text:
[UPDATED: Dec. 15, 2011 – see update in RED below]
The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.
Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in "dicta".
Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases".
Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents must be followed.
It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.
Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.
The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue.
While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman's suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman's right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. [UPDATED Dec. 15, 2011 – The voting rights issue was not superseded by the 19th Amendment, and it remains good law today. Please see JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED "MINOR v HAPPERSETT" FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO '08 ELECTION. ]And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of "natural-born citizen" – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.
Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court's holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.
Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' " (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)
This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.
A more careful reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.
The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …
"The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)
There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.
The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.
The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a "natural-born citizen" is still controlling precedent.
Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray's statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor's construction below creates binding legal precedent:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
"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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." (Emphasis added.)
Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel's definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.
In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were "natural-born citizens". The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their "citizenship" was never in doubt.
By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
The Court also noted that some authorities include as "citizens" those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different "class". The Court in Minor refused to comment on the "citizenship" of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn't need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a "natural-born citizen". Read the following again:
"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
This class is specifically defined as "natural-born citizens" by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen "parents" – may or may not be "citizens". But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.
It's quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.
The Minor Court refrained from making a "citizenship" determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.
In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of "natural-born citizens". Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.
This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the "citizenship" of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.
The 14th Amendment specifically confers only "citizenship". In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.
Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:
– a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines "natural-born Citizen" more inclusively than Minor did , or;
– a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case
We have neither.
Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were "citizens", but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.
Read again Justice Gray's statement as to Minor, "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…" Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.
The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Ankeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor's natural-born citizen language, then stated:
"Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen."
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the "citizenship" of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.
That is the most important sentence I've ever written at this blog. So please read it again.
The "citizenship" of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as "natural-born citizens".
Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to "citizenship" under the 14th Amendment.
That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:
"In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
'The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.'
19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges."
At first glance, Gray's reliance upon the dissent's passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn't. It actually confirms my analysis.
Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, "And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges." Well, if we are talking only about "citizenship", then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a "natural-born citizen", then Gray is grossly mistaken.
The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to "citizenship", but the majority's definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights."
"I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country."
Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…"
Unexceptionable is defined as; " not open to any objection or criticism." The Supreme Court majority, in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray's reliance upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of "citizenship" by Gray's very choice of the words, "to this extent".
Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that Gray's statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens. The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen.
Gray's use of the words, "to this extent" – with regard to the dissent by Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of "citizenship", not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.
In 1996, the US Supreme Court's majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain "…reason as an 'independent' ground in support of our decision", then that reasoning is not simply dictum:
"Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an 'independent' ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners' claim that it was simply a dictum."
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.
Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of "natural-born citizens". And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.
The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were "citizens". But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a "natural-born citizen" was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:
"…[A]ll 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..."
Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.
A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama's eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn't. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court's opinion goes on to state:
"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since."
Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are "considered as natural-born citizens". So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.
So, it's clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words "natural-born" were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)
Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at "7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency", comments on the 1790 act as follows:
"This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person was to be "considered as" a natural-born citizen.
The Minor Court also noted that the "substance" of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.
I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all "born citizens" are "natural-born". Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.
No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray's statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two cases are not in contradiction. They are consistent.
Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.
According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
176 Responses to "US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT."
Thank you Leo. No one else has written on this issue with the obvious intensity and focus that you have applied. Sometimes answers are right in front of us but require considerable effort to see.
Great work!!! I don't see how your research can be refuted.
Thank you, I have been arguing the same point for over two years starting in a chat room out of TX, not shut down. Now I can prove it, again thank you.
Satori, I thought, comes from the study of koans, not constitutional rulings.
Some of your best work here. Thank you as well for the clarity of your writing.
Thanks for this Leo–I concur in all particulars.
Your analysis will come in handy for many of us as we discuss this issue with (unenlightened) others between now and the next federal election!
Yeah, and what of it? Who's going to do anything about it? Legal analysis without any teeth is purely academic. Find a way to shut him down, or shut down your blog.
ed. Disagree. The truth is necessary regardless. – Leo
Is there a legal distinction made in the SCOTUS ruling by using plural versus singular nouns in the following sentence?
"The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens".
If I rewrite that sentence with singular nouns, does it change the meaning of the sentence? (i.e. "A natural-born citizen is one born in the country to a parent who is a citizen.")
Same question for Vattel, who uses singular nouns:
"I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Can one convert Vattel's sentence to plural nouns and not change the legal interpretation of the sentence?
Thanks for any insight you care to share.
ed. You should read both passages together. Furthermore, the same logic can be applied to one citizen in favor of the Minor Court's definition. If a person is born here of a foreigner (singular), it will not be his country. Tit for tat so to speak. – Leo
Check Mate, if we really had an honest Supreme Court!
That was a short hiatus…it's almost like you never left!!!
Leo, I have a question, the quote below states
"no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" Were they specifying "citizen" to mean all those who were in country at the adoption of the Constitution were the only "citizens" eligible for the office of President and only them. Meaning when the last person who was here at that time passes, that part of the requirement dies with them and no other can claim eligibility using that part of it?
ed. Yes, but only as to the grandfather clause (obviously). – Leo
Do you have any views on the decesion of the Flores-Villar vs U.S. Scotus case?
Jun 13 2011 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED by an equally divided Court. Justice Kagan took not part in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion per curiam.
A TIE, does this show us how far left the Court leans? If, Kagan had'nt recused herself it's more than likely the Court would of affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 and there would of been an Opinion
My next question is, IF the facts of what you have just published ever makes it before the Court would Justice Sotomayor and Kagan have to recuse? ed. Under ethical rules, they should recuse since their jobs would be directly at stake if Obama's presidency were voided by a ruling of ineligibility… all of his official acts would be void as well. – Leo
Thank God you're back with a brilliant exposition of your research on the Supreme Court's "precedent" of a natural born citizen to be POTUS. NOW, if this can only be translated into legal action to remove the usurper from the WH and his perversion and destruction of the USA. I keep you in my prayers and wishing you God's blessings of peace, joy and love.
Now that clearly a fact of the matter has been clarified and established ,we now may determine judicially that Obama is not qualified to be America"s president since the year 2008.
How may you proceed to have this imposter removed immediately and tried for treason and conspiracy to destroy our country, America ?
ed. I won't. Here is the law. It's in the hands of the nation. I am staying out of the Courts because the 2d Circuit has intimidated me and I do not feel safe steeping into their gig.- Leo
Hi Leo,
Congratulations on this succinct and powerful legal argument.
I am uncertain on just one small point. You state 'Justice Gray's statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong'. Can this incorrect statement by Justice Gray have any effect or influence, until such time as a Supreme Court Judge specifically declares Justice Gray to be wrong on this point?
Great article. It cleared up many questions I had about Minor and it's conflict with Ark, as well as the Arkeny case.
So what next? Will a public understanding of the Supreme Court precedent help to force the courts to finally hear a case regarding NBC? Will the lower courts continue to misinterpret the existing precedent as needed to protect Obama? Is there anything the average citizen can even do?
Can I try to summarize your current thought process? Per Minor, you have been able to undeniably conclude (in this blog post) that Obama cannot, and will never, be a NBC. But, if a case were eventually to make it to the SCOTUS then you have a potential path by which The One _might_ be able to be meet this eligibility requirement –using a strategy that you will reveal later– IF he can convince the Supreme Court?
Is that a fair summary?
ed. No. Read my comment to this article (comment #1). His best argument changes nothing. I just feel that I have to make it for him regardless. But it changes nothing. It's just a point he can argue which I haven't seen argued previously on his behalf. – Leo
Great work.
Minor has been often quoted and misquoted in the forums where this actively 'discussed'. And WKA is often cited. And the Indiana case is also cited. Great work on addressing and tying them all together.
The counter argument will be that the a single parent can provide the jus sanguinis component. That is last leg of hope for the obstructionists.
I also believed that the immigration act of 1790 also provides the insight (though not the formal definition as incorrectly cited in SR 511) to establish the same definition. It clearly makes it clear that jus sanguinis is a mandatory component of an actual 'natural born Citizen'. And, indirectly, it implies jus soli is required. Again matching Vattel but not directly relying on Vattel.
Thanks, Leo – for finding the, "needle in the haystack", precedent. Very important study to keep in mind, Minor v. Happersett. Making a, "silk purse out of a sow's ear", seems to be unconsiousable revorie concerning, Obama. With all due respect to the ladies and Mrs. Minor, It is a good reflection that the precedent defines the founding fathers intentions of a, "natural-born Citizen", as law.
