Art 2 Superpac cite the six cases below:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -
• Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
• Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
• Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
• Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
• United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
• Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
We usually cite Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875) as being one of our clearest SCOTUS definitions of what a Natural Born Citizen is. They state:
“ The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
However, Minor was ruled in 1875, but Venus clearly predates Minor by 60 years. Venus (quoting Vattel) states:
“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
And this is perhaps where Minor v. Happersett first came to understand the correct definition of what a natural born citizen is… as opposed to someone with an alien condition in their birth.
This article will not pursue the definition of “natural born citizen” (NBC) because both Venus and Minor puts all question of the definition of natural born citizen to rest. Even the dissent in Wong Kim Ark correctly states the long held definition of what a NBC is.
Instead, what I wish to point out in this article is a fact that I discovered in the 1939 Perkins v. Elg case.
“Later rulings were to the same effect. Thus, in 1890, in dealing with a native American citizen who, upon his own application, had been admitted to Danish citizenship during his minority, and who had not yet come of age, the Secretary of State, while recognizing that, "when a citizen of the United States voluntarily becomes naturalized or renaturalized in a foreign country, he is to be regarded as having lost his rights as an American citizen," was careful to make the following qualifications in support of the right of election at majority, saying:”
"As Mr. Andersen has not yet attained his majority, the Department is not prepared to admit that proceedings taken on his behalf in Denmark during his minority would deprive him of his right, upon reaching the age of twenty-one years, to elect to become an American…”
This ruling has a direct bearing on both Mr. Soetoro’s birth and Mr. Mitt Romney’s birth.
Romney’s question of citizenship covers a period from 1884 to 1907. Romney’s question begins in 1884 when 14 year old Gaskell left the United States and migrated to Mexico. Gaskell’s father became a Mexican Citizen and according to the Perkins v. Elg case above… Gaskell’s father immediately lost his citizenship as soon as he became a Mexican citizen!
The question, according to Perkins v. Elg, was when and if Gaskell upon reaching his 21st birthday DID HE ELECT TO KEEP HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP… if he did… then PROVE IT!
But Gaskell did NOT assert his American citizenship rights on or near his 21st birthday. This would have needed to be done about 1891. However, Gaskell remained in Mexico as a Mexican citizen until 1907 when there was civil unrest in Mexico. Gaskell was then 37 years old, far past the time to regain his American citizenship and be repatriated as a US Citizen.
Gaskell’s son, George Romney was born in Mexico (1907) as a full fledged Mexican citizen. There has never been given any proof of American citizenship for George Romney, or his father Gaskell Romney.
And of course, this would mean that Mitt Romney has no proof of American Citizenship as well. If his father was an illegal alien then Mitt could only declare his citizenship by the right of being a “birthright” baby. Since he seemed to have been born “in the United States” he could claim birthright baby status via the 14th Amendment.
But to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, Mr. Romney would have to prove his father, George Romney, became naturalized prior to his birth. But this cannot be done because no such documentation exists.
The same is true for Mr. Soetoro. There is a school document showing Mr. Soetoro (aka BHO) to be adopted and being claimed as a citizen of Indonesia. Using Perkins v. Elg’s instructions, Mr. Soetoro would have had to reclaim his AMERICAN citizenship on or at his 21st birthday. Since Soetoro was born in 1961 then he would have had to reclaim his citizenship by 1982. No records show any attempt of Mr. Soetoro legally reclaiming his “birthright.”
Of course, this is assuming that Mr. Soetoro was indeed born in Hawaii and he can in fact claim American citizenship just on the premise that he was born on American soil… but his fake birth certificate(s) seems to indicate the charges and rumors of his being born on foreign soil (Kenya) has great merit. Personally, I believe Mr. Soetoro is a Kenyan citizen and has no right to a claim of AMERCAN BORN CITIZENSHIP. At too, Soetoro’s mother was under age, and when she mated with an adult foreign national bigamist, she lost all right to transfer American citizenship to her son. So either Mr. Soetoro is a British subject, or a Kenyan citizen, or else still remains an Indonesian citizen. He cannot and has not proved he was born on American soil.
Neither Mr. Soetoro, nor Mr. Romney qualifies for the Office of POTUS!
Edward C. Noonan
President 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment