Comments on: United States v. Rhodes: The “Natural Born Citizen” Question

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:20:28 +0000

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.

By: The Right Side of Life » Blog Archive » Perkins v. Elg and The Federalist Blog Help Classify Citizenship; Why Run Ineligible Candidates?

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 04:29:21 +0000

[...] (MS Word file:Â 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).Â Â But the key is this case gives examples of what [...]

By: PhilGA

PhilGA — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:06:44 +0000

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

By: Landstander

Landstander — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:02:48 +0000

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.

By: Landstander

Landstander — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:59:49 +0000

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?