Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
All I can say to all of the haters on both sides...


Just because you believe something to be true.. does not make it true.


Oh the Arrogance of Conviction.

Very true, I agree completely with this, but opinions are subjective, aren't they?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
All I can say to all of the haters on both sides...

Just because you believe something to be true.. does not make it true.

Oh the Arrogance of Conviction.

How about the arrogance of making such a judgemental and off-topic post at the bottom of a long page of carefully reasoned arguments from both sides ...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Oh the Arrogance of Conviction.

Oh the Consequence of Ignorance.

Haters???

Puhleeease. Those who seek to write off intelligent discussion on this matter as sour grapes or partisan agenda don't really belong on ATS. And it's a pretty lame way out of answering logical questions. Go to the BTS rant forum and spit it out. That's what it's there for.

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Their filings mean nothing. A plaintiff can put whatever they want in a filing; it doesn't mean the contents of that filing are absolutely the objective truth.

Oh, so precedent law, and other case citing, as well as legal definitions, etc found in the filings are nothing to you? If you won't even look at what has already been offered, repeatedly throughout 4-5 threads in this forum, why would having it presented to you one more time make any difference to you?

A judgement creates a precedent. A filing most assuredly does not.
Legal definitions within the filings mean nothing until they are tested in court.

Thank you for your question. I am happy to assist you.

You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:

1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.

Dunham was only 18 - you do the math :-)

The implication you appear to have missed is that you may claim citizenship on either one of the above grounds.
The first applies to those born within the U.S.
The second applies only to those born outside the U.S.
Therefore, as Obama was born in Hawaii, the age of his mother is irrelevant.

reply to post by Kailassa


1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

This portion of the law had not changed over the years.


1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.

Obama's father was NOT a citizen, his mother was unable to convey citizenship according to the law at the time. By having dual citizenship, Obama was not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States.

reply to post by redhatty


Since it's not defined in the Constitution and most of those rulings are fairly ancient by today's standards, wouldn't you say they'd be more than open to judicial review?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by redhatty

 

Since it's not defined in the Constitution and most of those rulings are fairly ancient by today's standards, wouldn't you say they'd be more than open to judicial review?

Isn't that basically what Donofrio and Wrotnowski's cases could have made happen - if SCOTUS had had the stones to even review it on the merits that is.

As it stands (and I don't consider 1961 ancient by any standards - though I did not check exactly what post you were referring to) those are still the only references/definitions we have to go on, until a court gets around to making a clearer definition.

Originally posted by redhatty
Oh, so precedent law, and other case citing, as well as legal definitions, etc found in the filings are nothing to you? If you won't even look at what has already been offered, repeatedly throughout 4-5 threads in this forum, why would having it presented to you one more time make any difference to you?

I'm not looking at 4-5 threads. I'm looking at this thread. And frankly I haven't been concerned with so-called "precedent" because most of the anti-Obama posters, including yourself, seem to jump back and forth repeatedly and run around in circles on the exact reasons for your belief Obama isn't eligible and it's getting hard to follow.

Nope, sure can't - previous law is not easily found on the internet - it is found in law libraries though.

So basically you don't really know what the law is either. Just as you chastise me for "blindly" believing Obama and the evidence I've seen thus far, you don't really have any direct evidence yourself--not even case law from 1961 you insist exists and bolsters your case, but can't provide.

Berg researched the pertinent law in his filing - while many other parts of Berg filing are ridiculous and Berg did not follow proper procedure, this one piece of information has not been disputed by anyone who has looked over his case

How do you know? You admit he's made mistakes. You admit "parts of the Berg filing are ridiculous and Berg did not follow proper procedure" but you're willing to take this one part as established fact? And you can't even provide the law, in context, as written so as to judge for yourself? And yet you still accuse others of making excuses for Obama?

EXCELLENT!!!! Did you read the answer to the question on the link YOU provided?

Matter of fact, I did!!

