US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

Originally posted by danx
I don't see how the Supreme Court will agree to Donofrio's argument.

I don't either. Wong WON the case and was declared a citizen.

Wikipedia

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.

Secondly, the Wong case was SPECIFIC to Chinese.

In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.

This has nothing to do with Kenya...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Just throwing crap and hoping it sticks - like I said earlier. They have literally brought up lawsuits against everyone possible and about anything possible.

It is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.

*Edit:

Mark my words. They will attempt to keep Obama in court over one thing or another for the next 4-8 years (just like they did to Clinton). Then, once it is over, they will criticize him for not doing more - somehow forgetting that he was distracted by frivolous lawsuits most of the time.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Secondly, the Wong case was SPECIFIC to Chinese.

You are right, and in this in particular to make things worse at the time, as you've shown, there was actually a federal law prohibiting Chinese people from becoming US citizens.

The Supreme Court shut that down.

This has nothing to do with Kenya...

Also, Obama's situation differs in the fact that one of his parents was a US citizen, and a "natural born" one at that. Wong's parents were both Chinese.

reply to post by danx


Thanks for the direct link to the ruling.

I re-read it, and while it is quite verbose, using many different cases to support it's arguments, the ultimate ruling is this:

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for by our law, as solemnly declared by congress, 'the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,' and 'any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States, which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent wth the fundamental principles of the republic.' Rev. St. 1999, re-enacting Act July 27, 1868, c. 249, 1 ( 15 Stat. 223, 224). Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, during his minority, could have the same effect, is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about 17 years old, and the otherf or something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States; and 'that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [169 U.S. 649, 705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.'

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Which, ironically, never quite clearly states that Wong Kim Ark was from that point on, considered a "natural-born" citizen, just that Ark's citizenship began "at-birth."

Gotta go back through that because now I'm at one of those "Hmmmmm" moments

reply to post by Gools


Maybe it will be revealed that Obama is not legally allowed to be the President of the United States, Inaguration cancelled, civil unrest, Martial Law declared, Bush stays in power.

reply to post by danx


If I'm not mistaken, both parents have to be United States citizens in order for the child to be a U.S. citizen by default. In this case, only Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen.

reply to post by dankai


You are mistaken. Neither parent does. If the child is born in a US territory, he is a naturalized citizen. Two Hispanics can move to the US, have a child, and that child is a US citizen by birth.

Originally posted by redhatty
I re-read it, and while it is quite verbose, using many different cases to support it's arguments, the ultimate ruling is this:

Which, ironically, never quite clearly states that Wong Kim Ark was from that point on, considered a "natural-born" citizen, just that Ark's citizenship began "at-birth."

Exactly. That was what I was alluding to yesterday when I said the Supreme Court had never pronounced on "natural born" citizen specifically. Wong just wanted to be considered a US citizen, not a "natural born" citizen.

However, they talk extensively about it on that case. Two Justices in fact, disagreed and from what I understand they shared the view expressed on that federalist blog post, that a "natural born" citizen was someone who, at birth, owed allegiance to the United States, and the United States alone.

The problem is that since that is the opinion of the minority, it has no legal validity.

But as they wrote then, since the Constitution only contemplates two sources of citizenship (birth and naturalization), the only logical conclusion is that a "natural born" citizen is someone who is a US citizen at birth.

At the time, if I remember correctly, people born outside the United States, provided a few requirements, were declared US citizens (through legislation). I believe this falls under the definition of naturalization.

Under current law, however, a person born outside the US, provided a few requirements, are US citizens at birth.

Title 8 US Code Section 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

reply to post by danx


I wonder if this case will ultimately give a legal definition of "Natural-born citizen," IF the case is even heard by SCOTUS.

Is there really a legal difference TODAY between at-birth citizen and natural-born citizen?

I understand the arguments of the founders and framers, and like you, I think that the conflicts they feared are not relevant today. Although... there may be a difference of opinion by MANY others if, instead of British or Kenyan dual citizenship, Iranian or Iraqi dual citizenship was what was in question. Especially in light of recent history.

[to clarify, I proudly wear a 9 layer tin-foil hat in my personal belief that 9/11 was an inside job]

It's a mess, that much I am sure of. Whether or not this mess will ever get cleaned up is the question.

Donofrio has a strong valid argument with the candidacy of Roger Calero, but will the court see his argument as strong with McCain and Obama? Hopefully we will know tomorrow.

Originally posted by danx
that federalist blog post,

Can one of you provide a link to that post? I have been looking for it and I can't find it. I think it was redhatty's?

I believe "citizens at birth" and "natural-born citizens" are the same thing. It will be interesting to see what unfolds tomorrow.

Thanks for all the information you guys have been finding. Great job!

Originally posted by dankai
Maybe it will be revealed that Obama is not legally allowed to be the President of the United States, Inaguration cancelled, civil unrest, Martial Law declared, Bush stays in power.

That cannot happen. Section 3 of the 20th Amendment:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Originally posted by dankai
If I'm not mistaken, both parents have to be United States citizens in order for the child to be a U.S. citizen by default. In this case, only Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen.

Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Code is the law governing and determining who is a citizen. The situations contemplated there, are the only ones that matter.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
If the child is born in a US territory, he is a naturalized citizen.

Depends on what you mean by US territory. But if a child is born in the United States, he is a US citizen at birth, not naturalized.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can one of you provide a link to that post? I have been looking for it and I can't find it. I think it was redhatty's?

