchner military plaintiffs. Orly also has Keyes - a presidential candidate. At the hearing, Judge Carter seemed disinclined to simply dismiss Keyes as a "fringe" candidate, referring to the important value that third-party candidates bring to the political process. At the same time, Judge Carter seemed troubled by Orly's apparent inability to identify a particular injury suffered by Keyes. Although Orly cited to the Senate race, that race is not part of this complaint or action, so Judge Carter will not be able to rely on that alleged injury. So, I think there's a chance that Judge Carter may say that a candidate, even a third-party candidate with little realistic chance of winning, has standing - IF he can prove particularized injury. I also think that Judge Carter will find that Amb. Keyes failed to do that.

[Non-Sequitur]

1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

Nothing. The two are not related.

2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?

Not in California. She had that Captain in the Rhodes case who's orders weren't rescinded and who reported for duty about the time the judge dismissed the case.

What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds? Would the equal right amendment retroactively allow the Mother to pass "Natural Born" citizenry even though under age given the laws at the time?

The 1790 Naturalization law only defined natural-born citizen in the case of a child born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents. Citizenship of those born in the U.S. wasn't addressed. The Equal Rights Amendment, even had it been passed, would not have impacted citizenship laws.

[mlo]

"I understand the definition under Vatel's The Law of Nations that the definition is Two American citizens and born on U.S. soil."

Vattel didn't address American citizenship.

"Under the 1790(?) definition adopted by Congress, which is of questionable value since Congress cannot retroactively define terms in the constitution, by adopting laws, the definition is born of two U.S. Citizens or if the Father is a U.S. citizen."

The 1790 law was about children born overseas.