When, in 1787, the authors of the Constitution extended the NBC Grandfather Clause to people who were US Citizens at the future uncertain date of the adoption of the Constitution, they conceded that it was insufficient to simply be born in the US to two US citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. If those requirements were the sum-total of being a natural born citizen, there would be absolutely no reason to extend the Grandfather Clause to a future uncertain date, because in 1787 an entire generation of natural born citizens were already in the pipeline. (The US existed for 12 years in 1787 – read last line before their signatures.)
So, if birth in the US to two US citizen parents is NOT sufficient to be a natural born citizen, what other requirement might the authors of the Constitution intended?
We find a clue in the Constitution's oath requirement for the Executive. The oath is not simply to the country the United States under any government. Rather the oath is to the United States exclusively under the government which the Constitution established.
The oath test and the natural born citizen test are, in my opinion, the same: exclusive loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the government which the Constitution established, and without loyalty, fealty, allegiance to any other alien governments, including the alien government of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
We don't need SCOTUS to interpret what the authors of the Constitution intended by natural born citizen is. It's IN THE CONSTITUTION, quite plainly in my opinion.
Perhaps every natural born citizen is born in the United States, but not every person who is born in the United States is a natural born citizen. Perhaps every natural born citizen is a citizen from birth, but not every person who is a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen. Because each of these circumstances permits the person to be born in the allegiance, fealty, and loyalty of an alien government.
Thank you, Leo, for NOT giving up. Since the issue at hand is the
clear and singular Constitutional requirement of NBC for President and
Vice President, we await the day when this precedent is finally and fully
brought to bear on BHO, and the matter is resolved, for the sake of our
country and her survival, once and for ALL time. May it be in our lifetime,
please Lord. God bless.
I've been saying this for over a year now!!!
Thank you Leo for getting it OUT!
If you actually read the Dissenting Opinion of Wong Kim Ark, they got it 100% right. See Dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
And, I guess it's JUST a coincidence that Justice Horace Gray, who gave the final opinion in WKA, was appointed by Chester Arthur, the Original Usurper. So, when we get Obama for not being a Natural Born Citizen, we also need to look back to ANYTHING Chester Arthur did and make sure that is voided as well.
This WKA opinion, given by an ILLEGALLY appointed Justice has changed the course of our country and we need to fix it!
Oh, I forgot my two videos that prove Obama is NOT eligible. 100% sourced with government documents and the founders writings:
The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology!
Oh boy!
" 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 ]].
What has [[ NEVER ]] been doubted? Answer: The " FIRST ". The " FIRST " is: " … 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,… "
There it is in black and white.
Thank you for an excellent analysis.
With regard to the 1898 US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, I have encountered Obama defenders who reference the quote below as one that equates natural-born subjects with natural born citizens.
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."
However, what the Obama defenders do not know (or wish to admit) is that aliens in England (known as "alien friends") suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, England's Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would "bear faith and true allegiance" to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood. These children were called denizens and were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute.
In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (via naturalization). While residing in the US, aliens do not "bear faith and true allegiance" to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. Hence, there is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens.
ed. Thanks, Tex. I can use that in a follow up where I take on the nbc vs nbs argument. It is nothing to worry about. I have some more stuff to end that debate. This will be the subject of a major post here at the blog. But thank you for your tip off. Please send any links you have to research that might be useful. Leo
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States
By Joseph Story – Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1811–45)
759. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments,
to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.
It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.
But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.
It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis in the original)
Now Look at what Justice Story tells us –
" to exclude foreign influence from their execuitive councils and duties. "
" But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman ."
My question is how would Justice Story define the word ' foreigner ' ?
Henry Campbell Black's – A Dictionary of Law, First Edition 1891 defined the word as:
FOREIGNER. In old English law, this term, when used with reference to a particular city, designated any person who was not an inhabitant of that city. According to later usage, it denotes a person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country of which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign.
docket entry "Supreme trial" August 15th 2011, Chris Strunk's latest hearing date in NYS Kings County Supreme Court on 2008 ballot mis-certification of non-nbc candidates of RNC-NY (McCain), DNC ( Obama), and SWP
Awesome, but I signed the impeachment petition 2 and 1/2 years ago. What else can you do?
Most excellent, Leo. Thank you. May God bless you and keep you. I hope your donations are helping you to prepare for your "judicial beat-down".
This is an appropriate time for me to repeat some points that I posted in comments to an earlier article, plus a few extra comments.
For the slight amusement of your readers, I offer a few of tidbits.
Please recall the letter from John Jay to George Washington.
Here is the timeline.
The first draft of the Constitution only required citizenship to be President.
John Jay wrote to Washington:
Quote: Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. Unquote (John Jay underlined 'born' in his handwritten letter.)
The final draft (only 2-3 weeks later) included the NBC requirement, instead of just citizen.
Conclusion: The reason, the whole reason and nothing but the reason the founders included the NBC requirement was to prevent BHO from becoming President!!!
Not BHO by name, but by status: dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by a foreign power.
Once again, just to keep things spicy, one might ask why having "dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by a foreign power" is important.
From a recent article by Thomas Sowell, we find this tidbit:
Quote: The British newspaper the Telegraph has reported that part of the price which President Obama paid to get Russia to sign the START treaty limiting nuclear arms, was revealing to the Russians the hitherto secret size of the British nuclear arsenal. This information came from the latest WikiLeaks documents. Unquote
Linked here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259206/undermining-allies-thomas-sowell
Obama, acting as President of the US, released "British State Secrets" to the Russians!! At best, you could claim that he was acting within his authority as President. (Certainly, foreign policy is within the constitutional powers of the President.) At worst, you could claim that as a US Citizen, he committed espionage against an ally, Britain.
However, what if he were a British citizen and released British State Secrets?? Well, that would not be "foreign policy" nor "espionage", that would be TREASON.
Oh , wait a minute. BHO IS (!!!!!) a British citizen.
Dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by foreign powers.
All of those things are still true of BHO.
Under Kenyan constitution, BHO had to take affirmative action upon becoming adult to keep Kenyan citizenship.
BHO did not do that. Therefore, his Kenyan citizenship has expired.
Under British law, BHO is still a British citizen unless he took specific action to revoke his British citizenship.
It is not known that he has done that.
Therefore, it must be assumed that he has not revoked his British citizenship.
It must be assumed that BHO still has dual US & British citizenships.
Enter the Master Nationality Rule (MNR), in international law.
In layman's terms, the MNR states that a dual citizen person is considered to be a 100% citizen when physically within either of the dual citizenship countries.
What it means, is that whenever BHO is within the US, then he is considered to be 100% US and Britain may lay no official claims upon him.
However, whenever BHO is within Great Britain, then he is considered to be 100% British and the US may not claim any immunities of US citizenship.
What this means is that when BHO takes his next trip to Great Britain,
then the British may arrest him for treason, try him, convict him and take him out back and hang him!!
The US government could file a protest, but the British would not have to listen.
He is treated as though he is 100% British while he is in Britain.
Now, I do not believe that the British would actually do that, they are much too polite.
(And, in fact, during his recent visit, they very politely did not hang him.)
However, I certainly would not put that past the Russians, the Iranians, the Libyans, etc., etc., etc.
It certainly illustrates why "dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, and being subject to claims by a foreign power" is important.
And, why the founding fathers wanted to avoid such possibility.
And, why they put NBC into the final draft of the Constitution as a requirement for the Presidency.
As a final note, just to keep things spicy, remember that BHO has bowed to the Saudis, the Japanese and the Chinese.
Of course, this is a sore spot to many US Citizens and Patriots.
BHO has made two official visits to Great Britain.
Remember the Master Nationality Rule, while in Britain, BHO is 100% British.
The only person in the whole world to whom BHO owes allegiance from birth is the Queen of England.
The only person in the whole world to whom BHO owes a bow is the Queen of England.
BHO has not bowed to the Queen of England!
I wonder why not?
ed. Very interesting analysis which illustrates common problems with dual citizenship… which are highlighted in a dual POTUS. Whether Obama still has British citizenship is an open question… more on that issue to come in a future blog post. – Leo
Dear Leo,
I don't know if you know a person named… (ed. Snip — Please don't reprint stuff that sounds like Dr. Seuss at my blog written by people who are trying to lie through their teeth and confuse. I don't care about lies. The truth is written here for all to see. Those with an open mind will understand the clear analysis provided here. Those who have an agenda supporting Obama will never admit defeat. The stuff that person is writing is gibberish… it's like gobbledeygook on purpose. That's the only tactic they have. The truth isn't with them. They want to tell you that white means black and up = down. The words chosen by the SCOTUS in Minor are very clear, Obama is not eligible according to precedent. I imagine it's an uncomfortable day for them.) – Leo
Long day, 100-miles to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to sit in on Gonzalez v. State of Arizona 08-17094EB
I'll tag for now, so I get notices.
