Comments on Advance Indiana™: Bad Cases Make Bad Law

William, The phase "as much" means to t...

2009-11-16T23:17:17.053-05:00

William,

The phase "as much" means to the same degree. The Court compares the natural born son of a citizen to the natural born son of an alien, and says they are the same.

IndyPaul, you are wrong when you state the third s...

2009-11-15T18:56:20.076-05:00

IndyPaul, you are wrong when you state the third sentence below.

"The parents of Wong Kim Ark were Chinese. They returned to China 17-22 years after Wong was born. The Supreme Court nonetheless held that Wong was a natural born citizen."

You will provide the EXACT quotation in the WKA case which specifically says he was "natural born citizen".

And you may not use THIS one, which says he is a "citizen".

"His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’"

Did ypoui see that, IndyPaul? The Supreme Court in WKA case, is comparing him (son of an alien) to a "natural-born son of a citizen. BOTH are "citizens", buy only the son of the citizen is called "natural-born".

So, please providde the exact sentence of the WKA case wherein HE is called a "natural born citizen".

No, the law of nations was not "adopted"...

2009-11-13T22:41:31.043-05:00

No, the law of nations was not "adopted" by British Common Law. While parts of it were followed, within its jurisdiction, such as maritime law and foreign relations, it was not adopted wholesale. (I can't even locate the citizenship provision in LON - as I recall, its not itself decisive ). The British common law, was as stated in Wong Kim Ark, which the Indiana Court of Appeals quotes at length:

"therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

The parents of Wong Kim Ark were Chinese. They returned to China 17-22 years after Wong was born. The Supreme Court nonetheless held that Wong was a natural born citizen. Despite the fact that Wong's parents lived in the US for a period of time, their allegiance was presumably to China. This did not change the fact that their son Wong, born in the US, was a natural born citizen.

Alan - you make interesting arguments, but not qui...

2009-11-13T22:08:35.942-05:00

Alan - you make interesting arguments, but not quite.

In your scenarios:
A. Yes, Elg is a NBC because her father naturalized PRIOR to her birth and at the time, his naturalization automatically naturalized his wife. So she was born on US soil to 2 US Citizens.

B. No, Arthur was not eligible to be POTUS because he was not a NBC, due to his father not naturalizing PRIOR to his birth, which may or may not have been in the US - which is another problem for him. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable using Arthur for any sort of precedent - due to his many lies and possible improprieties with dates.

C. Interesting and I would say no, not NBC - but I'm not at all sure that the Italian citizenship would transfer through 2 generations. The problem with dual citizenship passing through to the child is allegiance / foreign security issues. If, as I suspect, the Italian citizenship did not pass through for a second generation, then the child would be a NBC.

D. Depends on where the child was born. If born in a military hospital on soil that is under US soverign control, then NBC, providing both parents are US Citizens. Otherwise, no.

E. Same answer as D. If either child is born on French or Saudi Arabian soil, then no - they are not NBC. This is the same reason that McCain is not a NBC. He was NOT born on the base in the canal zone. He was born in the civilian hospital in Colon, Panama; therefore he too was born with dual citizenship and not on US soil.

My question is - if anyone simply born on US soil is a NBC, why would anyone even have any interest in changing the Constitution with regards to that requirement? What would be the point?

I disagree that you are either born a citizen or naturalized. And not all US Citizens are NBCs. Surely you don't consider Anchor babies NBC's. Have you no consideration for loyalty or allegiance?

The problem I have with Obama is his paternal allegiance. Actions speak much louder than words. What would have been his reason for travelling to Kenya, well after his 21st birthday to campaign for a purported paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law?

There can only be 3 answers to that question.
1. Obama, too, believes in Sharia Law.

2. Obama campaigned for Odinga out of loyalty to his father or his Kenyan tribe - whether he believes in Sharia Law is another issue. If he doesn't, he would still campaign for the man?

3. He just goes where the wind takes him and doesn't care what consequences his actions have - he has no belief / moral / integrity system - he just lives in the moment.

Personally - any of the 3 reasons don't speak well of Obama.

Our hearts and minds and how they connect with our roots/parents are strange things. Sometimes we do not act within reason when it comes to issues of the heart - precisely what the FF's were trying to guard against by requiring that POTUS have NO outside ties - no matter how far removed - to interfere with POTUS foreign and domestic decision making. For the knew such decisions could be corrupted in many ways, but first and foremost they wanted to try and guard against such to the extent that they had control.

Paul, You refer to Brittish common law. --As such,...

2009-11-13T17:08:17.654-05:00

Paul, You refer to Brittish common law. --As such, did you know that the Law of Nations was adopted as part of Brittish common law in 1764?

If the Law of Nations was adopted as part of the Common Law of England, prior to the ratification of our Constitution, AND since SCOTUS has determined that the words used in our Constitution should be interpreted as they were used in the common law of England; is there a definition of NBC among that common law other than that which exists in the Law of Nations?

Can you provide us with one SCOTUS opinion that describes anyone other than someone born on U.S. soil, to parents, who are themselves citizens, as being a natural born citizen?

