The Law -- Perkins v. ELG

One attorney, practicing in the federal courts, believes Leo Donofrio's (NJ) case is actually looking pretty solid -- read this article at http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

This article points out that John A. Bingham, the Framer of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizen as follows: "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." Obama, whose father was a British subject, had dual nationalities at birth, and thus would not be considered a natural born citizen. The definition above is only Bingham's opinion, but it is certainly on point. There is not a clear definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution, so the issue is "ripe" for consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It would not be surprising if four of the justices vote to give Donofrio's case a full hearing.

Here is an updated case that gives examples of the citizenship classification. The case is Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). 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 a citizen of the US is and what a native-born citizen (or natural born citizen) of the US is. Attached is the case with highlights.

Here is a chart of the facts and the Supreme Court's holding in the case. The Supreme Court will have to consider Obama ineligible to be President based on the two cases. The problem for Obama is that his father was a foreigner (Kenyan Citizen) and Obama will never be considered natural born (or native born) of this country.

Facts
Supreme Court Holding	Citizenship Matrix
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).	Elg is a citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939).	1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 US citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) AND Born in Brooklyn, NY (USA)
The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).	'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).	2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)

There's now absolute proof that Obama and his Chicago political Mafia has been plotting this circumvention of the US Constitution, for which he has such disdain. The Obama camp has been studying ways to change the Constitutional requirements for President for some time now.

Remember, Obama taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago as a "senior lecturer." He KNOWS, and the DNC KNOWS, that Obama does not meet the standards of Section 1 of Article II of the US Constitution.

The Democratic Party is engaged in nothing short of a coup d'état, defined as the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part of the state establishment

from http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htmon November 29,2008.

Also of interest is the preceding article from November 28, 2008:

The Law -- US v. Wong Kim Ark

This attorney also believes there is a U.S. Supreme Court case that is on point regarding the "natural born citizen" clause meaning in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

It is US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898). Look at the highlighted portions on page 654 through 656 and page 662 through 663 (note: the document begins on page 650). These are the relevant portions. This is the case the US Supreme Court will likely refer to in defining the natural born citizen clause and applying it to the candidates of the 2008 presidential election.

Just a brief summary regarding law that is controlling authority and one that is persuasive authority. The highest level of federal legal authority is cases from the U.S. Supreme Court. Next in line are cases from the Circuit Court of Appeals (1st, 3rd, 8th, etc...). Then you have the Federal Courts (district courts). In terms of federal law, the highest level of authority is the US Constitution. Next is federal statute made by Congress. Then everything else.

This case was provided so the reader will be informed. Donofrio is right and the Supreme Court will likely follow this case.