United States v. Rhodes: The “Natural Born Citizen” Question
Lan Lamphere today posted a rather long article on United States v. Rhodes (Mr. Lamphere does not specifically state whether he found this or was given to him), a case that could potentially be used as part of arguing the definition of “natural born citizen” for Donofrio v. Wells.
On the flip side, MadWombat takes a slightly different stance on US v. Rhodes and uses another case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, to help bolster their perspective.
Still, I think Leo really has something on the “at birth” issue; Donofrio v. Wells: Obama’s “at birth†Issue and Could FactCheck.org be Plainly Stating Obama’s Biggest Citizenship Problem?.
-Phil
Update: Cort Wrotnowski, Plaintiff in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, specifically addresses United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in his Supreme Court Emergency Stay Application.
Let me translate:
The Wong Kim Ark case stated that the definition of “natural born” intended by the authors of the Constitution meant ‘born in the nation’ and not the child of someone operating under foreign law, such as a diplomat. This case states that Obama, who was born in Hawaii, is a ‘natural born’ citizen.
It’s an interesting and important case. Watch out for quotes from those who claim “Obama isn’t a natural born citizen” they take from the _dissent_. I kid you not. They use arguments from the _dissenting opinion_ (which lost 6-2) to bolster their claims that Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen.
Tell these people that they have been royally deceived.
[...] (MS Word file: Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)). Briefly: It expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s case definition of nationality (below).  But the key is this case gives examples of what [...]
Landstander,
Yes, I think the other site falls under the category of "analysis paralysis," whereby they miss the entire "at birth" concept; I think they're still cogitating under the auspices of "on the birth certificate."
-Phil
Oops, hit enter too fast.
I reject U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a valid argument. In the case of Obama, UK law conferred dual citizenship on him at birth, that is not the case with Wong Kin Ark.
Um, what?
I have no idea what they're talking about, but the little I understood sounded like they consider naturalization the act of making someone natural born.
Can anyone translate this into… well anything?