"ed. You should read both passages together. Furthermore, the same logic can be applied to one citizen in favor of the Minor Court's definition. If a person is born here of a foreigner (singular), it will not be his country. Tit for tat so to speak. –Leo"
Okay. Now I get it!
I have always struggled to explain why the plural "parents" specifically implies two citizen parents for one child rather than simply being a plural noun in agreement with its corresponding plural nouns in the sentence.
Thank you,
Discovering and making the usurper's best argument for him is exactly what a good lawyer does. Then you know the total truth. Truth is everything.
I want to know how he got those really bad ed. no comments about physical appearance of anyone involved please – Leo
Just a reminder – "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in" – GFIII.
Whether this goes anywhere, whether or not you are directly involved in any court action, your fingerprints are all over this. The Republic is at stake and whether you like it or not you're holding some very important cards.
Stay safe.
Leo, in the Minor decision it states: "and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. "
Would that validate John McCain as a "natural born" U.S. citizen?
In full that paragraph states: "Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. n8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. "
ed. Read my comments about the Foreign Affairs Manual which questions whether a statue can grant nbc status and be Constitutional. A statue cannot over ride the Constitution or even define it. But more important is to note that the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795 never to return. This is why McCain is not eligible. The latest statutes are necessary to grant him "citizenship", therefore he is not natural born. He is essentially born a citizen, but it takes a statute to make him so… therefore he does not fit into the precedent definition of nbc laid down in Minor. – Leo
Look at Citizen Wells.
10th Amendment. The feds don't enforce, the states don't enforce, then the citizens have STANDING. Re-File your case at the SCOTUS and claim voter fraud because you were denied the right to verify Obama eligibility prior to 2008 election. The SCOTUS needs to make a decision.
ed. Im Not filing any cases. I have been intimidated from practicing law by the 2d Circuit. I filed an appeal on behalf of people who lost their entire livelihoods… for this I am being abused by the court. It's actually dangerous for me to file law suits in this country and my clients will be subjected to damage as well… the 2d Circuit has effectively ended my ability to enter the federal courts safely. – Leo
Where do we go from here. Obama has the media totally under his control. SCOTUS refuses to hear. I have tried to get my local NC representative to at least read the 'proof', i.e., Doug Vogt's findings and the fake SS# and he calls me a fanatic (and this guys a RepubiRINO).
So, Leo. We are looking at writs of Mandamus but so what, they can laugh, and report it 'to the local police' and nothing happens.
How NOW do we force this issue, when we can't even get Faux News to correct their distortion of their 'interview' where they changed his opinion on the b/c?
ed. I won't. Here is the law. It's in the hands of the nation. I am staying out of the Courts because the 2d Circuit has intimidated me and I do not feel safe steeping into their gig.- Leo
Does this happen to every lawyer that is sanctioned? Once sanctioned, you are forever bastardized from court? Is it like the scarlet letter of an adulteress? I thought you and Steve Pigeon were to wear this sanction as a badge of honor?
You say this is in the hands of the nation. If so, then this is all moot. The average American is more concerned who will be the next "Dancing with the Stars" champion, and if and when they will get more money from entitlements than they ever paid in. The Democrats (Masters of double-speak) are laughing their asses off while they drain the Treasury even further. The Republicans are the most perverse of all on this issue. They are only out to make political gain from running against Obama's and the Demo's greed, thinking we will forget their own corruption. To me, Republicans on this issue are equal to a man allowing the rape of a spouse, thinking this will make the woman will cling to them more.
And if you can figure out what the Hell the SCOTUS is thinking, you are one up on me!
If you are not going to do something with this, why did you even bother?
I would like to say: "Sorry, I am not trying to piss you off.", but maybe I am.
You are a good lawyer. I truly admire your sense of patriotism. Stop feeling sorry for yourself , educate the masses, and win the day.
ed. Do you want to pay my bills when the Court hands me a bill? There's a Paypal button up there… it's there because the court is trying to bleed me dry as punishment for telling the truth. I do appreciate the kind support from the people who donated. It's been a wide array of people, all who will get a written note from me of thanks when this is done… but it's not enough to cover me and Steve for another kicking. I put the law out there… this is what I do best – research. There's thousands of you – so bring thousands of law suits… I give you the law… you are as capable as me to bring a law suit. – Leo
This looks Like a Conspiracy could have taken place back in 2008 to cover-up and Bribe each other to stay silent on each others Ineligibility issues . Check out the date when this Law Professor came out with this review , 2.5 months after the Senate passed SR 511 for McCain , now tell me that the Republican Party and McCain were not vulnerable at this Point to have Not wanted a battle at this late stage in the election to have to have a fight over Obama and McCain being BOTH ILLEGAL ALIENS ????????
The USA has been in a state of Anarchy since 2008 because of this , this is why we cannot see the Congress get anything done , and why the Republicans will not challenge Obama on anything he does because he is threantening this against them and is willing to expose this cover-up to the world making the trust for the USA in the world a complete and udder disaster.
these 2 articles are 5 days apart …..
I totally agree with your point on the grandfather clause. That's the point in the conversation when they stick their fingers in their ears and sing away.
Because of the inaction of the Federal Government it will be up to the states to act on Constitutional issues regarding the Liberty and justice of the USA being up held .
Copy and send to your STATE legislators
From the Goldwater Institute…
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute Policy Report
June 1, 2011
Federalism DIY: 10 Ways for States to Check and Balance Washington
The federal government is tightening its control over the 50 states and the lives of every American. The U.S. Constitution, however, says states are supposed to be equal partners with the federal government. State sovereignty—allowing each state to control its own affairs—is the cornerstone of that equal partnership and critical to protecting Americans' freedom. Below are 10 ways local policymakers and citizens can restore that balance of power and do what's best for the people of your state.
Legislation Plus Litigation
States can enact laws that protect individual liberty and take the federal government to court to defend those laws.
Taxpayer Courts
Taxpayers can't sue the federal government for abuse of their tax dollars, but states can authorize taxpayers to bring lawsuits in state court to stop state and federal governments from using tax dollars in ways that violate the Constitution.
Expand Civil Rights Laws
Because state sovereignty is a protection the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all Americans, states can enact civil rights laws to protect that right and enable individuals to sue state and federal governments when they disregard state sovereignty.
Constitutional Defense Councils
States can create independent Constitutional Defense Councils that have the authority and funding to defend state sovereignty in court.
Many federal agencies are governed by laws that contain "coordination" provisions. State and local governments can limit the impact of new federal regulations by requiring federal agencies to coordinate with existing local laws, regulations, plans, and policies.
Reinvigorate the Reserved Powers of the States
The U.S. Constitution belongs to the states. States can pass laws that invoke their reserved powers and force the federal government into a position where it has no lawful or practical way to enforce federal laws that upset the balance of power between the states and Washington.
Empower the People
Sometimes we don't need new laws in order to protect individual rights. Sometimes we need to repeal laws that are already on the books. Many state laws actually invite the federal government to get involved in the minutia of local affairs. One way to stop that is to replace those laws with opportunities for citizens to protect their own rights.
Refuse Conditional Grants
States can limit or eliminate the power of state and local officials to accept federal grants that require the state or local government to give more control over local decision-making to Washington.
Amend the U.S. Constitution to Limit the Federal Government
State legislatures were given the same power as Congress to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. States can initiate the process by proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would limit the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government.
Interstate Compacts
Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states. Compacts can be used to protect individual rights and state sovereignty, and they don't always need congressional approval. Interstate compacts could be used to prevent the federal government from enforcing key provisions of the federal health care bill, or from infringing on Second Amendment rights, for example.
Read Federalism DIY: 10 Ways for States to Check and Balance Washington here
Appendix of Model Legislation and Legislative Memos
Constitution, Article III, Section 2 says in part:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
All we need now is an Attorney General from one of our 50 states who would be willing to file directly with the Supreme Court for relief. SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction and presumably, a state ought to have standing. Could a state file a Quo Warranto with SCOTUS?
You have the legal argument all tied up in a nice little bundle. You just need a vehicle to carry it home.
