Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope this is all over tomorrow, but I am confident that tomorrow's disposition of the case, which WILL be in the favor of the president-elect, will simply encourage 30 more threads on why Obama is not a natural born citizen and how one more case filed in Moosejaw Flats will eventually get to the Supreme Court and prove everyone wrong!
You may want to read Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
You may want to do a little better job researching Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)! In fact, you may want to read the case [Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State] case before the Supreme Court because it references the case law of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to define nationality in the case of Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
Mr. Obama could be a citizen at best (but NOT a Natural Born Citizen) or he could actually be an illegal alien. There is no way Mr. Obama can be a "Natural Born Citizen" having a father that was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. The case you refer to yourself is one of the cases used in the case before the Supreme Court!
In the Case: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY 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) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by U.S. statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.
Miss Elg is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen", which is a requirement of the President of the United States.
Chester Arthur knew he was not a Natural Born Citizen, which prevented him from serving as Vice President or President of the United States. That is why he lied about his father, his father's birthplace, living in Canada, birthdate, etc. to hide the fact he was not a Natural Born Citizen.
Natural Born Citizen Chart (http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm - broken link)
I hope this is all over tomorrow, but I am confident that tomorrow's disposition of the case, which WILL be in the favor of the president-elect, will simply encourage 30 more threads on why Obama is not a natural born citizen and how one more case filed in Moosejaw Flats will eventually get to the Supreme Court and prove everyone wrong!
(ray-zohnn DET-ruh) A basic, essential purpose; a reason to exist: “Professor Naylor argues that in the nuclear age, infantry forces have lost their raison d’être.” From French, meaning “reason for being.”
They were born and exist for conspiracies and martians walking amongst us and now Obama is not eligible because of pick a number.
Remember the Devils Triangle may still come into play in the Obama drama.
Raison d'être - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raison d'être is a phrase borrowed from French where it means simply "reason for being"; in English use it also comes to suggest a degree of rationalization, as "The claimed reason for the existence of something or someone".
Just like the Devils Triangle will live for as long as planes crash and boats sink, this topic will live until the evil Obama has been vanquished from the land, hearts and memories of us all. Oh yes and most importantly until the history books no longer record his existence or this election.
You may want to do a little better job researching Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)! In fact, you may want to read the case [Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State] case before the Supreme Court because it references the case law of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to define nationality in the case of Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
Mr. Obama could be a citizen at best (but NOT a Natural Born Citizen) or he could actually be an illegal alien. There is no way Mr. Obama can be a "Natural Born Citizen" having a father that was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. The case you refer to yourself is one of the cases used in the case before the Supreme Court!
In the Case: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY 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) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by U.S. statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.
Miss Elg is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen", which is a requirement of the President of the United States.
Chester Arthur knew he was not a Natural Born Citizen, which prevented him from serving as Vice President or President of the United States. That is why he lied about his father, his father's birthplace, living in Canada, birthdate, etc. to hide the fact he was not a Natural Born Citizen.
Natural Born Citizen Chart (http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm - broken link)
TnHilltopper (and others):
To further help you understand the differences between citizenships consider the following case law in the following cases:
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), this Honorable Court held that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, was, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
That case also engaged in a thorough discussion of the history of citizenship in as much as the United States has been influenced by the English common law. Indeed, the opinion in that case is a dissertation on citizenship wherein it was discussed that "natural born subjects" of the King were person's born in the King's land. But despite the exhaustive undertaking of that opinion, and the careful deconstruction of British and United States common law, the Honorable Justice Gray comes to the conclusion that those born in the United States are only "native born" citizens and not "natural born citizens".
Wong Kim Ark is born on U.S. soil to two foreign nationals of China, subjects of the emperor of China. Both parents lived and worked in the United States at time of birth.
CITIZEN MATRIX:
2 Foreign nationals (China) and birth on U.S. soil
HOLDING: Won Kim Ark is [only] a native-born citizen
CASE: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).
FACTS:
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).
CITIZEN MATRIX:
1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute)
AND
Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)
HOLDING: Elg is [only] a citizen of the United States.
CASE: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
FACTS:
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).
CITIZEN MATRIX:
2 U.S. Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by U.S. statute)
AND
Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)
HOLDING: Young Steinkauler is a Natural Born American Citizen.
