MANDOLI v. ACHESON, 344 U.S. 133 (1952) November 15, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Dual Citizenship, Jus Soli, Loss of Citizenship, Natural Born, Natural Born.comments closed
(pdf)
The Supreme Court first observed that even though born of Italian Parents, he was a dual citizen at birth.
Petitioner Mandoli was born in this country, of unnaturalized Italian parents. These circumstances made him a citizen of the United States by virtue of our Constitution and a national of Italy by virtue of Italian law.
Did he even have to elect citizenship when reaching the age of majority?
The Nationality Act of 1940, 9 though not controlling here, shows the consistency of congressional policy not to subject a citizen by birth to the burden and hazard of election at majority. This comprehensive revision and codification of the laws relating to citizenship and nationality was prepared at the request of Congress by the Departments of State, Justice and Labor. The State Department proposed a new provision requiring an American-born national taken during minority to the country of his other nationality to make an election and to return to the United States, if he elected American nationality, on reaching majority. The Departments of Justice and Labor were opposed and, as a consequence, it was omitted from the proposed bill.
On Perkins v Elg
What it held was that citizenship conferred by our Constitution upon a child born under its protection cannot be forfeited because [344 U.S. 133, 139] the citizen during nonage is a passive beneficiary of foreign naturalization proceedings. It held that Miss Elg had acquired a derivative dual-citizenship but had not suffered a derivative expatriation. In affirming her right to return to and remain in this country, it did not hold that it was mandatory for her to do so.
Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) October 24, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in 14th Amendment, Born in the USA, Born within the allegiance of, Citizenship, Common Law, Constitutional Terms, Jus Soli, Natural Born.comments closed
In Plyler v Doe, the Court observes
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase “within its jurisdiction.” [n10]
Footnote 1o explains the reasoning, referring to the Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark
US Congress – Mr Dowdy reports on the meaning of Natural Born October 23, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in 14th Amendment, Blackstone, Born in the USA, Born within the allegiance of, Citizenship, Common Law, Constitutional Terms, Jus Sanguini, Jus Soli, Native/Natural Born, Natural Born, Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.comments closed
June 14, 1967
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Mr. VIGORITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOWDY] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, I have heard and read the discussions, pro and con, regarding the meaning or construction that should be placed on the phrase, “natural born citizen,” as used in the U.S. Constitution, limiting eligibility for the office of President. This has been a recurring discussion, as various persons, born outside the United States, of U.S. citizen parentage, have been mentioned as possible candidates for the offices of President and Vice President. The question is again current.
Pelosi, the DNC and the story of the two letters of Certification September 11, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, DNC two Certificates, Myths, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
Update: added South Dakota
Canada Free Press is making much of the discovery that Nancy Pelosi and the DNC, sent two kinds of letters to the States to certify the election as candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency. They claim that only one, the abridged form, was submitted to (all) the States, but we know that at least Hawaii, which has very specific requirements, received the “unabridged version”. Most of the documents come from lawsuits against the Secretary Of State of various states, but since much of the State Court filings are not available on Pacer, I have yet to track down various state case filings that may shed additional light on this issue. So far I have found filings in Hawaii, Texas, South Carolina and Washington which are relevant.
In fact, there appear not to be just 2 documents but perhaps as many as 50 documents, probably because every state would like an original, notarized document. The Washington State document and the South Carolina document are two different documents, as can be seen from the signatures.
A so the mystery becomes even less and less. There may very well have been 49 letters, and one, to deal with the special requirements of Hawaii. Then again, the RNC similarly had 50 separate letters to be sent to their state headquarters for filing.
The “long form” or “unabridged” version states:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:Presented: Hawaii
the “abridged version” states:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:Presented: South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington.
So how to explain the difference in text?
Simple really…
(more…)
Vattel and Virginia Statutes? August 31, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Common Law, Natural Born, Vattel.comments closed
Arguing that Vattel and not common law guided the Founders, the Birthers proclaim that
The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779,
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.
