So far, so good for both Berg and Lightfoot (Dr. Taitz)
Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) or Perkins v. Elg (1939).
A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family changing nationalities (becoming citizens) by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer not just citizenship, but natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).
So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.
That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.
Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court. The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.
Re: So far, so good for both Berg and Lightfoot (Dr. Taitz)
Quote:
Originally Posted by azwreath
So MinuteMan......just how promising is it that Justice Roberts has distributed this for full conference?
Is this the furthest a case has gotten so far?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (1898) or Perkins v. Elg (1939).
A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family becoming citizens by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).
So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.
That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.
Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court.
The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.
Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.
Re: So far, so good for both Berg and Lightfoot (Dr. Taitz)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.
As we here know, the different cases focus on different issues, and no one case attacks every issue exhaustively, from every angle, to the demand for resolution, with victory in view. SCOTUS will have to combine all the cases if they want to settle all the issues.
If the Supreme Court Justices were looking for one case with which to define "natural born citizen," they would have heard Wrotnowski or Donofrio. But they didn't. Puzzling.
Re: So far, so good for both Berg and Lightfoot (Dr. Taitz)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Deep inside I believe SCOTUS has decided to take but one case. Perhaps they are looking for either the one case that will settle ALL citizenship issues or maybe they are looking for the one case that can be very narrowly ruled on in regards to "natural born citizen". I think it depends on this, are they looking to make history or peace.
As we here know, the different cases focus on different issues, and no one case attacks every issue exhaustively, from every angle, to the demand for resolution, with victory in view. SCOTUS will have to combine all the cases if they want to settle all the issues.
If the Supreme Court Justices were looking for one case with which to define "natural born citizen," they would have heard Wrotnowski or Donofrio. But they didn't. Puzzling.
Bergs case seems to be a smorgasbord of everything. I wonder if that is why they have two conferences scheduled for that one.
There is no end to the disappointment that not one of the 535 members of our congress was willing to stand up for our constitution. I now believe that all are guilty of high treason, no matter what Obama's status really is. There are too many questions about his eligibility not to have questioned this.
Re: So far, so good for both Berg and Lightfoot (Dr. Taitz)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Your guess is as good as mine, azwreath. Distribution for conference is certainly more promising than a denial, don't you think? Still, Leo Donofrio's case and Cort Wrotnowski's case were distributed for conference, considered, and denied for full hearings. Apparently, no more than three Supreme Court Justices wanted to define "natural born citizen," or to revisit Wong Kim Ark (1898) or Perkins v. Elg (1939).
A review of Wong Kim Ark might endanger the current judicial misinterpretation of citizenship by birth (ius soli) which allows anchor babies to be U.S. citizens without a citizen parent to confer citizenship. In the present-day social climate of gender equality, a review of Perkins v. Elg might kill the patriarchal notion of an entire family becoming citizens by virtue of the father's naturalization. If the citizenship of the wife or mother were to be defined as independent of her husband's citizenship status, that would end the current misinterpretation from Elg that when the mother is not a citizen, the father by himself can confer natural born citizenship upon his offspring (ius sanguinis).
So far, discussion in Supreme Court conference is as far as any of the many cases has proceeded. But SCOTUS has scheduled hearings in conference for Jan. 9, 16, and 23, with more applications in the wings.
That can only be considered A GOOD SIGN: for the O-bots, an inauspicious omen.
Remember: In God we trust, not in men, not even in the Supreme Court.
The Lord can make marvelous and wonderful things happen that we can't even imagine.
Just want to make a quick observation that it was our own STATUTES that started making women jump through separate hoops to obtain their own naturalization. Mrs. Elg was a naturalized citizen when baby Elg was born.
Here's a sample of how our older laws used to work:
Act of February 10, 1855 [10 Stat. 604, section 2]
[i][b]“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.â€