Thank you for your question. I am happy to assist you.

You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:

1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.

2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.

Except: Oh wait, I found the law! Would you care to read it?

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Emphasis added.

Source

What this means, for the comprehension impaired, is that the law you're quoting specifically applies ONLY to children born outside the United States and its outlying possessions, AND who have one citizen parent and one foreign national parent.

You have stated this:

Where have you been, I argue that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii.

This has now been debunked.

If Obama was born in Hawaii he is a Natural-Born Citizen. Period.

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

To this I would respond with a basic overview of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649, 1898).

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

Yes, it's Wiki, but it's the best place to find a good overview.

Here's more from Cornell.

Essentially US v WKA renders Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Satutes effectively moot.

“The Law of Nations,”

in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.

BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution

It's also not U.S. law and is essentially moot in regards to the practical application of such, especially in this case. This isn't about pet theories about how you think immigration and citizenship laws are "supposed" to be, it's about what they actually are. US v WKA pretty much sums it up in my opinion, and unless your pal Scalia is willing to make a new challenge to that settled case, it should be considered the binding precedent in this matter.

not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.

You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

I don't have to. US v WKA does that for me.

That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?

Nope. Not at all.



[edit on 12/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

Originally posted by redhatty
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.

Obama's father was NOT a citizen, his mother was unable to convey citizenship according to the law at the time. By having dual citizenship, Obama was not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States.

EXCEPT that in Montana v. Kennedy, the petitioner in question was born outside the United States--Italy, to be exact. Obama was born in Hawaii, which was a State in 1961. Thus he is a natural-born citizen regardless of his father being a resident alien. Apples and oranges.

Relevant text:

Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.

Emphasis mine.

Source

If you're going to quote precedent make sure you know what the case is actually about.



[edit on 12/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

reply to post by The Nighthawk


WKA granted citizenship, not natural-born citizenship.

And exactly what do YOU think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means?

For the record, I have never "chastized" anyone here. I strongly believe that everyone is the owner of their own opinion and free to them. I HAVE tried to carry on an intellectual debate, without strawmen arguments and ad-hominem attacks

I also guess you missed this

1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.

Obama had to 1) be born in Hawaii and 2) be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth to be a natural born citizen. By having dual citizenship he does not meet #2.

Not debunked

WKA does not "renders Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes effectively moot"

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

NOWHERE in the opinion does it state "natural-born" referring to Ark's citizenship situation.

The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

WKA essentially created 3 types of citizenship

1) Natural-Born
2) at-birth
3) naturalized

Of course, you are free to view it differently, that is your right

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

SHE CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW.

"Hmm, I'm not allowed to show the Birth Certificate, but I can read it word for word...." No, I don't think so.

Why don't you try reading?

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Irish M1ck]

LOOK MICK! YOU SAY OBAMA IS BORN AT THAT HOSPITAL! OBAMA SAYS HE WAS BORN THERE IN HAWAII SO WHAT FREAKIN INFO ARE WE ASKING ABOUT THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO VERIFY UNLESS THE DAMN THING SAYS HE WAS BORN ELSE WHERE? WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE!

NONE! BUT ONLY IF IT WAS STATING THE SAME THING AND IT IS OBVIOUS IT DOESN'T!

reply to post by Aermacchi


No. You are not listening. This woman cannot tell us anything about what's on the birth certificate. There are laws in place, and for good reason.

She said all she was able to say without breaking the law.

Originally posted by redhatty
. . . . .

In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:

not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?

Are you , despite frequent tutorials you have been given in these threads, still completely oblivious as to current American law?

Justia> Law> US Law> US Code>
TITLE 8 — ALIENS AND NATIONALITY>
CHAPTER 12 — IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY>
SUBCHAPTER III — NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION>
PART I — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION>
§ 1401. — Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Jurisdiction = laws

Are you trying to tell us that having a parent with foreign citizenship prevents a person residing in America being subject to American law?