Strangely enough they omit the 1783 Virginia statute
SECT. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,
However, in both statutes, the case is clearly not Vattel but rather Common Law, mimicking English Common Law which declares anyone born on its soil a citizen including children born to fathers abroad. The 1783 statute extends this right to fathers and/or mothers.
14th Amendment and 'subject to jurisdiction thereof' – Attorney General Ellis August 28, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in 14th Amendment, Born in the USA, Citizenship, Common Law, Constitutional Terms, Lynch v. Clarke (1844), Natural Born, Precedent Cases, Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.comments closed
Citizenship Persons born in the allegiance of the United States Term born in allegiance defined(pdf)
A young man was born and always resided in this State His mother was a native of Pennsylvania. His father was an unnaturalized Swede. Held, that such a person is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Michigan and if twenty one years of age would be entitled to register and vote.
A person to be born in allegiance of the United States should not only be born on American soil but on soil that was within the control of the United States at the time of his birth.
(more…)
St Louis Post Dispatch – Missouri Republicans continue to question Obama citizenship July 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Lawyers, Orly Taitz, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
07.01.2009 6:01 pmMissouri Republicans continue to question Obama citizenship
St. Louis Post-DispatchTaitz, who was born in the former Soviet Union, referred to Obama as “King Obama” and the “Messiah” during her talk. She said citizens should form their own grand juries and indict the president.
JEFFERSON CITY — Two Missouri state representatives today attended meetings conducted by Orly Taitz in which the California dentist questioned the validity of the presidency of Barack Obama.
Note: Orly objects to being called a dentist since she also has a ‘law’ degree and is ‘licensed to practice’ in front of the Supreme Court of the United States
Immunization and Eligibility – When facts fall victim to hysteria July 3, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Just Plain Weird.comments closed
What happens when two conspiracies merge? The results are a weird mixture of accusations and the lack of much factual argument. In this case, a lawsuit has been filed against the UN and various others asserting that the swine flu program and the immunization efforts are to mass murder US citizens, and use martial law to grab power. The complaint has all the components of a weird conspiracy, and I may address some of the other claims. For the moment it is sufficient to show how the claims about President Obama lack ANY relevance in fact.
Also, as the pressure increases on Obama to produce a valid Birth certificate, Obama and his international criminal syndicate backers are seeking to accelerate the declaration of a Pandemic Level 6 by WHO to avert the political destablisation of their front man. Lawsuits have been filed contesting that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States of America because he is not a natural-born citizen as defined by US law because, among other reasons, Hawaii, the birthplace of Obama’s mother was not a state.
Note: Hawaii became a State in 1959.
„Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after*.
Note: This only applies when the child is not born on US soil.
In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.“
So far, President Obama has not produced verifiable, unambiguous evidence that he meets the criteria of a natural born citizen. We contend Obama is actually the member of a foreign-based crime gang that has used fraudulent means to get their member Barack Obama in office so they can use him as an instrument to take control of the economic, political and military structures of the USA.
Note: President Obama has released his Birth Certificate which shows him born in Honolulu Hawaii on August 4, 1961 when Hawaii was a State.
Born in the USA July 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in Kenya, Born in the USA, Certification of Live Birth, Citizenship, Myths, Natural Born, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
Dr Conspiracy reports how the Department of Health officials in Hawaii continue to emphasize not only that the COLB is the official Hawaiian Birth Certificate but also that it shows that Obama was born in Honolulu, and not foreign born:
As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.
Source: Politijab
Russ: Exploring the Evidence March 18, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in Kenya, Born in the USA, Certification of Live Birth, Citizenship, Dual Citizenship, Foreign Born Out of Wedlock, Indonesian Passport, Lack of Hospital records, Loss of Citizenship, Myths, Name change, Natural Born, Pakistan, Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Travel Ban, Uncategorized.comments closed
The following is a work in progress in which I explore the claims left in the comments by a poster name Russ. Since his comments seem to be repeating typical assertions found on the web, assertions which in many cases are contrary to fact, I have decided to take his claims and show ‘the rest of the story’. I encourage anyone interested to contribute their observations, comments and suggestions.