Re: Tony N on 6.21.11 @ 10:05 AM
In his book "Birth Certificate," Corsi proved McCain was born on the military base in Panama (both parents U.S. citizens) and thus is a nbC because overseas military bases (and embassies) are considered U.S. soil.
ed. I see no proof of that in his book, but it wouldnt make any difference. The FAM by State Dept clearly states that being born on a US military base does not give one US citizenship. McCain was not eligible, that's why he was chosen as candidate. Obama was installed.- Leo
SCOTUS precedent: Courts consider elections the responsibility of the Legislative Branch (otherwise courts would be clogged worse than they are now with people unhappy with election results) and try to stay out of the fray unless there is a federal question such as equal protection as in the presidential election in 2000. That is why it is so difficult to get standing in federal court in a case dealing with an election.
Thus, Congress has the frontline responsibility to remove BHO. There are two ways:
First, through impeachment. This is not appropriate because he is not a legitimate president.
Second, through Amendment 25. With this SCOTUS precedent, Congress has no choice but to open hearings on eligibility.
Contact and educate your representative and senator.
If they don't comply, drain the swamp in 2012.
ed. Quo Warranto as well… – Leo
Dear leo,
I post here my response to John when the thread was reinstalled:
John, you are reading to much into Donofrio's statement, and what the Court said. Donofrio's point is based on much, much narrower grounds.
"…that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were "natural-born citizens". The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their "citizenship" was never in doubt."
There you have it…the legally binding precedent. Now as you say, there may, indeed, be other types of citizenships, or there may not be. There may even be other types of born citizens — who knows? The point is, the Court did not need to go that far, and didn't. It simply told us what a "natural born citizen is.
Donofrio goes on to say, "All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law."
Q. So who is a 14th Amendment citizen?
A. I don't know, but whomever it is, unless s/he was born in the US to parents who were citizens, s/he is not a "natural-born citizen" — the Supreme Court has said so.
ex animo
ed. exactly… Minor left that 14th amendment issue for another time… and WKA happened 23 years later, but WKA did not touch A2S1… so the cases are not in conflict… – Leo
my state representative said that the reason why Brewer Vetoed the Bill in Arizona that would have required presidential Candidates provide proof of Eligibility was because of the bill being racist . What is racist about wanting the LAWS to be Upheld ???
Political Correctness is wiping out any Legal Precedence , so how do we the people move to uphold our rights to Liberty and justice for all when our ability to uphold our LAWS are hamstrung with Political Correctness ????
While the LEFT embraces Islam and and wants that to be excepted into the USA even some wanting it to replace USA Constitutional authority , which we have a system now that seems to be picking and choosing part of the US Constitution anyway as they see fit for the occasions of Politically Correct Populous Rulings on a daily bases , but that this Islam is the Most Radical and Racist towards Women in general , How can this be not talked about and yet the US Constitution is considered a Racist document ???
Yes, I will donate as soon as I am able to. I lost five months income last year to health issues and chemo.
I spent/donated around $4k to Orly Taitz. Including flying her out to meet my state legislators.
I ran three full page ads in a local newspaper for Charles Kerschner to help raise awareness.
As soon as I can, Leo.
ed. No. You've done enough. I was not asking for donations from you… just making a point that I am in danger if I step into a federal court. They have it out for me. It's seriously much more dangerous for me than it is for others to go to court. I have done alot of work educating as to the law… I don't want to go to court any longer. I pass that baton to others and I will remove the donation button after the bloodletting in the Chrysler case is over… the donation button will NOT remain after that bill is paid. But I should have an update on that soon. Something happened which is not right, something new. I can't discuss it now, as we are trying to get to the bottom of it. – Leo
Vattel 1758:
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
THIS COVERS McCain. You cannot have it both ways. If Vattel defines NBC according to the SC, then McCain, born to a military family stationed in Panama, is a NBC.
ed. I don't need it both ways… Like I said in my report, Vattel doesn't make US law… the Supreme Court makes US law. The Court in Minor did not cite to Vattel as did the court in Dred Scott… The Court in Minor made precedent by stating the definition of nbc… again, Minor does not cite to Vattel. The precedent comes from the Court, not Vattel. There is no equivalent SCOTUS precedent as stated in Minor to counter your opinion of McCain's eligibility. Furthermore, the State Department FAM and the naturalization statutes and other federal statutes prove that your Vattel passage above is not US law. Vattel is not US law… he has sometimes been cited by cases. But the passage you quote has never been included in a SCOTUS case whereas the other passage has been. Furthermore, I have warned against people relying to heavily on Vattel. It's the SCOTUS which makes the law and in Minor they didn't mention the name Vattel. We don't need it. – Leo
P.S. I am currently researching the election laws of the State of Oklahoma to determine if I can sue on grounds of unconstitutionality. Oklahoma is suppose to be the reddest of the red states, yet, we cannot get a "proof of eligibility" bill made into law.
In searching for an atty., I have no takers so far.
I think all this Confusion and lack of Upholding the US Constitutional Liberty of We the People is because of the Elites ideology on World OVERPOPULATION and that they Think the Earth has Reached or will reach its Human Carrying capacity in the next 20 or so years , and that they are hell bent on Interrupting this trend with a Philosophical approach and Engineer society to how they think the Finite Element of earth can be sustained with humanity. They have been lying all these years with the rhetoric about Global warming being a issue around Fossil Fuel use , they were just trying to use that as a selling point to allow BIG Government to take over the Free markets of Energy and this collapse the rest of the Free markets and with it capitalism , all so they could then Roll us into a Central Control of World Resources and do as the ZEITGEIST are PLANNING with a Rationing of Resources based off their Perceived notion of what Humanity needs are …… all the while these elitists will continue to Live in the utopia of their making !!!!!
Look at this ,http://www.arizonazeitgeist.com/
They have swept the nation they are in all 50 states ;
Some of our Presidents may have been GROOMED by our adversaries that we thought were our comrades ……We the people were put to sleep while this was going on , and why would we think our own would sell our Liberty down the river , unless they were all talking about something they did not tell us all about ……. some examples to consider ……
And so because of this , can we make a case around the idea that the Trilateral Commission and the CFR , Counsel on Foreign Relations , made up of distinguished people like these guys below is why today we have our our father time of Eugenics and you can bet he here to see his Plan come to fruition with the prediction of the NSSM 200 study that is the bases for all we see going on today ; http://www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html . Read this Kissinger statement , http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger , Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world. "Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States." , and you do know he was at Obama's last state Dinner along with his Co Founder of the Trilateral Commission Think Tank on POPULATION SECURITY issues , Dr. Zbigniew Brezezinski , , http://thehill.com/capital-living/138999-obama-hu-toast-strategic-mutual-trust-at-state-dinner?page=2#comments , and was in the NYSE telling those guys in 2009 Obama is ready for the NEW WORLD ORDER ; http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=85442 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVo&feature=player_embedded
The Condensed Obama Timeline 1959–1995 , the most Informative research on Obama ever !!!!!
http://www.colony14.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/condensedtimeline30apr2011v19.pdf , in this time line it shows how Obama met Zbigniew Brezezinski in 1983 when he was CIA , and co founder of the Kissinger Trilateral Commission in charge of population Control Security detail , a national security Interest of the US and International world elite . These Guys are still active in implementation of worldwide population control and have groomed Obama and his CZARS and Advisers for this time .
Are they conspiring to create their little Earth into their Idea of Utopia for themselves and their little elite members of their Idea of how Society should be ???
You Know these guys are Not fooling around , they are the architects on how to roll up the Side walks of Freedom and we are seeing them activate the plan , read this it is a research firm from Canada that lays out the KISSINGER NSSM200 plan step by step pretty well ; http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7735
Bill Gates is on the record Speaking of this,
ed. It means the President is not eligible according to SCOTUS precedent. It's up to the people if anything is done. Please dont use caps again. – Leo
This link goes with the above on the KGB Grooming Our leadership over the years I think ,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48192065/The-Roots-of-Marxist-Islamic-Radicalism-Russian-KGB-USA-Survival , and man when you see all this chit how can we NOT think we are In the last days ???
read their 24 HOUR LOCKDOWN PLAN here ….. http://shariah4america.com/Shariah/The-Islamic-State-24-Hours-after-Implementation
http://shariah4america.com/ , go to this front page and see their PLANS ….. and they are already here , established , got started in the 1990s with the generous help from the Clintons remember ????
