Skip to comments.Birthers and Perkins V Elg
Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one, so what follows is just IMHO on how the case of Perkins v Elg affects the definition of natural born citizen. I offer it, not as definitive, but as evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past in a way that might well lead to its ruling in favor of Obama, if the case is based on the citizenship of Obama's presumptive father.
The facts as stated in the decisions:
"The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, 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. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since."
Both parents were originally Swedish. The father was naturalized as a US citizen the year before Marie was born. It is unclear to me if her mother was ever naturalized - one sentence would indicate yes, the other no. Some say the mother would have been automatically naturalized when her husband was...and I don't know how naturalization law read at the time. The summary states " A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States."
Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.
When Marie was 4, her mother took her to Sweden, where she and her mother lived as Swedes. This was IAW a treaty the US had with Sweden.
The father later returned to Sweden and formally renounced his US citizenship.
Marie was just short of 21 when she asked about returning to the USA. She was 22 when she returned.
The government argued that she was not a US citizen at all, IAW a treaty signed with Sweden.
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court found:
"1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329."
"6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . " was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
Page 307 U. S. 326
This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.
7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349."
In a bit more detail, it found:
"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,
Page 307 U. S. 329
14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the
"inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."...
... As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles."
Notice they found that her citizenship rested, not in the citizenship of her father, but in being born in NY. This is true even if the child has alien parentage. They later cite "According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country." In that case, the parents were NOT US citizens.
Notice they also quote approvingly of the decision involving Steinkauler:
"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; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."
Notice that "native born" is used as sufficient basis that "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..."
The Court makes no distinction between "native born" and "natural born citizen".
This is true later on, when the Court says:
"Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
Please note that the Court rejects the idea that she lost her "native born American citizen" and had instead remained a "natural born citizen".
You can read the full decision at:
“He may not have had US citizenship due to his childhood in Indonesia.”
Totally incorrect. Nothing that happened to him in Indonesia between 6 and 10 has any relevance to his citizenship status (including natural born) here.
“Obama was never raised with respect and love for this country!”
Irrelevant for the purposes of law. Many natural born citizens are evil people who hate America. Bill Ayers is a natural born citizen who hates America.
I have a slightly different question about his eligibility. Since the president has amassed a huge group of lawyers to protect his previous work history and college history, what is the possibility that he’s hiding that info because he committed fraud (if he was actually a US citizen), by applying for resources for college by stating that he was a “foreigner” ..??
And .. if that is true, did he LIE about his status, or was he really a foreigner ..??
I just became curious about this because it seemed that the documents that were being hidden were mostly related to his education .. and I just can’t help but wonder if he lied about his status in order to receive grants to school - grants that he would not have been eligible for as a “natural born citizen”.
On April 1st - a story was floated (supposedly as an April Fool’s joke), that Occidential had released Obama’s application (under the FOIA) and the application stated that he listed himself as a “foreigner”. While it was reported that this article was put forth by AP, I never could find any disclaimer by AP that they didn’t write the story .. nor did AP seek after the person who purportedly lied about AP putting forth the story. Weird.
To me .. this makes it even more curious.
If this is ever proven - that he listed himself as a foreigner - when he was actually a natural born citizen - I do believe that is FRAUD - and after all this time, is that still punishable ..??
I have no earthly idea how you can even begin to believe such an insane statement. In America, it is impossible to lose one's citizenship. It is also - as a practical matter of law - for minor children to lose their US citizenship.
The abdication of citizenship is a laborious and active, not passive, course of events. It cannot be "lost", it may only abdicated, and then only under very specific circumstances.
From your lead above:
Being born of a Naturalized Father enabled the designation "natural born" to the child [Young Steinkauler] born in the US.
Barry does not qualify, by his own admission.
Obama's case is a bit different than Marie's situation since her parents were doubtlessly US citizens at the time of her birth in the US. Also, citizenship law had changed significantly and had been radically reinterpreted by the courts in the years from 1930-1970. In fact, laws were changed to the point of making it difficult to even determine what an NBC was. The courts and Congress allowed dual citizenship, and marriages of mixed citizenship to be possible, which is something that the Constitution had never conceived of. These things made it difficult to know which parent was the controlling factor in inheriting Natural born US citizenship. In Obama's case one parent was not eligible to pass on US citizenship outside of the US, while the other was not a US citizen at all.