Oh, sorry, tax office. I don't feel like paying tax because my father was Australian!
No way, Monsieur le Policeman, I'm not paying a speeding fine, my father was Canadian!



American law still has jurisdiction over residents with foreign nationals as parents and over people with dual citizenship, so these people have to still pay up.

If you are a foreign diplomat, or a visiting head of State, then American law is generally not applied to you.
These people are generally not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of America.

“The Law of Nations,”
in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.
www.fed-soc.org...

BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution

Proof please? I'd like to see an article citing Scalia referring to this actual book, rather than to The Law of Nations in general.

This book was written by a Frenchman in 1758.
It is not law, not even in France.

In the early days of America only a white person could be naturalised as an American and a mother's citizenship was irrelevant when considering the citizenship of her child. Both of these laws have been changes because America has been growing out of the dark ages.

To quote Justice Scalia on the subject:

Justice Scalia wrote this year in a dissenting opinion,
by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, the court
should “cease putting forth foreigners’ views as part of the
reasoned basis of its decisions. To invoke alien law when it
agrees with one’s own thinking and ignore it otherwise is not
reasoned decision-making but sophistry.”

Its author, Emerich de Vattel, stated: "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This notion of a father's citizenship being the only one to matter has already been overturned by American courts as sexual discrimination.

So sorry, but the wording of an old, outdated book is not law.

In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:

not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?

It did at the time, but law changes.
This was superceded by:

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1870 (the exact time is uncertain due to discrepancies among the various sources). In 1895, upon his return from a visit to China, he was refused entry by US customs officials, who asserted that despite his having been born in the US, he was a subject of the Chinese emperor and not a US citizen.

At this time, US law (the "Chinese Exclusion Acts") severely limited Chinese immigration and barred people of Chinese ancestry from becoming naturalized US citizens -- and it was argued, on this basis, that Wong was ineligible to be considered a US citizen, in spite of his having been born in the US.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on a 6-2 vote that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a US citizen. The court cited the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born (or naturalized) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Although the original motivation for this language in the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for the freed Negro slaves, the court held that the clause clearly applied to "all persons", regardless of their race or national origin.


Notice?

In Wong Kim Ark, the courts found that this son of non-naturalised Chinese residents was subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (of America,) and thus an American citizen.

Originally posted by redhatty

1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here.

The court did not make this ruling on the basis of laws in effect at the time of the case.
The ruling was made on the basis of the laws in effect at the time of the petitioner's birth, in 1906.

(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who "now are, or have been," citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective.

When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens.

The relevant law was changed in 1934.

On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child's birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of "resided" continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.

reply to post by Kailassa

Originally posted by Kailassa
The court did not make this ruling on the basis of laws in effect at the time of the case.
The ruling was made on the basis of the laws in effect at the time of the petitioner's birth, in 1906.

That is kinda the point many posters have made, though it's been pretty much ignored by everyone. If any of the cases about Obama are actually heard and decided upon by SCOTUS, they have to base their decision on the laws that were in effect at the time of his birth not what the laws say today. (Perhaps "have to" is too strong of a phrase, but they are supposed to.) It doesn't matter what the law said after he was born, it's what it said at the time he was born that matters.

Edit to add: Both Hawaiian and Federal laws at the time of his birth are what counts. Figured I'd clarify that I meant both.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Originally posted by Kailassa
The court did not make this ruling on the basis of laws in effect at the time of the case.
The ruling was made on the basis of the laws in effect at the time of the petitioner's birth, in 1906.

That is kinda the point many posters have made, though it's been pretty much ignored by everyone. If any of the cases about Obama are actually heard and decided upon by SCOTUS, they have to base their decision on the laws that were in effect at the time of his birth not what the laws say today. (Perhaps "have to" is too strong of a phrase, but they are supposed to.) It doesn't matter what the law said after he was born, it's what it said at the time he was born that matters.