Weiner's Wife Hilary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood …..we are at WAR with our own People that are allowing this Infiltration and its only because of the power of Vanity that Anthony Weiner succumbed too that has exposed this truth …..
Controlled Media ??? You betcha !!!
Mind Control is Key to interrupting a Independent society resistance to collectivism , "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."~ William Colby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
LA Times Won't Release Obama-Khalid Tape But Posts 24,000 Sarah Palin Emails
Dick Morris released this Video below on this…..
Pawlenty for a Shariah compliant housing loan program in Minnesota.
here is how well Infiltrated Radical Islam has Infiltrated our US Government and is running our Financial Lives ;
Obama and Co is all part of this shell game too collapse the current economic Capitalism system and rebirth this …… http://jayhanson.us/index.html , even Glenn Beck is saying this see link below ;
This is what the Fundamental Transformation we were told was coming looks like .
Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm the System
I think its going to get Nasty before this is OVER …..
heres the 4 videos of the Congressman and some colleagues talking about the collapse and getting out of the cities .
If this is Not TRUE then someone needs to Challenge this CONGRESSMAN to a Explanation of how he is making these BOLD Claims HERE in this Links !!!
These next 2 links talk about the dollar collapse that will lead to what the Congressman talks about .
" Capitalism , Gone without a Whimper "
God Bless America.
Leo…….great website! Thanks! I am going to pass this site onto others!
This is what is Being Planned and why we see the US Constitution being Ignored in todays Political arena , and a Choice of Foreign Policies that Aline the USA with a Global One World Order Stance . We the People Must start to understand this and Speak out against this trend in Our United States of America , because we are NOT the Problem , we have a sustainable society and therefore do not need to cede control of Freedom and LIBERTY over to a central Command , but rather we the people are the solution , our way of Life Just and the evidence is clear in this Fertility chart , https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Its when we try and feed a Out of Control society thats Not Considerate of Earths Finite element When they are Planning their families is whats wrong , and those nations that practice Capitalism and self reliance as the medium of economic vitality and prosperity , these educational values is whats evident in this fertility Chart thats sustaining the Earths vitality with the correct population growth !!! Its time we had this Conversation Mr. and Mrs Globalist Elitists or this world !!!!!
I know this population control issue is off the topic , but I think its why we have a MESS and a Incompetent Congress on our hands , because these People that we have leading our country are the same ones that have been in there all these years since the Bureaucracy of technocrats thats rose up into the advisory positions over the years with Details and briefings of what Now is Considered the Number 1 Security Threat to the USA and the World , and this is why we see these idealists not up holding the values of the US Constitution any longer , Individual liberty and these ideals are now considered History , and that these Idealists are convinced that they need to Engineer the future to save EARTH from a Out of control Humanity .
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text , when you read the quote next and this guy co-wrote the Obamacare plan with CZAR John Holdren , you tell me Human LIFE is sanctimonious in these guys minds ??? Environmentalists are nothing more than today's 21st Century Marxists , and they will sell human Life down the road for EARTH FIRST principles , this is a Debate we need to bring out into the OPEN , Google the word " OVERPOPULATION " to see the Technocratic societies debate going on that no One realizes is whats driving everything from the ideas about Climate change to seeing the progressive parties accepting Communism and Marxism .
I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time. I came to understand it emotionally one stinking hot night in Delhi a couple of years ago… The temperature was well over 100, and the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. —Paul Ehrlich
http://dieoff.org/page1.htm , this is the Home Page to the Technocrats scientific explanations on PEAK EARTH
The population bomb is still ticking 13 December 2009
These guys wrote the stimulus bills and the direction those funds were to be implemented , and its basically went to Operate Government and Nothing to stimulate private sector capital Formation and expansion . Pauls argument with Agronomist Norman Borlaug is clearly one that needs future debate , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug .
"The "Population Bomb" Echoes , http://www.zerohedge.com/article/%E2%80%9C-%E2%80%9Cpopulation-bomb%E2%80%9D-echoes , this is recent article just put out by the Co Author that advises Obama with John Holdren the Czars of our Century who are the architects of the War of attrition we are seeing emerge . These guys wrote the health care bill and all the Stimulus and OMNIBUS bills to fund these New Plans , and they directed the funding to their specific sectors of society to collect our society into the New World Order of Control and Domination over Resources and Our Independent access to them , all in the name of saving the Planet from Humanity , in their Mind its Gods work they are doing .
Read what Paul Ehrlich's book says on How to control the US Population go to page 2 of this PDF , Paul R. Ehrlich says we in USA have to be forced into the idea of population control for them to then be able to be a good model for the rest of the world " , Paul R. Ehrlich , adviser to Obama and the Co Author of Eugenics with Obama's Science Czar John Holdren , in this PDF called How to Control the American Population Bomb , these are the guys that had the Health care Bill all ready to go that Congress didn't need to read , they were told what their duties were , just Vote for the sake of saving earth from Humanity like is said ;
This Movement is in line with the Anti private property , Anti Free markets — ed. Snip.If you have something to say about the topic of this blog… please do. Otherwise, do not post anymore videos etc. Please understand, I want the comments to remain on point to the topic. One or two posts which go into something else…OK. But it's overloading the comments if I allow anymore. – Leo
Mr. Donofrio, Thank you so much for your seemingly tireless efforts in this area. I have passed it along to everyone I know in an attempt to get the word out. We have to encourage public debate and political discourse in town squares, just as our founding fathers did.
Tony N, I was very disturbed by the clear lack of substantive arguments in Prof. Chin's opinion piece. As a concerned citizen, I forwarded not only his piece, but Mr. Donofrio's work to as many of his deans and colleagues at his school as I could. It's up to them whether they care that an associate is making them look foolish.
sorry Leo , I am just convinced that this Population Control issue is the Number 1 problem behind everything thats wrong with our USA and its values being washed away by our governments inaction and action on upholding rights liberties and governing by the will of the people , and No one is getting this . Its evident in the CZARS bio's that are advising Obama .
If at least four justices understood and agreed with your logic on this precedence when your case was in conference, it would tell me more clearly that it was rejected on the basis of standing (or a blatant fear to take up the issue) .
ed. People need to understand that my case had perfect standing… it was a state law case based upon a statute that gave standing to citizens to bring an action when a state level employee failed to do a certain job they were required by statute to do. The NJ SOS office admitted to me that they did not do that task. Therefore, according to law, a direct statutory provision, I had standing. I had a decision on the merits by the NJ Supreme Court… I was therefore eligible to go to the US Supreme Court. There was no problem with standing. The problem is that our judicial system does not require the SCOTUS or many other courts to give any reason at all for their decisions. That's a very big hole in our system of so called justice.- Leo
If he was born in US, why in the earth, he spent , hundreds of thousand, if not millions? The BC, he is released, you can read, his father was a Kenyan citizen. I firmly believe, something very damaging in his whole life, he wanted to hide.
PS. Can you ,please, change the dark color of your background. It's very hard to read, almost impossible.
Thank you,
ed. Im not changing my blog. I like it this way… The BC is a genius distraction because it manages to group both the true legal question and the salacious BC conspiracy theory in the same group… hey presto we're all "birthers" now. Doesn't matter if the man isnt eligible… because the national fixation on a red herring makes all of us look like fools. You are never going to prove anything as to his BC… never. I guarantee you that you will never have your moment of glory. But hold onto it with your teeth if it makes you feel better. You have been the subject of a very successful bluff. The BC is voodoo. The thing he is hiding is hidden in plain sight. – Leo
Steve Says:
June 22, 2011 at 2:40 PM
If at least four justices understood and agreed with your logic on this precedence when your case was in conference, it would tell me more clearly that it was rejected on the basis of standing (or a blatant fear to take up the issue) .
ed. People need to understand that my case had perfect standing… it was a state law case based upon a statute that gave standing to citizens to bring an action when a state level employee failed to do a certain job they were required by statute to do. The NJ SOS office admitted to me that they did not do that task. Therefore, according to law, a direct statutory provision, I had standing. I had a decision on the merits by the NJ Supreme Court… I was therefore eligible to go to the US Supreme Court. There was no problem with standing. The problem is that our judicial system does not require the SCOTUS or many other courts to give any reason at all for their decisions. That's a very big hole in our system of so called justice.- Leo
Wow, I too thought it was standing. If I am understanding correctly it was the merits of Obama's Ineligibility that was before the Supreme Court and not weather or not a citizen has the right to ask the question?
So, we do not no why your original case in NJ was dismissed?