Before the Civil War and when the Constitution was written, a person became a citzen in only 2 ways A)by blood to US citizen parents or B)by naturalization. The 14th amendment changed that by adding a vague definition of Ius Soli which now adds the possibility of obtaining US citizenship by place of birth rather than by blood. The problem is that inheriting US citizenship by blood is clearly NBC but obtaining it by place of birth is not defined as NBC in the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark tried to deal with this question. It established that Wong was a US citizen, but not whether he was an NBC.
The Naturalization Act of 1855.
"In 1855 allowed alien women to acquire citizenship by marrying a United States citizen, or upon his naturalization. A womans citizenship was directly tied to that of her husband. Women and children automatically received naturalization upon the husband or fathers naturalization. "
But, once again, like Elg, they are also considering the citizenship status of his father at the time of his birth when they came to that conclusion, as quoted from the case here:
"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."
So as the Court noted, he was a "native born citizen" whose father was a citizen of the U.S. before he was born. So then by all means, by virtue of those two factors, he could run for the Presidency. Those two factors together qualify him as a Article II natural born citizen per Vattel.
They made up their own definition to apply to the case at hand. The case has absolutely nothing to do with natural born citizen requirement to become president of the United States. Was the child a citizen, yes, that is what they ruled. Was the child running for president? No, this case had nothing to do with that.
Such is the import of any SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court only rules on the "case at hand", right?
The principle of judicial review was established over 200 years ago with a case about judicial appointments. But, that principle has been applied to every case since - almost all of which have NOTHING to do with judicial appointments.
This is why the Supremes are so judicious with the granting of cert, because despite the merits of the individual case before them, whatever they hold as a matter of law, will be applied to all subsequent cases. So, they cherry-pick the cases that best allow them to establish precedent. Thousands of appellants petition for certiorari, but about 100 (on average) are granted cert. Why is that?
If you ever have time, you should search for the number of cases where Roe v. Wade is cited, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion rights. You might be surprised how frequently Roe - and its principle of "right to privacy" comes up.
Good to see you answer the Steinkauler question for the moonbats.
Thanks for posting the Act. And for clarification, the children to which the Act refers would be children born before the father became naturalized since any children born after would be NBC’s.
It gets tiring pointing out the obvious, doesn’t it???
No. The statute of limitations (probably 2-7 years, depending on federal & state law at the time) would have expired years ago.
Aren’t the stats something like 100 in 5000 for cert?
You're right on. As Edwards Pierrepont wrote (it would have been in 1875 or 76),
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. I'm quite sure the Court would agree today, if they ever took a case.
One doesn't remove a President from office lightly. To override the decision by the people as accepted by Congress would require an "open/shut" case - and I don't see this as "open/shut".
The Supreme Court would not remove him even if they had an open/shut case. The Constitution requires them to leave the job of removal up to Congress.
I don't know if quite that many, although it may be. But the number is certainly north of 1K.
Yep. This is lost on so many. Most lay people don't understand that before a court will har a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that the remedy they are asking for (presuming that they prevail at trial), is actually something the court can provide.
No court can remove a sitting president, even if that president has been installed under fraudulent circumstances. This is why this case will never be heard for this term of Obama's presidency.
But, the court can provide a remedy for questions of ballot access for federal elections. Should Obama be precluded from a state ballot, then there is certainly a remedy the Court can apply, and is one of the reasons the case would be heard.
There is one other point of confusion for the opposition.
Many still do not understand that NOT all native born are natural born citizens. However, ALL natural born citizens are native born. The Supreme Court gave a very good background about Steinkauler because they described him as native born in the opinion for the reason not to confuse that he was ONLY a native born but also a natural born citizen.
hahaha - I almost said I should exclude Texas in this since they are very conservative on what they teach the kids. I’m sure there are schools that still adhere to these principals, I just have not seen it in my school system. My last child is now in 9th grade. One is in college and he loves bringing up alternate views to that of the teachers. He gets in some heated discussions and in some instances even gets the teachers and kids to see his point.
I’m very proud of him for speaking his mind.
No. Although my personal preference is La Quinta. And, as you may be aware, La Quinta is Spanish for "next to Denny's".