All of these cases coincide with and help to define "Natural Born Citizen".
To further help you understand the differences between citizenships consider the following case law in the following cases:
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), this Honorable Court held that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, was, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
That case also engaged in a thorough discussion of the history of citizenship in as much as the United States has been influenced by the English common law. Indeed, the opinion in that case is a dissertation on citizenship wherein it was discussed that "natural born subjects" of the King were person's born in the King's land. But despite the exhaustive undertaking of that opinion, and the careful deconstruction of British and United States common law, the Honorable Justice Gray comes to the conclusion that those born in the United States are only "native born" citizens and not "natural born citizens".
Wong Kim Ark is born on U.S. soil to two foreign nationals of China, subjects of the emperor of China. Both parents lived and worked in the United States at time of birth.
CITIZEN MATRIX:
2 Foreign nationals (China) and birth on U.S. soil
HOLDING: Won Kim Ark is [only] a native-born citizen
CASE: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).
FACTS:
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).
CITIZEN MATRIX:
1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute)
AND
Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)
HOLDING: Elg is [only] a citizen of the United States.
CASE: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).
FACTS:
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).
CITIZEN MATRIX:
2 U.S. Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by U.S. statute)
AND
Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)
HOLDING: Young Steinkauler is a Natural Born American Citizen.
All of these cases coincide with and help to define "Natural Born Citizen".
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 [note "parents" is plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Yet again it illustrates that Mr. Obama, who was a British Citizen based on his father’s British citizenship and British immigration act of 1948, does not qualify as a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be President of the U.S.
Perkins v. Elg, 307U.S. 325, 328 (1939) is a precedent on point, explaining the difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural born citizen. Ms. Elg, born in Brooklyn, NY to an American mother and a foreign (Swedish) father was considered a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Similarly, Mr. Obama, being a child of an American mother and a foreign father would be considered a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii. This illustrates, that it is not a political question, not a racial issue, but rather a Federal Law, Constitution issue.
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 [note "parents" is plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Yet again it illustrates that Mr. Obama, who was a British Citizen based on his father’s British citizenship and British immigration act of 1948, does not qualify as a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be President of the U.S.
Perkins v. Elg, 307U.S. 325, 328 (1939) is a precedent on point, explaining the difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural born citizen. Ms. Elg, born in Brooklyn, NY to an American mother and a foreign (Swedish) father was considered a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Similarly, Mr. Obama, being a child of an American mother and a foreign father would be considered a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii. This illustrates, that it is not a political question, not a racial issue, but rather a Federal Law, Constitution issue.
Why don't you just post the link to "Trip's" posts instead of copying and pasting them here word for word and wasting space? That moron has been proven wrong over and over again by several knowledgable posters and all he does is come back, so full of himself, with more BS. He makes stuff up, why do you put so much credence in what that idiot has to say?
You need to get off of that Colorado Trip there Kootr.....
Why don't you just post the link to "Trip's" posts instead of copying and pasting them here word for word and wasting space? That moron has been proven wrong over and over again by several knowledgable posters and all he does is come back, so full of himself, with more BS. He makes stuff up, why do you put so much credence in what that idiot has to say?
You need to get off of that Colorado Trip there Kootr.....
You are showing your ignorance! It happens to be case law, not just something that was made up as you say. You may want to take a look here for my source of information in yet another lawsuit filed December 3 in California concerning Obama's eligibility. I'll even help you find it: look on page 9 (par. 28 & 29), lines 12 thru 22.
You need to get our of the romper room and learn something!
You are showing your ignorance! It happens to be case law, not just something that was made up as you say. You may want to take a look here for my source of information in yet another lawsuit filed December 3 in California concerning Obama's eligibility. I'll even help you find it: look on page 9 (par. 28 & 29), lines 12 thru 22.
You need to get our of the romper room and learn something!
I guess we'll all see tomorrow who is ignorant (AGAIN) when the Supreme Court issues it list of decisions from Friday's cases - which include the Wrotnowski case...
I'm betting big-time that they will toss this one, just as they tossed Donofrio a few weeks back...
You'll be 0 for 2 after tomorrow Kooter.... One more and you Strike Out...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