Edit to add: Both Hawaiian and Federal laws at the time of his birth are what counts. Figured I'd clarify that I meant both.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Jenna]

True.

I've noticed you seem to go by facts and look at the actual evidence and laws concerned, rather than copy/pasting stuff without understanding it or making stuff up as you go.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Are you , despite frequent tutorials you have been given in these threads, still completely oblivious as to current American law?

As you acknowledge above, current law does not matter, what does matter is the law in effect at the time that Obama was born.

Are you trying to tell us that having a parent with foreign citizenship prevents a person residing in America being subject to American law?

No but it does cause the person to be subject to another authority also, which would leave it to a court to decide which authority is truly governing should an offense occur, therefor, since 2 different authorities (countries) have jurisdiction, the person cannot be a "natural-born citizen" "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

If the decision of which country has jurisdiction must be decided by a court, it is not a Natural-born situation

Proof please? I'd like to see an article citing Scalia referring to this actual book, rather than to The Law of Nations in general.

Scalia on page 17 in his footnote 10 cited to the Law of Nations as an aid to Constitutional interpretation. That is an actual SCOTUS Opinion - is that good enough proof for you?

So sorry, but the wording of an old, outdated book is not law.

No, but the out-dated wording of our Country's founding documents IS LAW. Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world's first constitutional republic.

In Wong Kim Ark, the courts found that this son of non-naturalised Chinese residents was subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (of America,) and thus an American citizen.

Yes it did find Ark to be a citizen, but NOWHERE does it say Ark was a Natural-Born Citizen. And according to our constitution, that is a requirement for eligibility to be POTUS.

Also note that there were very restrictive laws in place at the time WKA took place - in regards to Chinese Persons - it took the SCOTUS to even give any form of citizenship to Ark.

SCOTUS won't even touch the cases dealing with Obama - not with a ten foot pole so far, so, whether we like it or not, the controversy remains just that - controversial.

Edit to add:

the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.

From U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 See top of page 9.

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States."

The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark merely observed that: "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'"

NOTE - it does NOT say "natural-born"

IN fact, in Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

See the difference? In Elg, the parents were both Naturalized before the child was born, hence the child became "natural-born" and not even the actions of her parents could change that.

This is not the situation for Obama, his father NEVER became naturalized before his birth, hence, there is no way that Obama can be considered a "natural-born citizen" for Constitutional purposes


[edit on 12/16/08 by redhatty]

[edit on 12/17/08 by redhatty]

Originally posted by redhatty
WKA granted citizenship, not natural-born citizenship.

If you're a citizen at birth, doesn't that logically make you a "natural-born citizen"?

And exactly what do YOU think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means?

Jurisdiction

I don't see anything at all about deciding citizenship based on the father's nationality in there.

Fact: Obama's father was a student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. In order for him to attend a university in the U.S. he would have needed a student visa. As such he would, logically, have been under the legal jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii and the United States.

I also guess you missed this

1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.

Obama had to 1) be born in Hawaii and 2) be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth to be a natural born citizen. By having dual citizenship he does not meet #2.

As I've already said, and you apparently glossed over, Montana v. Kennedy specifically refers to children born outside the United States, NOT to those born within the geographical limits of the U.S. and its territories.

Read it again.

And again, just to make sure you understand.

Not debunked

Then what would you call it?

Obama only needs to have been born in Hawaii. There is no legal precedent thus found, relevant to laws on the books in 1961, stating that both his father and mother had to be U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, with the exception of the Bayard ruling (and that was from a case where the father did not actually reside in the U.S.--Obama's father did reside in the U.S. from 1959-1965 and was married to a U.S. citizen, arguably making him a permanent resident).

I'd like to know more about Bayard but there seems to be no credible source material I can find covering the complete details of the case; only the same snippets from the case that you've posted here (and obviously cut-and-pasted directly from right-wing partisan websites; like they'd never intentionally spin obscure case law that cannot be easily verified by the general public without access to a law library). I can also find no details on Savage v. Umphries (Humphries?) aside from those same websites. In any case WKA supersedes Bayard.