Standard birther canard. You can't give up your native born citizenship prior to attaining the age of majority. Nor can your parents give it up on your behalf.
They knew that a child not raised in this society would not have the reverence and respect for the history of the country.
I rather doubt the founders were that stupid. Do you suppose Marie Elg was not patriotic or something?
Of course, we know Obama isn't patriotic. But it isn't because he was raised by foreigners in foreign lands. He's a natural born red diaper baby. His communist education was at the hands of natural born American communists Gramps and Gramps's friend Frank Marshall Davis and later Billy Ayers and who knows who else. We have to rely on voters, not founders, to keep such as Obama out of the Oval Office.
So you think that one case that makes up its own term but still supports the use of Vattel should overturn a preponderance of Supreme Court cases that state that the Vattel definition was meant by the founders?
This is what I posted to Mr. Rogers a day or two ago:
Here is more information that those words that do not change hundreds of years of precedence.
Hopefully we have enough strict constructionists and non revisionists on the Supreme Court who understand that the people don’t want them to re-write the law, just interpret it.
As a matter of fact, there is dictum here in which this Court approves earlier dictum in Steinkauler that a person who becomes a citizen by right of birth in the US is eligible to run for president (Natural Born) even though his father was not a citizen.
Parental citizenship has ceased to be an issue because of the 14th Amedmdent.
And in fact, as I have pointed out, under current law in many of the Euro countries, where a grandfather who immigrates to the US and has a son born in the US who in turn has his own son born in the US; both the first generation son as well as the second generation grandson are both citizens of the Grandfather's country of birth (as well as "natural born" citizens of the US), even though they may not be aware of the fact.
None of this has been of great concern with respect to the Obama situation--at this point, everyone in the knowledgeable political establishment, as well as those of us who have studied the issue here know that Obama was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital, in Mombasa, in what is now modern Kenya.
You have a right to believe anything you choose. But there is no proof of this alleged adoption, and according to U.S. Law, a child cannot renounce his U.S. Citiizenship -- and we are talking of a child who lived in Indonesia from approximately age 6 though 10 -- hardly an age where a child can be held responsible for such an important decision.
You are referring to the Steinkauler case in which, like Elg, a child of a naturalized citizen father was removed to the home country of the parent.
The ambiguous usage of the term “native citizen” in Elg and Steinkauler does not support a dilution what we now increasingly understand to be an unambiguous Vattel definition used by the founders of “indignes” as “natural born citizen” meaning parents are citizens and born on national soil. All NBC’s are natives, but not all natives are NBC.
Elg and Steinkauler both had US citizen fathers, so there is no comparison to Obama. Under US law in effect when they were born their mothers were US citizens by marriage so both parents of Elg and Steinkauler were US citizens, unlike Obama.
Elg and Steinkauler were both born on US soil which is still in dispute due for Obama due to failure of Obama to release his original vital records and any amendments that might have been made to his original HI vital records.
One of the foremost authorities on semantic originalism Lawrence Solum, published a paper a few years ago that dealt with the semantic intent of "natural-born". It's a lengthy and somewhat heady piece, as it's written by an academic for the Michigan Law Review. But, in the article (titled ORIGINALISM AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE and which may be found at papers.ssrn.com), Solum posits that a natural-born citizen is any citizen born on American soil to at least one citizen-parent.
Now, if we have Solum, who is extremely well-regarded as an authority on original intent and semantic originalism (see his own legal theory blog), positing this meaning of "natural-born" by characterizing it as "beyond dispute", how do you think the originalists on the Court are going to hold?
I have seen plenty of blog postings from a myriad of pseudo-constitutional scholars or other lawyers of absolutely no note or standing claiming what is so frequently and fervently claimed here - that natural-born means born on US soil to two citizen-parents. But, I have never seen such a theory advanced in any American law journal - to include conservative journals or legal advocacy groups.
Antonin Scalia, Clearance Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all academics - conservative academics, but academics nonetheless; Cut from the same exact cloth as Solum. You can bet a year's salary that the four conservative justices mirror Solum on this particular matter of law.