Maybe a blog that explains all of this is needed?
ed. Nope, not needed. You got it right in your comment. – Leo
I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place, because I've always looked at the NBC issue as a mission shared by equally concerned citizens, rather than a turf war, so I don't know how to reply to the following comment made on my blog when I posted a link to your article (http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that.html). Your comments would be appreciated.
"I'm a bit perplexed as to why a post such as this has appeared as it is actually old news by at least two years or more. This was part of the Kerchner et al litigation well over two years ago and Mario Apuzzo has written extensively on the topic from about that time onward.
It seems odd that the writer seems to believe that he's "discovered" this information. It had certainly been submitted to SCOTUS as part of Kerchner et al but possible he never read that extensive submission. I suppose having another lawyer repeating the same information isn't a bad idea since some folks (primarily in Congress, it seems) don't know this. It has actually been known since efore the Kerchner case, even, but not widely disseminated. The writer seems to pretend that "everyone" on all sides of the issue thought there was no precedent … and THAT is simply nonsense!"
I direct you to Mario Apuzzo's comments about my latest blog…Mario has done wonderful research and has written very important pieces on this issue. And Mario recognizesthat what is new in my post is the incredible realization that the SCOTUS directly construed Article 2 Section 1 in Minor and the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment… therefore we have a standing precedent as to the SCOTUS defining the class of natural born citizens, not dicta. It's precedent and it was not superseded by Wong Kim Ark because that case only construed the 14th Amendment, not A2S1. For such a long time, it appeared that Wong and Minor both construed the 14th Amendment, but that turns out to not be the case… not on the citizenship aspect of Minor. It had not been discussed previously that Minor specifically AVOIDED construing the 14th Amendment as to Mrs. Minor's citizenship, and they instead relied upon their construction of Article 2 Section 1. Here is what Mario wrote yesterday after reading my article:
That was not actually Mario Apuzzo, the NJ attorney. The above remains true, if Mario or any other attorney made the arguments I have made about Minor having directly construed A2 S1 while simultaneously avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment… I will be happy to comment. But I am not aware of any previous commentary on this specific revelation. I'm sure if such comments exist, somebody will forward a a quote. As far as I am aware the real Mario Apuzzo hasn't taken issue with my latest blog, but if he does, I'll be happy to publish his reply in comments here. – Leo
Dear Leo,
I sent your finding to Prof. Gabriel "Jack" Chin of CNN whose wrote an April 20, 2011 article entitled: Who's really eligible to be president?
He simply wrote back:
J. CHIN: As this passage is dicta, I'm afraid it does not solve the problem.
ex animo
ed. He's wrong. The SCOTUS in Ogilvie tells you that it isn't dicta. Have him define dicta in light of the Ogilvie case. How can it be dicta when the Court used it to determine Minor's citizenship which was an element of the case? – Leo
The fix is in. There will be no SCOTUS hearing of the NBC issue. There will be no state to challenge this issue. No single Secretary of State. No single court of law.
Anyone paying attention knows that there are only two classes of citizens now: those who are politically connected and those who are not. Serve the Leviathan rather than the people, and be rewarded with power and riches beyond your wildest imagination. The NBC issue is just one of a string of many failures of the rule of law. The thread of Equal Justice, which bound the fabric of this once great nation has long since been shattered.
ed. I agree. It's bleak. I just want to bury my head in the sand, make films and play poker. But we still have to speak up as best we can. – Leo
Leo, you and your readers might be interested to learn that the First Continental Congress in deliberating on who should command the army specifically rejected two more experienced officers who were born in England and selected Geo. Washington. General Washington later recruited these officers, each of whom served disgracefully. Facts are reported in Ron Chernow's excelllant 2010 biography of Washington.
You claim that Minor is binding precedent on the matter of whether a child born of non-citizens on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, even though the Court specifically stated it did not need to "solve the doubts" and resolve that issue (since Ms. Minor's parents were US citizens).
"As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
You even note that , "The Minor Court refrained from making a "citizenship" determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class."
But the Court did not resolve whether this "different class" precluded consideration as a natural born citizen, right?
ed. Wrong. That they were a different class than the natural-born citizens is the point. Minor makes clear that all those who are not in the "class" of natural-born citizens have doubts as to their "citizenship"… Had they been nbc, their citizenship would not be in any doubt. And this is seven years AFTER the 14th Amendment was adopted. That fact is paramount. – Leo
So Minor punted on the non-US parents issue; and yet you call it binding precedent on that issue?
ed. They punted on whether those with non-US parents were "citizens", but they made it clear that they were not "natural-born citizens". Since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen, not subject to the same doubts, the 14th Amendment was not construed by Minor as to citizenship. That they relied upon Article 2 Section 1 – defined nbc- and excluded those with non-citizen parents from that class is what makes Minor precedent as to the definition of the class of natural-born citizens being those born in the US to citizen parents. – Leo
I don't think you abide by your own definitions of precedent and dicta.
ed. I abide by the SCOTUS standard stated in O'GILVIE ET AL., MINORS v. UNITED STATES – 519 U.S. 79 (1996):
"Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an "independent" ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners' claim that it was simply a dictum."
Rather than reaching the 14th Amendment issue, the SCOTUS in Minor looked to an independent ground in support of its decision that Minor was a US citizen. That ground was Article 2 Section 1, the natural born citizen clause. In doing so, the Court in Minor defined nbc… and it is the only SCOTUS case which directly construed the A2S1 nbc clause as part of its reasoning. According to the majority in Ogilvie and Breyer's opinion, such reasoning is not dictum. – Leo
Wonderful information! Thank you! His snowball is rolling faster and faster downhill and building quickly! It can't run over him soon enough!
Leo: The APUZZO at that political forum is not Attorney Mario Apuzzo. That APUZZO user ID is a faker.
ed. OK, see this comment by me. – Leo
Did Chin just back down from this NYT article stating that Mc Cain was not NBC to cover for a possible foreign birth of Obama?
"In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain's eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain's birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural-born citizen.""
Was Mc Cain's mother a citizen at the time of his birth?
davidfarrar Says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM
"Those born overseas are natural born citizens not because of natural law, but because Congress determined that they are naturally part of the political community.
If this argument is right, then even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen."
Flying Monkey alert!
ed. Congress does not have the power to make anyone a natural born citizen… Believe me, if they had that power they would have used it. Instead, they created the bizarro Senate "resolution" stating McCain was nbc. A resolution is nothing more than an Op Ed on fancy stationary. It has no force of law whatsoevahhh… – Leo
John Corbett states: That's another way of saying that citizenship by birth and natural-born citizenship ARE THE SAME THING.
I want to answer: Yes, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
ex animo
I agree Obama is not eligible. I have a somewhat similar post. "Natural Born Citizen".
Minor v. Happersett (1875) provides the usual, "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 …." Being born of citizen parents is necessary. But being born in the U.S. is perhaps only sufficient, but not necessarily necessary.
I liked the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) reference better since it's earlier, it endorses the same "definition", and it references Vattel.
ed. But Dred Scott was overruled in the Slaughterhouse Cases, whereas Minor, as to it's holding on citizenship, is still good law. – Leo
when will it be printed in the news or told on t.v.?
when will the nation be told?
most of us have known this for several years,
when will the courts remove?
Based on Chin's comment, I suspect that Obama supporters' new strategy will be to keep claiming that it is dicta and not precedent despite your brilliant analysis.
ed. In light of Breyer's majority opinion in Ogilvie concerning dictum vs precedent, they are in trouble. – Leo
There are only 2 paths to US citizenship:
1. Naturalization in a United State = US Citizen
2. Birth.
There are 5 sub-paths to US citizenship by birth:
a. Foreign birth to a US Citizen in a Foreign State = US Citizen
b. Foreign birth to 2 US Citizens in a Foreign State = US Citizen
c. Native birth to 2 Aliens domiciled in a United State = US Citizen <<< Wong Kim Ark
d. Native birth to a US Citizen in a United State = US Citizen <<< Obama
e. Native birth to 2 US Citizens in a United State = US NBC <<<< Marie Elg
Since Obama isn't natural born, he is ineligible to be POTUS.
The real Mario Apuzzo, hearing of the link you provided, says explicitly that he is not the poseur commenting on Political Forum. There's something afoot here that doesn't smell right.
ed. See my comment here.
As far as I am aware the real Mario Apuzzo hasn't taken issue with my latest blog, but if he does, I'll be happy to publish his reply in comments here. – Leo
In your opinion, reading the notation, cert denied, did Judge Lamberth change his mind?
