The Law — Perkins v. ELG
One attorney, practicing in the federal courts, believes Leo Donofrio’s (NJ) case is actually looking pretty solid – read this article at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
This article points out that John A. Bingham, the Framer of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizen as follows: “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.” Obama, whose father was a British subject, had dual nationalities at birth, and thus would not be considered a natural born citizen. The definition above is only Bingham’s opinion, but it is certainly on point. There is not a clear definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution, so the issue is “ripe” for consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It would not be surprising if four of the justices vote to give Donofrio’s case a full hearing.
Here is an updated case that gives examples of the citizenship classification. The case is Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). It expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s case definition of nationality (below). But the key is this case gives examples of what a citizen of the US is and what a native-born citizen (or natural born citizen) of the US is. Attached is the case with highlights.
|
Facts
|
Supreme Court Holding
|
Citizenship Matrix
|
|
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. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).
|
Elg is a citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).
|
1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute)
AND
Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)
|
|
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. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
|
‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
|
2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute)
AND
Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)
|
The Democratic Party is engaged in nothing short of a coup d’état, defined as the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part of the state establishment
These two cases alone would sink the Obama ship. What’s extremely interesting is the Steinkauler case, although I can’t be completely sure if I’m interpreting it correctly:
Although the child’s mother was a born US citizen (presumably even natural-born) and the father Steinkauler a naturalized citizen (i.e. a US citizen), the child still did not qualify for “natural born”, only for “native born”, i.e. as a standard “born citizen” (Jus soli).
The reason might be that although Steinkauler discarded his German citizenship for US citizenship, he remained under jurisdiction of the German emperor. These monarchical loyalties are often binding and lifelong. (I read that this also applies in British Nationality law, but I might be wrong.) So, discarding citizenship does not necessarily mean that it automatically abolishes your loyalty (i.e. foreign subjection).
So Father-Steinkauler, although naturalized, did not qualify as a “natural citizen”, because he was not under sole US jurisdiction. So logically, his child can’t be a natural born citizen, only “born”, only “native”.
This interpretation (which might be wrong!) would then also mean that Barack Obama is STILL a subject of the British crown, although his British citizenship transformed into Kenyan citizenship and then expired.
Can anyone confirm or rebut this?
we shall know (or mayhap we shan’t) in 4 more days. I believe the United States of America adopted the agreement of dual citizenship for naturalization cases and on a side note allowed conscience objectors to pick and choose which part of the Oath of Allegiance to swear by the new citizens after 1980. Before that America was rigidly against dual citizenships. Puerto Rico was kind of an exception being the island a FREE ASSOCIATED STATE which citizens were granted American citizenship by default (anyone feel free to correct me on that). If indeed Mr. Barack Hussein Obama produces a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii for his reported date of birth and his Kenyan citizenship had expired by decree, it could still be argued that he was born as a native but not as a natural of Hawaii on the nick of time.SCOTUS has its work cut out for it and it doesn’t help the president elect to disparage any of the Justices, regardless of their ideological leaning.
Obama is Not Elected UNTIL the Electorial college votes. The SCOTUS guys can take Obama off the Electorial list of Candidates for which to vote.
The founding Fathers were Smarter than any DNC member.
As Obbama stated about his Illegal Alien aunt in Boston . . . the Law has to be followed.
WE THE PEOPLE- STOP RIGHT THERE. WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU QUOTE THE THIS PRECIOUS DOCUMENT? WHY NOT ITS NOT THE GOVERMENTS JOB TO POLICE THEM ITS US CITZENS TO WATCH THEM AND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE. LAST I CHECKED WE HIRE THEM AND THEN MEDIA THEM ITS REALLY ALL TO SIMPLE
This is exactly how I read the constitution and these two cases are perfect.
Case 1: 1 US citizen and 1 foreign parent = child that is a US citizen when born in the United States.
Case 2: 1 US citizen and 1 naturalized citizen of the United states = 1 child born in the US as a natural born.
The first case the child is born of a parent that has dual allegiances thus splitting the childs allegiance. The 2nd case both parents have allegiances only to our country. The constitution states a child born of US citizens in the plural meaning both parents must have allegiance only to the United States. They can’t rule this any other way!
[…] Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a “native born citizen” (see, “The Law — Perkins v. ELG,” blog, The Betrayal). […]
The record of the case shows that Marie Elizabeth Elg was a native born US citizen. Are you suggesting otherwise?
What is the difference between a Native born citizen and a Natural born citizen? Confused now, people are saying that they are one and they same.
In fact, in Perkins v. Elg 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. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’.
RiskyWaters: The terms natural/native have often been used interchangeably. For the purpose of the question of resolving presidential eligibility there is no difference. Take for example this line from Perkins v. Elg:
“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;”
Steinkauler -identified as Native-Born- is deemed eligible by the Court even-though the word Natural-Born is used in Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Elg makes no distinction between the words native and natural.
(As you no doubt know, Article II says, in the relevant part: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;[…]” )
“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;”
That was an Attorney General speaking, not SCOTUS or even the courts. And the ruling did not specifically acknowledge the equivalence of native and natural, merely the restoration of the rights he had at birth (when his father was a citizen, and her mother a deemed citizen by simple virtue of marriage, according to the laws at the time.) But he had to (and did) immediately return to the US at majority (age 21) and formally claim his citizenship.
Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen, and left the country forever when Barack was 2.
did obama ever “elect” to reclaim his US citizenship when he reached the majority?
whatever , the heck, that means?
I guess OBama would argue he wouldn’t have to do that, despite the cases above saying otherwise?
where’s his oath of allegiance?
obama is not elected until
1 - electoral college votes
and
2 - congress ratifies, with VP Cheney oversight. And since over 150,000 letters/emails have been sent to our representatives there is a provision in the Constitution for them to object. Now if the SCourt doesn’t resolve this by then, and not a single rep objects then we know something is up.
3- finally, Chief Justice swears him in.
4- not going to got here now, but there are other measures AFTER a “usurper” is elected and the truth of the matter is still not decides with “dismissals without comment”, ‘tossing things under the rug”, “20+ existing lawsuits ignored or tossed without addressing the issue (YOU HAVE NO STANDING!, Clerk at SCOURT didn’t file the right paperwork, jabberwocky, etc.)
I know this is a dead issue at this point, but the “citizenship matrix” outlined above is wrong.
In fact, in the Elg case, the Supreme Court AND the Court of Appeals that was upheld by the Supreme Court used the same phrase to describe Ms. Elg:
“Natual Born Citizen”
Done. Period.
Don’t be confused and misled!
Obama at birth was a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar. His paternal grandfather’s lawyer got
him out of prison in 1951 from his 1949 conviction for
taking a Mau Mau oath in violation of the Kenyan
Penal Code. Note the 1949 conviction was based in
part that grandpa Obama being a Subject of George VI.
Therefore, Barack H. Obama II is a Subject of Sultan
Jamshed of Zanzibar now located in Portmouth, England. Remember Sultan Jamshed is a foreign
prince. Forget Elizabeth II, the Subject relationship
at birth was Zanzibar and not the English. Bottom
line, in my talk with Donofrio from Kreep’s office, I
rejected the Kenya Connection that Leo was claiming,
since we read the Zanzibar Nationality Decree with
the British Nationaliity Act 1948 together.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.