So that is your real opposition, that some people believe the Supreme Court will reach down and find 0bama unqualified. I apologize. I agree that the court won’t just step in. I totally agree with you. It will take a state to decide this first and to deny 0bama access to the states voters. I don’t even think a small state like AZ will be enough. These birth place questions won’t do it either. Someone has to challenge him to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen in Florida or OH, for 0bama to notice.
0bama will ignore AZ he might even figure on losing TX anyway but he carried FL last time, he wouldn’t carry FL now, and since both FL houses are republican and will probably become even more republican after this next election, we should have a chance to get Natural Born Citizen through the state legislature.
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. 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.
Steinkauler's father was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth, just like Ms Elg's parents were. Both were native born (modern usage) and natural born.
BHO Jr's father was not a citizen. So even if he was native born, he was not natural born.
At some point the meanings of "native born" and "natural born" diverged. Prior to that they were pretty much synonomous. Even in Vattel's "Law of Nations" and many later instances, they are considered the same. (Vattel uses "Les Naturels ou Indigenes" to describe those born in a county of parents who are its citizens".
But they no longer are the same, but it's "native born" that has changed. Native born means "born in the country", and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.
I don't think he will, not as a practical matter.
In the modern era, I can't think of a single, major-party candidate - and certainly not an incumbent - who wasn't on the ballot in all 57 states ;)
If Obama is disallowed ballot access in a state, even AZ, because of his refusal to provide the appropriate documentation, that will be a HUGE story. In fact, I would say it would be the biggest election story in generations. He can't, as a practical political matter, ignore it.
The irony is he would be forced to be the plaintiff in the case that might (although unlikely) disqualify him from office.
Let’s hope you’re correct. I will feel a lot more confident though if FL challenges him as AZ has.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens
With Obama there is no “Proof” of anything.
Thats the friggin trouble.He has gone to great trouble and expense to hide any “Proof”
Now you can believe he just happened to hide all “proof” innocently if you like. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore it. But something is not right in this guy’s past.
Conservapedia says approximately 1% with less than 100 certs granted each year. That’s be 100 in 10,000?
Now I’m really curious.
Ms. Elg, was a natural born citizen, born in the US of parents who were, at the time, citizens. Same with Steinkauler. (Even though the quote from the case does not mention his mother's citizenship, at the time the wife took the citizenship of the husband upon marriage).
The cases are not parallel or comparable.
A particular native born citizen, who was also natural born, having US Citizen parents and having been born in the US.
“But they no longer are the same, but it’s “native born” that has changed. Native born means “born in the country”, and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.”
Where do you find legal support for this idea? If anything, I see the opposite - that natural born citizen may well have originally conveyed an idea different from native born, but by the time of Perkins v Elg, had become synonymous.
They are used interchangeably without notice in the decision.
And, for the purposes of this post, I’d be content if folks would agree that well-intentioned folks can honorably disagree on the correct meaning of NBC. At a minimum, I think it is clear that it doesn’t require malicious intent or hatred of country to conclude that the legal definition of NBC does not REQUIRE two citizens as parents.
One of the key problems is the from the establishment of the US Constitution and the Natural Born Citizenship was inherited from the Father. This only Changed in 1934. When you change the rules in the middle of the game, the players become confused. Before the 14th Amendment citizenship was granted at birth based upon their bloodline connection to US Citizen. After the 14th Amendment citizenship was granted by place of birth and/or bloodline. The problem of course is that the 14th Amendment changed the rules of citizenship without explaining how it was going to affect NBC status. So now that the 14th amendment has created another type of citizenship in addition to ius sanguinis (bloodline) citizenship, we have to ask which one of these is the one that confers NBC status? Bloodline, place of birth, or both? But the Constitution doesn't say that all citizenship types granted at birth confer NBC status.(If you just had to be born a citizen to be an NBC then why not say "native citizen" or only a "born a citizen" shall be eligible to the office of President? Why does the Constitution use the word "natural" born to qualify the statement? It suggests that the is a distinction between a "born citizen" and a "natural born" citizen.)
Nevertheless, the Constitution does not address the problem because the founders did not recognize ius soli (citizenship through place of birth) and the authors of the 14th amendment didn't think their wording through very well. This gets even more complicated if you start to ask questions about what the term "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means...because it suggests that ius soli itself has limitations on when it may be granted.
Assuming he was one or both of those to begin with.