WKA does not "renders Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes effectively moot"

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

NOWHERE in the opinion does it state "natural-born" referring to Ark's citizenship situation.

He was born in the U.S. and his citizenship was granted (after being taken away) based on the circumstance of his birth on U.S. soil. How is that not "natural-born"?

The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

And WKA was decided in 1898. It supersedes the Elk v. Wilkins ruling as well.

WKA essentially created 3 types of citizenship

1) Natural-Born
2) at-birth
3) naturalized

According to what recognized legal standard? You keep saying "think like a lawyer" but lawyers don't pull new definitions of legal terms out of their rear ends whenever they find it convenient to do so.

Of course, you are free to view it differently, that is your right

I view it logically, and to the best of my abilities (not being a lawyer myself) I do so based on legal principles and precedent. Where is it noted, in any law dictionary or in any legally-binding interpretation of Constitutional principles, that there are 3 types of citizenship?

Fact is, since WKA the 14th Amendment, both in principle and in practice, has been interpreted to mean any person born on U.S. soil is indeed a citizen at birth, which is in practice the definition of a "natural-born citizen". You can try to deny this all you want, but so far all my research points to this being the case.

Now maybe the term "natural-born citizen" needs to be defined and clarified by the Congress and the Supreme Court. It took the SCOTUS over 200 years to define exactly who "The People" are in terms of the Second Amendment, so don't hold your breath on that.

Unless and until that happens we have the policy as it is practiced today, and as it has been for 110 years.

To use the strict definition you seem to prefer, frankly somewhere around one-third (if not more) of what is generally considered the natural-born U.S. population would not actually be "natural-born", and in fact would not be citizens at all because not having been natural-born nor having taken steps toward naturalization (because obviously they didn't know they needed to) they would essentially be aliens. I'd like to see you try to explain that one to the American people.

And you know what? IF your definition is correct (the best evidence points to the contrary) and Obama is ineligible based on this obscure 19th Century meaning of "jurisdiction" you want to cling to, it's entirely possible he wouldn't even be aware of it--just like the countless other Americans who would be affected by said definition.

But it doesn't matter, does it?

First it was "the BC on the Web is a fraud".

Then it was "show us the vault copy".

Then it was "his grandma said he was born in Kenya".

As these are debunked it switches to obscure case law nobody can independently verify without access to a law library to challenge the basis of his citizenship regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or not. I've been picking that crap apart all day.

What will it be tomorrow?

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
If you're a citizen at birth, doesn't that logically make you a "natural-born citizen"?

Apparently not necessarily according to U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 referenced in my previous post. Natural born, statutory, and nationalized. Obama would be a statutory citizen.

Jurisdiction

I don't see anything at all about deciding citizenship based on the father's nationality in there.

And why should you - the question was jurisdiction. As your link clearly says

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons.

Obama (via Fight the Smears) openly admitted his dual-citizenship status at-birth, which reinforces that he is a statutory, rather than natural-born citizen.

Fact: Obama's father was a student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. In order for him to attend a university in the U.S. he would have needed a student visa. As such he would, logically, have been under the legal jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii and the United States.

A student visa is a guest visa program, while yes, you are expected to follow the laws of this country and the respective state you are in, should you for legal reasons break the guest contract endowed upon you by the student visa, you are deported to your home country who has full jurisdiction over you.

As a guest in this country, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because you are not a US citizen (subject)

As I've already said, and you apparently glossed over, Montana v. Kennedy specifically refers to children born outside the United States, NOT to those born within the geographical limits of the U.S. and its territories.

The only point I was making with this reference is that it held up the fact that citizenship is conveyed by the father. I realize that in that case it was dealing with a child born abroad, and at that time, the mother did not convey citizenship. Since you pointed out that this case was superseded, I will not use it again.

