Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
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
Vattel
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.
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.