Comments on: Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:51:49 +0000

OK, add the silliness regarding Elana Kagan being the “respondent” in a lawsuit to the VOLUMES of stuff you guys have wildly thrown against the wall and watched slide off.

The issue is dead.

Gene: I want to allow you the chance to gloat, once the GOP gains HOR and Senate majorities, and begins investigations into Obama’s birth. Here is my email address: stlvidpro09@yahoo.com

Contact me once a subcommittee commences an investigation, as you predict.

I’ll wait for you email…. but it won’t happen.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:02:29 +0000

By the by, more news on the LTC. Lakin front: he has “deferred his plea.”

Looks like I might have been correct if a little late: look for Our Hero to agree to a quick departure to Afghanistan in return for dropping the charges…

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:47:37 +0000

Don’t forget to quote the appeals court whose decision the court upheld, Hugh.

Clearly. Unequivocally. Jus Soli.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:21:23 +0000

Robert:

Congratulations are in order concerning Missouri and Proposition C!

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:01:55 +0000

To quote Perkins v Elg 307 US 325:
“The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship…”
Elg’s mother was naturalized citizen, as was her father! So Perkins v Elg says that there were two citizen parents. Then how can Perkins v Elg describe the Elg’s as “Swedish parents then naturalized here…?” If both of Elg’s parents were not naturalized citizen then the Supreme Court is absolutely lying!

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:12:16 +0000

By the by WB and Gene: check out the top of THIS VERY PAGE and see who is listed as the “Respondent” in the Berg lawsuit… Elana Kagan?

No! Solicitor General Garre, an appointee of George W. Bush.

Is he in on the conspiracy as well?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:22:41 +0000

Thanks, Hugh.

You completely ignore two cold hard facts:

1. Ms. Elg’s mother never attained US citizenship; and
2. The appeals court ruling in Elg clearly and unequivocally stated that the logic was based on location of birth and not citizenship of parents… this was the decision upheld by the Court.

Finally, don’t forget that Wong was indeed Natural Born- there are only two kinds of US citizens (Natural Born and naturalized), despite what the “birthers” say…

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:46:38 +0000

Robert:
I am juxtaposing Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg, as follows:
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States of parents, who at the time of his birth were subjects to the Emperor of China. The Supreme Court declared Wong to only be a born citizen and not a natural born citizen.
Marie Elg is declared to be a natural born citizen with two citizen parents naturalized at the time of her birth. Elg lost no citizenship whatsoever.
I would agree with you that all born citizens are natural born citizens if the Supreme Court had declared Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, but they did not do so.
Both Elg and Wong were born in America, but the citizenship status of the parents was definitely different. The Supreme Court in Wong was restrained to declare him a natural born citizen since his parents were not American citizens. Therefore, Wong was only a born citizen.
On the other hand, Elg’s parents were found to be naturalized citizens, so the Court declared Elg natural born, despite any juris soli reasoning’s. This is how the Court ruled and the basis was two citizen parents.
To assert that “born citizen” means “natural born citizen” stretches rational thought to the breaking point. Individual words mean something. Different words have different meanings. Lawyers are careful in the words they chose to present their case. Court Justices follow the same pattern.
If citizen and natural born citizen mean the same thing why did the Framers use the words natural born citizen in the Constitution?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 03:57:05 +0000

I do not have a standing court opinion, but I do know what the Founders said about dual citizenship.

AND you have cogent, well thought out opinions to back yourself up. Even as I disagree with you, I see your point.

But I DO have standing court opinion on my side, and a clear reading of the Constitution… TWO kinds of citizens, that is all: “Natural Born” and naturalized.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 03:47:16 +0000

Robert:

I said:

‘It is not a matter of losing US citizenship! It involves being an Indonesian citizen, and that fact encroaches upon natural born citizenship. Natural born citizens can never have any competing allegiances to any foreign country.’

You said:

‘You keep saying these things and then completely failing to bring up a standing court opinion that agrees with your position.

Why is that?”

I do not have a standing court opinion, but I do know what the Founders said about dual citizenship.

Now, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” disallows any dual citizenship.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”