Can you provide us with one SCOTUS case, where a transient, having no permanent allegiance, is the parent of a natural born citizen?

Paul, British common law doesn't have a damn t...

2009-11-13T16:52:47.776-05:00

Paul, British common law doesn't have a damn thing to do with this issue. The U.S. Constitution is a unique legal document written in rejection of our country's rule by the British monarchy. None of those cases decided the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the context of a presidential candidate. The "hey look over here" bullshit never ceases to end by people on the Left. It's working quite well. Quickly, the American people are being brainwashed into dissolving our constitutional republic.

I never said or inferred that Arthur's case ha...

2009-11-13T16:00:48.015-05:00

I never said or inferred that Arthur's case had been litigated. The point is, the fact that his father was Irish was never an issue, as it would have no impact upon his natural born status. As you point out, the only issue raised was whether he was born in the US or not.

Three opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, all cited by Brown, specifically hold that a person born in the US is a natural born citizen, which is also supported by 300 years of British jurisprudence. You are either born a citizen or naturalized. If you are a citizen at birth, you are a natural born citizen. Its really rather elemental.

You want to bring in an 18th century Swiss philosopher and isolated comments of Congressmen, and call that objective??

On Chester Arthur's father, Remember that his ...

2009-11-13T15:36:56.664-05:00

On Chester Arthur's father, Remember that his father would have been eligible to naturalize within 5 years of arriving in the U.S. The reason Arthur likely lied about his age was to make it appear that his father had lived long enough in the U.S. to have become naturalized at the time of his birth. It was not learned that Arthur's father had in fact not become naturalized until many years after his birth when Leo Donofrio uncovered that fact as part of his research just a few months ago. You and Paul, as well as this Indiana court, pretended those facts were known then and litigated as such. They weren't. It never got beyond the rumor stage during his presidency.

Alan, Chester Arthur's case was not litigated ...

2009-11-13T15:30:39.284-05:00

Alan, Chester Arthur's case was not litigated in a single court of law. Nothing but pure speculation existed surrounding his birth. People didn't question at all whether his father was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth; the public debate, albeit very limited debate, surrounded whether he had been born in Canada and not in Vermont as he claimed. The case you cite has absolutely no applicability to the natural born citizen requirement in the constitution for presidents. That issue has never been litigated and decided on its merits by a court of proper jurisdiction. The Indiana state courts had no jurisdiction to decide the eligibility of a president. In the examples you gave, A&B are not eligible. C is eligible. D&E raise McCain-like problems that are less clear. Congress initially defined the term natural born citizen to include the children of persons in service to the government overseas. It later repealed that provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the ground that it should be left to the courts to interpret the meaning of "natural born citizen." As far as the federal court system is concerned, the term has not been definitively decided by the Supreme Court. Hey, look how many years we had to wait to get a decision on the Second Amendment and that was by a mere 5-4 vote.

A few things: 1. Chester A. Arthur was born durin...

2009-11-13T14:29:48.067-05:00

A few things:

1. Chester A. Arthur was born during a time when his father was a citizen of Britian/Ireland.

2. Your entire argument of Indonesia has already been heard by the Supreme Court, and rejected over 75 years ago. Look for a case called Perkins v. Elg (1933). Fits exactly the definition that you're seeking with your Indonesian Citizen argument. Supreme Court even called Elg a "Natural Born Citizen". Indonesian Citizenship, whether or not he ever had it, is irrelevant to this discussion.

3. As far as your other theories. They were addressed by the court, and rejected. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is pretty subjected in that.

Let me give you a few other scenarios:

A. A person is born to 2 American Citizens. While she is still a minor, she's removed in her minority and taken to Sweden. Through the actions of her parents, she obtains Swedish Citizenship. Before reaching the age of 21, she returns to the United States, and lives there for 14 years. Is she eligible to be President of the United States? Supreme Court declared her so, in Perkins v. Elg.

B. A person is born on U.S. Soil, to one citizen (mother), and one British Citizen (father). After his birth, his father Naturalizes, and becomes a U.S. Citizen. At the age of majority, this person makes no attempt to retain his British Citizenship, having lived in the United States all of his life. Is this person eligible for the Presidency? You just described Chester A. Arthur.

C. A person is born to 2 U.S. Italian-American Citizens. Both of these Italian-Americans parents were born in the United States, to Italian Immigrants. As a result, these 2 parents have both Italian Citizenship, and U.S. Citizenship from birth. Their children will also have Italian Citizenship and U.S. Citizenship from birth. Are their children Natural Born Citizens?

D. An American Family is stationed overseas in Saudi Arabia in the Army. They're both American Citizens from Birth. Saudi Arabia does not grant citizenship via Jus Soli, so the children are not Saudi Citizens. They have a child while stationed over there. Is their child a Natural Born American Citizen?

E. An American Family is stationed overseas in France in the Army. They do not have Diplomatic Immunity. France grants citizenship to anybody born within their country, regardless of the status of their parents (minor exceptions provided). Are they considered a Natural Born Citizen?

I believe in the constitutional requirement as wri...