What next?
ed. I don't know what you make reference to? – Leo
I think I got my answer. Thank you.
No. 10-1351
Alan Keyes, et al., Petitioners
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, et al.
Docketed: May 4, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
Case Nos.: (C062321)
Decision Date: October 25, 2010
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: February 2, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 2 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2011)
May 25 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents President Barack Obama, and Vice-President Joseph Biden Jr. to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents 55 California Presidential Electors of 2008, (Aleita Huguenin, et al.) to respond filed.
Jun 15 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2011. <<<<
I've been following your blog since the very beginning. This is BY FAR your BEST entry! I am so sorry you have had troubles with the courts, to where you fear for your personal safety. It is a sad day to have THAT be any person's reason for not fighting the good fight all the way to the finish! I will be passing this on to everyone I know. Brilliant observation! (dicta vs precedent!) Absolutely BRILLIANT!
Dear Leo,
I submitted you response to Doug McNamara to Jack Chinn.
His response;
J. CHINN: In Minor, it did not matter whether the person was a citizen or what kind of citizen–she lost either way. Unlike the cited language of Ogilve, the Supreme Court did not say that the discussion was an independent ground of decision. They couldn't say it mattered, of course, because it made no difference to the outcome. So it is classic, heartland dicta. Put another way, when the Court alludes to something which is totally unrelated to the outcome, it does not later consider itself bound by that casual, passing discussion.
ex animo
ed. They are wrong. The court had to determine if she was a US citizen. The case involved the question of whether US citizens were guaranteed the right to vote. If she wasn't a US citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the voting issue. The Court spent alot of time discussing their finding that she was a US citizen… the Court stated specifically that they were not relying upon the 14th Amendment to establish her citizenship. Once the court established she was a US citizen, it went on to discuss whether she had a right to vote. If her citizenship was not part of the case… the court would not have discussed it. But they did… in great depth. Therefore, the reasoning used to determine her citizenship is precedent. Listen, you are going to hear alot of whining from the other side, but just listen closely. It's all whimpers now. Believe me, the reaction to this article has been mega huge. It's everywhere, cross posted, republished, facebooked etc. It's a game changer… because it's true. – Leo
Excellent Mr. Donofrio! Of Course they did not need the 14th Amendmentt to determine that Ms. Minor was a US Citizen; the decision in Minor said it right here!:
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."
Then Here:
"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership."
Explaining the grandfather clause:
"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens"
Then, the money shot:
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
ed. Exactly correct. – Leo
On his blog when a poster provided the link to this topic, Puzo1 said…
Yes, I do agree with Donofrio or is it that he agrees with me.
June 22, 2011 8:33 AM
ed. My case in December 2008 was the first to allege Obama was not a natural born citizen because of his dual national status. That is undeniable. The Kerchner case was filed many months later. Furthermore, I believe – and will publish a correction if I am wrong – that this latest blog post was the first to discuss the FACT that that the Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to Mrs. Minor's citizenship. If anyone can dispute that this is the first analysis to make this argument, then I will be happy to publish the link to a previous article and give Kudos. This is important because, as I pointed out, it leaves Article 2 Section 1 as the basis for her citizenship and therefore the Court directly construed Article 2 Section 1… and therefore Minor does not conflict with Wong Kim Ark. Of course, the case of Minor v Happersett was on everyone's radar before my article, but the FACT that the Court clearly stated that it was avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment in its ruling as to Mrs. Minor's citizenship is new as far as I can tell. This report has had an impact on the awareness of the nation. For that I am happy. Still, if I could extract myself out of this mess and get back to playing poker full time and making films… I would be happy to do so. And that's what I plan on doing. I have a life outside of this issue and this issue is simply my burden as a citizen. I do not want a career as a lawyer. I do not need the law to have a career. Our legal system is corrupt and dying from a cancer of judicial fraud, judicial cronyism and self serving attorneys and money hungry politicians. It's wretched. I will happily slip into the ether and let the other attorneys have the spotlight. This is a pain in the ass. But when I have an insight such as this, I feel the responsibility – as a US citizen – to speak up. But there is a cottage industry in taking the writings of this blog and crediting them to other sources. I should mention that my work is copyrighted and I am planning a book, and I have a personal attorney.
That being said, I have no beef with Mario. He's a good guy, a patriotic American, a smart/ethical attorney and a person who is trying to educate the nation. If he got there first on this, I would be happy to publish a link to his work and give credit. But I give credit to Mario regardless. He's put serious effort into the research and his case. – Leo
What about Acquired Citizenship?
1855 Act of Congress
"On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled "An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,' the second section of which provides, 'that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen." .."
(Repealed 1922)
– Perkins v. Elg (1939), her mother acquired US citizenship in 1907, when her father naturalized.
– Mitt Romney, his father was born in Mexico, on July 8, 1907, but acquired US citizenship under the 1855 Act.
– Is it safe to say Barry Morris Goldwater was a natural born citizen under the 1855 Act?
Born in Phoenix, on January 2, 1909, in what was then the Arizona Territory, the son of Baron M. Goldwater and his wife, Hattie Josephine ("JoJo") Williams.
The Arizona Territory was incorporated into the USA by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, which completed the perimeter formed by the Pacific Ocean, International Boundary formed by the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, and the remaining coastline surrounding the USA and incorporated territories.
The US Constitution was fully applicable in the "incorporated territories". It has been held that persons born in these territories on or after the date they became part of the United States could claim U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Section 1891, Rev. Stat., stated that:
The Constitution…shall have the same force and effect within all organized Territories and in every Territory hereafter organized as elsewhere in the United States.
ed. Very interesting analysis which illustrates common problems with dual citizenship… which are highlighted in a dual POTUS. Whether Obama still has British citizenship is an open question… more on that issue to come in a future blog post. – Leo
Nobody mentions his Indonesian citizenship, I thought it was a given.
ed. But, according to the SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg, it's irrelevant. – Leo
I don't know Mr. Mario Apuzzo personally, but I have read most of what he has posted on his blog. I have spoken to Cmdr Kerschner several times.
I would like to think both of them would be delighted by this, your most recent essay.
Mr. Donofrio,
I must state that your latest article is a constitional epiphany that I would hope other legal minds consider with serious and sober attention. I can't imagine the moment you must have had…"I'll be damned, well look at that." As for the 14th, no doubt you are right as to the legal aspect, but I think it worth mentioning that the representatives did appear to lean towards NbC.
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." ~Senator Jacob Howard stated May 30, 1866
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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; […]" ~Congressman John Bingham
ed. Agreed, and agreed. But, the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, as to "citizenship" (not nbc) under the 14th Amendment, unfortunately pushed away from the framers. Still, WKA could be overturned yet. – Leo
In your opinion, reading the notation, cert denied, did Judge Lamberth change his mind?
What next?
ed. I don't know what you make reference to? – Leo"
Hey, the stuff on scribd looks fishy to me. The dates are wrong. How does the process server serve the defendants and the District Court by mail on June 9th… and the Court's mail room stamped it "received" on June 9th, too. That is the same day!?
Does someone want to tell me the USPS moves that fast??!
The hand written note supposedly by Judge Lamberth is illegible. I can't read what it really says.
Mr. Donofrio and those that follow his example,
I wanted to say thank you. Let it be known that this citizen appreciates the thoughtfulness and concern of the blog author and my fellow Americans who comment here. It is enough sometimes, without the solace of vindication, that some bear the Shield by which we defend Free Men against Tyranny and not abjectly set it aside in bitterness. Trust our Charter. Love our Birthright.
Many have taken the oath to defend our Constitution, to solemnly bear true faith and allegiance. Some have taken it seriously. Last I checked, lawyers do such. One in particular, with conviction.
Thank you all, again. Faith abounds.
ed. Coming from a soldier, that means alot, Pieter. – Leo
A2S1C5 says POTUS must be NBC and 14 years a RESIDENT. Conversely, A1 says Congress must be 7/9 years a CITIZEN.
Since a NBC is a Citizen, but a Citizen is not necessarily a NBC, they could not say 14 years a Citizen, so they put "Resident".
They didn't say "Resident" for Congressional requirements for eligibility, they specified the standard of Citizen, which is lower than Natural Born Citizen.
A2 makes it clear that a NBC is a citizen, but a citizen is not always a NBC.
I used the Authors comments found in the link below to explain why the President must be a natural born citizen.
This is what I Posted:
Is Obama an extraterrestrial?