Obama only needs to have been born in Hawaii. There is no legal precedent thus found, relevant to laws on the books in 1961, stating that both his father and mother had to be U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, with the exception of the Bayard ruling (and that was from a case where the father did not actually reside in the U.S.--Obama's father did reside in the U.S. from 1959-1965 and was married to a U.S. citizen, arguably making him a permanent resident).

And if you were a judge presiding over the case, you might make such a ruling, but to date, that is not the case, whether by you or anyone else.

I'd like to know more about Bayard but there seems to be no credible source material I can find covering the complete details of the case; only the same snippets from the case that you've posted here

I am not aware that I have posted anything on Bayard, but I may be mistaken. If I did, it was not intentional, your mention of it is the first time I've searched for it. I did find this reference about a quarter of the page down, on top and below of where it has "280 NATIONALITY. [ 373."

He was born in the U.S. and his citizenship was granted (after being taken away) based on the circumstance of his birth on U.S. soil. How is that not "natural-born"?

See the difference in the rulings as pointed out above in my previous post

And WKA was decided in 1898. It supersedes the Elk v. Wilkins ruling as well.

Elk v. Wilkins is the precedent for "subject to the jurisdiction of" definition, not statutory v natural born. It was pointed out for further clarification. Sorry you couldn't see that.

According to what recognized legal standard? You keep saying "think like a lawyer" but lawyers don't pull new definitions of legal terms out of their rear ends whenever they find it convenient to do so.

According to U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - see reference in the previous post

I view it logically, and to the best of my abilities (not being a lawyer myself) I do so based on legal principles and precedent. Where is it noted, in any law dictionary or in any legally-binding interpretation of Constitutional principles, that there are 3 types of citizenship?

ibid :-)

Fact is, since WKA the 14th Amendment, both in principle and in practice, has been interpreted to mean any person born on U.S. soil is indeed a citizen at birth, which is in practice the definition of a "natural-born citizen". You can try to deny this all you want, but so far all my research points to this being the case.

And my research has shown that it is a very gray area full of murky mess, which is exactly why I wish that the current SCOTUS would grow some stones and give a definitive ruling on the matter. But that isn't going to happen for the simple fact that NO COURT at this time has subject matter jurisdiction over this.

To use the strict definition you seem to prefer, frankly somewhere around one-third (if not more) of what is generally considered the natural-born U.S. population would not actually be "natural-born", and in fact would not be citizens at all because not having been natural-born nor having taken steps toward naturalization (because obviously they didn't know they needed to) they would essentially be aliens. I'd like to see you try to explain that one to the American people.

Wouldn't be my job to explain it to the people, but it sure would cut back the number of "anchor babies" and their parents who are getting free food, subsidized housing and free medical care via my (and your) tax dollars.

Congress has tried at least twice to make this point clear via Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 698) and H.R. 1940, entitled the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, although neither of them have been successful

And you know what? IF your definition is correct (the best evidence points to the contrary) and Obama is ineligible based on this obscure 19th Century meaning of "jurisdiction" you want to cling to, it's entirely possible he wouldn't even be aware of it--just like the countless other Americans who would be affected by said definition.

Ignorance of the law is no defense - even a non-law student know that

Yes there are many questions and many different opinions regarding the eligibility of Obama, and unless Congress at this point, decides to question it on Jan 6th, 2009, they will remain unanswered questions that for many in this nation will taint his presidency. It is a shame, but it is reality.

I honestly hope that you are completely correct, that Obama is truly a natural-born citizen and that nothing in the future will be revealed to conclusively disprove it. Because the repercussions of a later finding that his presidency was a fraud are worse than anything I can imagine.

If only the Obama supporters were as adamant about healing the rift as they are about belittling those who have doubts, maybe they could use their voice to help find a way to put the questions to rest definitively and finally.

Edit to fix minor typo and tags

[edit on 12/17/08 by redhatty]