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.
"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. 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. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "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"
The condition: U.S. citizen father at the time of the child's birth.
Honey, it WOULD help if you read the decision. The above is one of several cases they cite to support the majority decision. And Hughes, the Chief Justice and the author of the opinion, EXPLICITLY STATES that children born in the United States of alien parentage are citizens at birth of the United States. That no laws of foreign countries can take away that citizenship.
The fact that you're digging through the opinion instead of addressing this EXPLICIT statement by Hughes, in a Supreme Court decision with the weight of law, just further demonstrates how YOUR arguments have no legal foundation. Mine do. Hence, the continued losses in courts by birthers.
"Obama's father was NEVER a U.S. citizen" is irrelevant.
The above is one of several cases they cite to support the majority decision.
Exactly. Let's review it again...
"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. 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. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "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"
The condition: U.S. citizen father at the time of the child's birth.
Obama's father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth, or ever.
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. Her mother acquired U.S. citizenship when her husband naturalized.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) to US citizen parents.
"This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. 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. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "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"
The condition: U.S. citizen father at the time of the child's birth.
Obama's father was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth, or ever.
Only that "condition" isn't in Hughes final decision. Hughes concludes that any child born in the United States, even to ALIEN PARENTAGE, is born an American citizen. No conditions. No exclusions. Simple, straightforward. Whether your parents are aliens, citizens, sock puppets, born in America means born a US citizen.
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. Her mother acquired U.S. citizenship when her husband naturalized.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) to US citizen parents.
And yet Hughes in the SCOTUS DECISION feels compelled to say that if a child is born in the United States of ALIEN parentage, they are born citizens of the United States. There's no way around it. That's what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote, in the official, legal decision of the court in Perkins v Elg. Dig all you want, he still said it. EXPLICIT. SIMPLE. LEGAL RECORD.
Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana , 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.
And yet Hughes in the SCOTUS DECISION feels compelled to say that if a child is born in the United States of ALIEN parentage, they are born citizens of the United States.
You do realize that Hughes only refers to those born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens (born or naturalized) as natural born citizens.
"The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' "
Elg was born in the U.S. to a naturalized father and a mother who was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
Obama DOES NOT meet that criterion. Obama's father never naturalized either before ot after Obama's birth. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS.
Again, that cites U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which DOES NOT apply to Obama. Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth.
This signed legal forms explicitly states that Obama's father was only a TEMPORARY resident of the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth are a matter of public record. Note the title of this form, "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY" with Obama's father's request to extend his TEMPORARY stay from August 9, 1961 to August 9, 1962:
Again, that cites U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which DOES NOT apply to Obama.
LOL... you just don't get it, sweetheart. You don't have a vote on that issue. Only the courts get to decide whether it applies to Obama or not. That's what they're there for.
LOL... you just don't get it, sweetheart. You don't have a vote on that issue. Only the courts get to decide whether it applies to Obama or not. That's what they're there for.
None of them considered or ruled on the question of Obama's Constitutional citizenship. Not a single one.
Hint: Obama ISN'T a U.S. citizen according to the Constitution.
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.
, that cites U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which DOES NOT apply to Obama. Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. 