Allegiance and Obedience – Natural Born March 14, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Common Law, Jus Soli, Natural Born.comments closed
[b] “Allegiance bу birth, (1) Is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is, at the time, in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently, owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto. . . . There are some exceptions, which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean, is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So, the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.” Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155, 7 L. ed. 617.
Source: Corpus juris: being a complete and systematic statement of the whole body of the law as embodied in and developed by all reported decisions By William Mack, William Benjamin Hale, Donald J. Kiser Published by The American Law Book Co., 1915
(more…)
Orly Taitz – She did it March 14, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Blackstone, Born in Kenya, Born in the USA, Certification of Live Birth, Citizenship, Common Law, Dual Citizenship, Jus Sanguini, Jus Soli, Lawyers, Legal Remedies, Loss of Citizenship, Myths, Orly Taitz, Quo Warranto.comments closed
Orly Update
Orly Taitz reports that she managed to get Robert’s attention and delivered a box full of documents to his security people. While I have to admire the tenacity of Orly, her posting also reveals an aspect which I personally find troublesome. And no it is not the lack of legal support for her claims, and it is not the speculative nature of her assertions, no it is the following statement
Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens.
As I and others have already pointed out, there is no credible evidence that President Obama is an Usurper. In fact, since he is the de facto and likely also the de jure President of the United States, we cannot make claims that lack in supporting evidence.
Donofrio wrong on Elk v Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark March 13, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Lawyers, Legal Remedies, Leo Donofrio, Quo Warranto.comments closed
Leo Donofrio
Leo Donofrio argues that Elk v Wilkins Judge Gray took a position in conflict with Wong Kim Ark, when in fact, in proper context, the inevitable conclusion is that the two cases are fully consistent and that Elk v Wilkins was limited to Indians. In addition, the suggestion that Wong Kim Ark limits its ruling to ‘permanently domiciled aliens’ is also poorly supported
Vattel interpreted March 13, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Common Law, Dual Citizenship, Jus Sanguini, Jus Soli, Natural Born, Vattel.comments closed
So far as Mr. Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly, but there are other questions on this subject, not noticed by him, which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following:
1. Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another. 2. Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother. 3. Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States, is, 1, That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so, whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States, unless the I4th amendment has changed this doctrine, upon which there is a difference of opinion ; 2, Illegitimate children belong to the State of which the mother was the subject ; and 3, Except in the United States, the nationality of a wife is merged in that of her husband, so that in those countries, when a woman marries a foreigner she loses her own nationality and acquires his; but here a native woman marrying a foreigner remains the subject of the State, though an alien woman marrying a citizen of the United States becomes herself naturalized, unless she continue throughout her husband’s lifetime, a non-resident. Hall’s Inter. Law, secs. 68, 69, 70.
Source: James Houston Gilmore, Emer de Vattel, University of Virginia, Notes of a Course of Lectures on Vattel’s Law of Nations Published by J. Blakey, 1891
From International Law, By William Edward Hall, Published by Clarendon press, 1880
68: Under a custom, which was formerly so general as to subjects be called by an eminent French authority ‘ the rule of power Europe Y and of which traces still exist in the legislation within the of many countries, the nationality of children born of the territory of another subjects of one power w1th1n the terr1tory of another was dictated by the place of their birth, in the eye at least of the state of which they were natives. The rule was the natural outcome of the intimate connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil upon which he lived, but it survived the ideas with which it was originally connected, and probably until the establishment of the Code Napoleon by France no nation regarded the children of foreigners born upon its territory as aliens. In that Code however a principle was applied in favour of strangers, by which states had long been induced to guide themselves in dealing with their own subjects, owing to the inconvenience of looking upon the children of natives born abroad as foreigners.
States and the 11th amendment (and other forms of sovereign immunity) March 8, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795. This Amendment deals with each State’s sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country. This Amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the United States Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, .