One of which he was not, the other of which he may or may not have been.
An original birth certificate; and a photocopy of a birth certificate; both with impeccable provenance. As well as a wide range of statements by a number of persons with first hand knowledge. And admission by Obama on at least two occasions. If permitted to get that to a trier of fact with a justiciable issue, I would get most of that into evidence.
Yes, I think we know where he was born. Lots of trolls here to deny it but there isn't any doubt what the outcome would be if you ever got the issue to a trier of fact.
Ooops. Sorry about the grammar mistakes. It should read:
One of the key problems is that from the establishment of the US Constitution, Natural Born Citizenship was inherited from the Father.
I haven't had time to read the comments so perhaps someone has already answered the question. Both of my mother's parents were from Sweden. My grandfather became a US citizen, my grandmother did not automatically become naturalized through him, in fact never did become a citizen. My mother was born in 1921 so we're talking about the same period of time.
There are "previous cases" in which dicta gives the "born in the country of parents who are citizens" definition. None of them would need to be overturned, because none of them hinged on whether someone was or was not a natural born citizen.
However in both the cases you cite, the person was a natural born citizen, by the citizen parents and born in the nation definition.
Find a case where they declare someone not born of citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, and you'll have something more, but it will still be dicta.
Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a citizen, and was "native born" by modern usage, but was not declared to be natural born. His parents were subjects of the Empress of China.
The arguments for natural born citizen rest on where the natural allegiance of the individual lie. So lets compare Marie with Barry:
1 Marie’s parents were natives of Sweden, naturalized at her birth, who returned to Sweden and renounced US citizenship.
Barry’s parents were a split - born in the USA, and born in Kenya. Barry’s mother never gave up her US citizenship, while his father never claimed it.
2 Marie’s mother moved to Sweden with Marie when Marie was 4, and they both lived there as Swedish citizens for the next 17 years.
Barry’s father was not legally married to his mother, doesn’t seem to have ever lived with her as man & wife, left them completely when he was 2 or 3 and only saw Barry once during the remainder of his life.
3 Marie lived as a Swedish citizen for 17 years, while Barry has no record of ever renouncing US citizenship, and has retained his citizenship his entire life (as best as we can tell from any records). He certainly has never claimed UK or Kenyan citizenship.
So...who has claims of a stronger natural allegiance to the USA, Marie or Barry?
Yes, I agree that Barry is a severely warped individual who believes in Rev Wright’s and Bill Ayer’s teachings...but who would normally have greater natural allegiance to the USA - Marie or Barry?
I think that is how a court would approach this case, and I think the answer is clearly that Barry has more reason to love the USA than Marie had. That he doesn’t is due to his perversion - I don’t know how anyone can read Dreams without concluding that Barry needs serious counseling to help him get over his issues of abandonment, rejection and hatred.
But purely from the facts, who would naturally feel the greatest allegiance to the USA?
OTOH, I grant that I’m not a lawyer and certainly cannot say with certainty how the Supreme Court would approach this.
Why not? They do it all the time. As they should when that 50% + 1 will is in conflict with the Constitution.
this issue, IMHO, should be decided to firmly establish the law and set legal precedent.
Indeed they should. It's their FReaking job.
The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized
But then, you go on to say this:
Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.
Why don't you know? You provided it yourself, as a fact stated in the decision, at the beginning of your own article.
I've said before and I'll say it again, that I've long enjoyed your many lengthy and well-reasoned responses in defense of your religious beliefs on the Religion Forum. But, this, somehow, is completely out of your element. You've made an embarassing and very basic blunder.
You're also covering ground that has been covered much more thoroughly on Free Republic, on the vedritable avalanche of threads regarding the eligibility question that have been posted with replies into the tens of thousands, since early 2008.
You're capable of better than this, Mr. Rogers.
The long and the short of Elg is that she was a natural born citizen because both her parents were citizens and she was born in the United States. There is nothing controvertible in this decision that can be used in an attempt to deride the so-called "birther" Constitutional argument.
Natural born is more than "birth in the US. While the natural born citizen clause is an attempt to ensure allegiance, it's a technical process type requirement. One either meets the requirement or one does not. One either is natural born or is not. Ms Elg was, Mr. Obama is not.