Here it is. It was on this post by redhatty

I believe "citizens at birth" and "natural-born citizens" are the same thing. It will be interesting to see what unfolds tomorrow.

That is my understanding as well. As I've said before, since the Constitution only contemplates two sources of citizenship (at birth and naturalization), a "natural born" citizen can only apply to those who are US citizens by virtue of mere birth.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The Federalist Blog is the main site, with Defining "natural-born citizen" as the first visual post, although I also referenced this post from the same site
Edit to add: This post was also referenced, specifically with the Wong Kim Ark ruling

[edit on 12/4/08 by redhatty]

reply to post by danx


That's not what has been generally accepted as far as I know:

What is a Natural-Born Citizen?

* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

I suppose that is just one interpretation, but after further investigation, the general idea of what a "naturalized citizen" is seems to be fairly murky. I doubt that anyone would invalidate Obama on those grounds due to the subject being so unclear.

Originally posted by redhatty
I wonder if this case will ultimately give a legal definition of "Natural-born citizen," IF the case is even heard by SCOTUS.

I hope they hear it, because I believe this matter should be addressed.

I mean, it's only logical to think that in the future, and since America is more and more a diverse place, with people coming from all backgrounds (and countries), it's only a matter of time until someone - who for example was born to illegal aliens - runs for Office.

Is there really a legal difference TODAY between at-birth citizen and natural-born citizen?

Here's the thing: "natural born" appears only in the Constitution and is never defined. As far as I know, and from the reading of US Code/Foreign Affairs Manual I've done, there's no other piece of paper or legislation that mentions "natural born".

US Code and other legislation only mentions citizenship at birth, or by virtue of birth.

I think this also arises from the fact that, US legislation cannot define what "natural born" citizen means, explicitly and specifically.

The only way to define "natural born" citizen is in the Constitution (through an Amendment).

Donofrio has a strong valid argument with the candidacy of Roger Calero, but will the court see his argument as strong with McCain and Obama? Hopefully we will know tomorrow.

Yes, Roger Calero, in face of all this arguments (and even US v. Wong) cannot be a "natural born" US citizen, as he wasn't a US citizen at birth.

Regarding Obama, I believe that if he - and I emphasize this point - was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born" citizen despite having been born with dual citizenship. If he wasn't born in Hawaii, he cannot be a "natural born" citizen.

Regarding Sen. McCain, and even though I didn't support him, unfortunately I don't think he qualifies as a "natural born" citizen. He was born in a US Military base abroad, to which the 14th Amendment does not apply; and at the time of his birth (1936) the Naturalization/Nationality Acts only considered those born outside the US (even to US citizens) as naturalized US citizens.

Furthermore, only in 1952, through the Immigration and Nationality Act, there was a Section introduced that contemplated people born in the Panama Canal Zone, and it also declared (naturalized) them as US citizens.

As I've stated previously, it is incredibly unfair, as under current US law, John McCain would be considered a US citizen at birth.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
That's not what has been generally accepted as far as I know:

What is a Natural-Born Citizen?

M1ck, that external source you quoted, states exactly what the legislation I linked in my post, says.

If you compare your external source to Title 8 US Code 1401, which was the Section I linked, you will see they are the same.

The difference is that in your external quote, it is worded differently and abridged.

Regarding "naturalization", this is what Naturalization means:

c. Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (Section 101(a)(23) INA) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (Sections 310 and 311 INA). (source: State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual)

Naturalization is done through legislation, laws, acts.

Being "natural born" therefor, must mean that one's citizenship comes from natural laws without the need of legislation, such as by the mere virtue of birth, or in other words, by the simple fact of being born (citizenship at birth).

The question is: "What is the SCOTUS going to do if Obama DOES NOT produce his ORIGINAL birth certificate on Dec. 5 ?"

By not presenting it, according to the law, Obama admits by default that all the charges against him are true.

Then, according to the Constitution, Obama can not be president.

If the SCOTUS agrees, and refuses to let Obama be sworn in as president, there will riots.

If SCOTUS dismisses the "natural-born citizen" issue, there will be riots because they are not enforcing the constitution.

If SCOTUS refuses to let Obama be sworn in as president, then who will be sworn in as president ?

Any way you look at it there is going to be riots and a "constitutional crisis".

This will probably be the excuse that "Emperor" Bush is looking for to declare ML.

Originally posted by Campy
The question is: "What is the SCOTUS going to do if Obama DOES NOT produce his ORIGINAL birth certificate on Dec. 5 ?

Absolutely nothing different. SCOTUS has not ordered that a BC be presented, therefor they will do absolutely nothing should one not be presented.

Tomorrow, Dec 5, 2008, the Full Court will conference to decide if they will order or dismiss the application for stay and writ of certiorari.

Should they approve the application and order the stay and hear the case, then and only then MIGHT they decide to order a copy of a birth certificate.

But since Donofrio does not dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii, it is highly unlikely that they will.

Originally posted by redhatty
But since Donofrio does not dispute that Obama was born in Hawaii, it is highly unlikely that they will.

You raise an interesting point, and I have not thought of that.

However, since Donofrio's argument is that Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, I doubt the Court would even evaluate Obama's status without asking for Obama's credentials (BC).

At least, I hope they would do...
Because, honestly, if the Supreme Court accepts to hear any case, and ends up ruling without requesting Obama's BC, it won't please neither Obama supporters and critics, and it will be a mess either way regardless of the result of the verdict.

reply to post by danx


So we are in agreement then?