Certificate of Live Birth versus Certificate of Foreing or Delayed Birth March 6, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Certification of Live Birth, Citizenship, Myths.comments closed
Guess what, in order to work for the Pearl Harbor shipyard you need one of the following documents. In other words, the Certificate of live birth is different from the delayed birth certificate or the certificate of foreign birth. Now we already know that Obama’s certification of live birth could not have been based on a certificate of delayed birth since the registration date is a few days after his birth. We also know that his certification of live birth could not have been a certificate of foreign birth since the city of birth is “Honolulu”
NOTE: Use for NAVSHIPYD Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
SECTION 01 14 00 Page 28
Controlled Industrial Area (CIA) projects.
Oklahoma – Amend the state law to show proof of citizenship March 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
No further details yet
December 12, 2008
A state lawmaker, motivated by swirling questions on whether President-elect Barack Obama meets the U.S. Constitution’s citizenship requirement, said Thursday he will file a bill requiring anyone who files for office in Oklahoma to show proof of citizenship. “This could have taken care of the whole thing if we had a state law that any candidate has to show it up front,” said Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow. Under a proposed bill by Ritze, all candidates, from those running for district attorney to president, would be required to provide a copy of a certified birth certificate and a driver’s license or some other form of government-issued identification at the time they file with the state Election Board. No identification is required to file for an office with the state Election Board, although candidates sign an affidavit stating that they are registered voters. Ritze, a physician, said he has a master’s degree in forensics and has had extensive training in analyzing documents and has read about the documents the Democratic president-elect has submitted. Ritze said he does not believe Obama submitted an authentic copy of his birth certificate. Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Ivan Holmes said he hadn’t seen the proposed legislation, but it appears to “be another typical Republican ploy of sour grapes.” The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Obama’s electoral eligibility Monday. More challenges are pending. The Obama campaign last summer produced copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in a Honolulu hospital Aug. 4, 1961. It had a Web site, fightthesmears.com, to refute what it calls misinformation about Obama. “Both our national and state constitutions are clear in what they require for a person to be qualified to hold elected office,” Ritze said. “If a person can’t prove their citizenship, they have no business attempting to represent the people of this state.”
Source: NewsOK
Arizona – Amending laws related to presidential Elections March 5, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
SB 1185 amends the Arizona statutes by adding
Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
Nothing about making it retro-active.
Missouri Constitutional Amendment March 4, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Just Plain Weird, State Eligibility Laws.comments closed
As reported on Politico and discussed here
Interesting amendment with little bite as to the past elections even though they want to make it retroactively applicable. Since it is too late to review Obama’s electoral results, this is not a State but rather a Federal question. States cannot challenge the title to Federal offices in State proceedings. Still, a novel approach in desperate times… Since this is an Amendment to the Constitution it will take some time before it can be placed on the ballot and voted on. Will research the requirements.
Update: From the text of the amendment: That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article VIII of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:
Since the Governor is a Democrat, the amendment may have to wait until November 2010.
03-01-2009 – Right Side of Life – Orly Taitz March 2, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Born in the USA, Citizenship, Legal Remedies, Orly Taitz, Quo Warranto.comments closed
The Right Side of Life reports
The two big take-aways from the above pages include the following:
1. “Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of the election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art. II section 1, and amend. XX section 3.”
2. “Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.”
On the first point, Dr. Taitz brings up an issue of supremacy, whereby the Constitution supersedes State or local law where there is a conflict. In theory, in this case, State statute is preventing a portion of the President’s vital documentation from being furnished for eligibility evaluation. Yet, since there is no legal basis for enforcing the eligibility provisions in the Constitution, she may be hard-pressed to establish that the great State of Hawaii is legally obligated to furnish these records. Obviously, that’s why we have a Judiciary, assuming that the Plaintiffs for this upcoming case can establish standing.
Exactly. The legal foundations are quite weak, especially given that the President did provide prima facia evidence of his birth city, Honolulu. In addition Nancy Pelosi certified Obama’s eligibility and no objections were raised by electors and Congress when certifying the electoral results.
Furthermore, the State of Hawaii may provide a certification of the birth certificate when requested by Court order. The argument that the short form is insufficient again lacks foundation in evidence. The short form shows that the City of Birth as noted on the long form is Honolulu.
HRS 338-1(b)(9):
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