2009-11-13T13:02:14.859-05:00

I believe in the constitutional requirement as written, Paul. You believe in a rewritten version that ignores the contemporaneous views of the framers of our constitution. If you want to call that having the law on your side, then so be it. The constitution becomes pointless if judges can simply rewrite it to suit their personal judgement of what it should say instead of an objective interpretation.

I guess if you don't have the law on your side...

2009-11-13T12:49:05.209-05:00

I guess if you don't have the law on your side, you have to resort to scare tactics. The only movements to alter the Natural Born Citizen provision I am aware of are the the current one you are a part of, and that of Republicans who a few years ago eyed Schwarzenegger as a presidential contender. At least they acknowledged that a constitutional amendment would have been necessary.

Don't count on it, Paul. Obama ran as a "...

2009-11-13T12:28:30.037-05:00

Don't count on it, Paul. Obama ran as a "citizen of the world" for good reason. The liberals have been trying to eliminate the natural born citizen requirement for years. They no longer need to do that since judges have reinvented what it really meant by the men who wrote it into our constitution. It's just the beginning of the end for American sovereignty. Are you prepared for rule by his masters in Dubai and Riyadh? Will Obama get that 5th vote on the Supreme Court to rewrite the Second Amendment? Will he succeed in forcing Americans to buy health insurance or face huge tax penalties? Will he force economically disastrous "cap and trade" policies on American industry that will effectively put many industries out of business? Will he seize the wealth of hard-working patriotic Americans by allowing the repeal of the inheritance tax to sunset? I hear Fidel Castro is very proud of the job Obama is doing. Bet that makes you real proud, Paul.

You're putting a modern spin on a Constitution...

2009-11-13T12:19:22.584-05:00

You're putting a modern spin on a Constitutional provision written in the 18th century. Such movement was unheard of at the time, and there was no reason to address it. What you are really arguing for is a new interpretation based upon current conditions - the Constitution as a breathing changing document. I have not heard that argument made with regards to this provision. Good luck. Moreover, you're overlooking the requirement that a person be a permanent resident of the US for at least 14 years to be eligible to be president. If she did indeed move to the US at age 27, your client would not be eligible to run until she turns 41. Even then, her prospects as a long time citizen of Saudi Arabia would presumably be pretty bleak.

You are correct, Paul, on the varying standards ap...

2009-11-13T10:36:35.215-05:00

You are correct, Paul, on the varying standards applied for determining standing between federal and Indiana courts. I'm not at all happy, though, that the court ventured into the merits of a claim that on its face was not meritorious because of how it was procedurally brought. Let me give you an example of what this definition of natural born citizen means. I had a client who was born in San Diego. Her father, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, was working there temporarily for a Saudi company. Her parents returned to Saudi Arabia a short time after her birth. She spent the next 27 years of her life living in Saudi Arabia. When she decided to visit the U.S. for the firt time, she learned that she needed a U.S. passport because she was a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born on American soil. What Judge Brown held is that this woman could move to the U.S. and run for president after she reaches the age of 35. That's obscene, Paul. There would have been no point in putting the eligibility requirement in the U.S. Constitution if it permitted such individuals "natural born" status.

Obviously, the parents' nationality at the tim...

2009-11-13T10:28:14.858-05:00

Obviously, the parents' nationality at the time of birth is the question. Their subsequent lives are inconsequential to whether their child is "natural born". The fact that President Arthur's father was naturalized 14 years after his birth is irrelevant.

While Federal Courts are required to observe the Case or controversy standard for standing, state courts are not. This explains why the Indiana Court of Appeals reached the merits and the federal courts have not. I am happy that a Court was able to reach the merits and lay out the long settled principle that a person born in the US is a "natural born" citizen.

And of course, Paul, you're happy with this de...

2009-11-13T00:09:09.182-05:00

And of course, Paul, you're happy with this decision because it offers an opinion on the merits with which you agree. You were all happy that one federal court after another dismissed similar lawsuits on the lack of standing grounds.

They did not sue the correct party, Paul. Gov. Dan...

2009-11-13T00:04:44.111-05:00

They did not sue the correct party, Paul. Gov. Daniels has no statutory role in making a determination of whether a person is a natural born citizen eligible to be president as the court correctly decided. The court falsely claimed that Arthur's father was an Irish citizen, ignoring the fact that he was a naturalized U.S. citizen who had been elected to public office as a U.S. citizen, unlike Obama's father, who returned to Kenya to become a domestic abuser with multiple wives and alcoholic.

Regarding Arthur, I thought we'd been through ...

2009-11-12T23:09:24.009-05:00

Regarding Arthur, I thought we'd been through this. He was born in 1829. His father wasn't naturalized until 1843. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Chester-Arthur-Naturalization-certificate-1843-Congress

The opinion cites to the statute requiring the gov...

2009-11-12T22:48:14.623-05:00

The opinion cites to the statute requiring the governor to sign the certificate of ascertainment - the plaintiffs sued the correct party. The opinion also cites no less than four U.S. Supreme Court opinions which rely upon 300 years of British common law and state that a person born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. Bloggers, on the other hand, are due no more precedential value than 18th century Swiss philosophers.