No, but he was born with Dual Nationality and the birth certificate has nothing to do with it. His father was Kenyan a Subject of Great Britain who never became a U.S. Citizen.
Instead of going to Congress, you simply secured approval of the 3rd World dominated United Nations, which shows where your loyalties lie.
And this is the key reason why the Founders feared people with divided allegiance, it was because they knew the dangers that foreign influence could play on such a person.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. /END
Do you Concur?
ed. I concur that the framers were trying to protect the nation form foreign influence with the nbc clause, yes. – Leo
My post of 6/21:
"Yeah, and what of it? Who's going to do anything about it? Legal analysis without any teeth is purely academic. Find a way to shut him down, or shut down your blog."
Your response:
"ed. Disagree. The truth is necessary regardless. – Leo"
Congratulations on not taking the red meat. After following you from your first blog on this subject, I finally had to throw out a test of character and sanity. After all, few of us bloggers, if any, actually know you. I do not know you, and I have found some of your posts and responses over the last 2 1/2 years to have the tone of a paranoid schizophrenic. I am relieved that you gave my challenge no greater response than it deserved. My confidence in your sanity and what you report here is sound.
However, I do have to push a bit on the idea of recording the truth for the sake of it. The truth can be recorded, and it can later be wiped away. The Nazis burned books. In your research, you've seen the propaganda on the topic of eligibilty spread first hand. If nothing else, the lies get so scrambled with the truth that less scrutinizing individuals cannot separate the two, creating confusion which serves the lies.
I have read here that you feel like you are "in danger if you step into a federal court." Why? Is it a threat of continued financial harm, physical harm, or some other unspoken but apparent threat to you? Perhaps you need an attorney. The intimidation is truly remarkable although I have never felt that the justice system worked as intended by our founders.
Good luck to you, Leo.
ed. The threat is monetary due to the damages they've just assessed against me and Steve Pidgeon… for bringing an appeal on behalf of Chrysler dealers which alleged fraud on the part of a jurist. I will have an update on this issue shortly…stay tuned.- Leo
Your comment to Philo-Publius, June 22, 2011 8:00 AM, was absolutely awe-inspiring, telling it straight, up one side and down the other, and right to the heart!
But Leo, when commenting, "Still, if I could extract myself out of this mess and get back to playing poker full time and making films… I would be happy to do so. .." you still don't get what I have been trying to tell you since 2008: God has given you great gifts of a brilliant intellect, a love for our beloved America, a love for the law and a zeal for teaching the truth of it. Leo, you cannot escape or hide, or run away into poker kingdom, and shirk the responsibility of your vocation to be a prophet to His people. You know in your heart this is what you have been born to do and you can't deny that you've been given brilliant insights into constitutional law and to bring that knowledge to the attention of the nation. That is where your true happiness is and will always be. So please, stop all this run-away-talk about making films and playing poker. Stay true to the course and keep on doing what you are inspired to do. God bless you and keep you in the palm of His hand always.
ed. This is not where my true happiness is. Seriously. This is a chore. Watching my film in a theater the other night with cast crew and musicians was a true joy. This is a nightmare. I do not enjoy this. It's ripping the nation up and it is not fun. – Leo
Dear Leo,
With all due respect…and nobody wishes you success more than I..but let's face it…you are in the process of forging a Glamdring sword of Tolkin's yore with which to slay the mighty beast with your Minor case opinion. In order to be up to that task, it has got to be virtually unassailable.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate:
1. Minor did lose the case, irrespective of the type of citizen she was.
2. The independent ground in support of the Court's decision in the Ogilve case you cited, cannot be said to be an independent ground in support of the Court's decision in Minor.
3. As such, the Supreme Court would not see itself bound by the citizenship observation made in Minor.
I am sure it will recognize it, but it won't consider itself bond by that discussion
Unless you can successfully attack these three points, I am afraid, Minor is not going to be the vehicle to carry your advocacy — our advocacy — forward in the face of overwhelming opposition challenging the President of the United States will inevitably muster.
If I may continue the analogy just a little bit further? I read recently of what we, those of us who know Obama isn't a nbc are facing…it's like the World Series.The game count is three to four against the home team. It's the bottom of the ninth. The home team in behind by two runs. there are two outs. The batter hits a home run, but in his wild exuberance, he fails by a fraction of an inch to touch first base. The empire and the pitcher see what has happen. When the pitcher is finally given a ball, he immediately throws it to first base where the runner is declared out.
Inlight of this story, do you think your Minor case opinion cand stand the test?
ex animo
ed. Yes, the Minor case and my opinion of it are accurate. See my follow up report which your question actually inspired. – Leo
Actually, I forgot to mention in my analogy..there was a runner on base.
ex animo
Oh, crap…that still doesnn't do it…there are two runners on base.
ex animo
Hooray for those "nasty" comments for they are PROOF you have hit a raw nerve. A nerve those "blind" Obama followers have always known was there, but had been hoping no one else would ever be able to prove. Your latest posting lays it out succinctly and irrefutably. In my opinion it's real power, however, comes from the two and a half years you have immersed yourself in this crucial work. Your latest insight may well prove to be thE one that moves this to completion, but it was possible only because of your intellectual persistence since the Fall of 2008. I am (again) amazed you had the intellectual insight and dedication to revisit Minor to find this crucial poof. Kudos!
We The People are in your debt … and it is We who must pick it up and take it from here to completion.
Most respectfully,
ed. Nobody owes me anything… But thanks for the kind words. – Leo
In WKA, I think the fact his parents owned a business and were "domiciled" in San Francisco, CA, indicated they had no desire to return to China, established as "permanent resident aliens" is what motivated SCOTUS to grant him native born citizen status.
The current 8USC1101(a)(15) definition of non-immigrant alien hinges on a domicile outside the USA.
ed. the WKA holding is, vy its very wording, limited – as you point out. – Leo
Ifor Larrythe grunt,
"Hey, the stuff on scribd looks fishy to me. The dates are wrong. How does the process server serve the defendants and the District Court by mail on June 9th… and the Court's mail room stamped it "received" on June 9th, too. That is the same day!?
Does someone want to tell me the USPS moves that fast??"
Orly uses a fax machine to file motions, even on weekends.
Found a refutation …
ed. snip. Listen, if you have a question to ask, then ask it… as to a specific point. There are a multitude of "so called" refutations… but I have seen nothing labeled as such that wasn't purely deceptive propaganda. If you have a question, ask a question and I will be happy to answer it. List your points… or quotation marks if the question isn't your own… It's best to ask one question per comment. That goes for everyone. If you have more questions, then submit separate comments. But don't post a link saying, "this person posted a bunch of stuff… yada yada…" Pick your most troubling question and send it in at your leisure. – Leo
Watching this House Oversight hearing on the GM bailout kept me
from any decent sleep until 5am this morning. I know the focus isn't
directly on Chrysler, but indirectly and method wise.. it is, and the
Chrysler situation is mentioned.
You'll see the full blown malignant tyranny of this admin on graphic
display. It's a long one, so if you can't watch it soon, bookmark it. You need to see czar Ron Bloom at work. Simply breathtaking in arrogance,
govt heavy handedness and their blatant tactic "to pick winners and losers."
A committee member, Mr. Kelly, was a GM dealer whose business
was, in effect, shut down, so you'll hear him rail at all the injustice.
Also, the author of Time's new piece on the "Constitution .. Does It Matter" .. Richard Stengel .. was on Charlie Rose's show last night. Wow .. the lengths to which he goes to attempt to shred its viability ..
even discussing the 14th amendment and then the foolishness of A2S1
today. Will make your toenails curl.
They've got their forces and their propagandists starting the drumbeat
in every sector. God help us all.
Thank you for your gentle and heartfelt correction to my comments about where your "true happiness" is, making and watching your film. However, you know in the deepest recesses of your soul, you cannot overcome the obsessive urge to proclaim the truth of your inspired research on this "nightmare" of obama's ineligibility to be POTUS. In your own words, you are happy that the nation knows the truth you are teaching them. My reading of the true biblical prophets who were inspired by God is, they were compelled to speak His word of truth to the Israelites even if they had to lay down their lives in suffering and persecution. And, as I see it, that is where you are called now, suffering and persecution from lying judges of a corrupt judicial system. There is no comparison between your brilliant research and teaching the nation on the constitutional issue of NBC on the one hand, and making films and playing poker, on the other. You know you have to plead, "No contest"…and pay the price.
Hello Leo,
Wouldn't Perkins v. Elg be precedent also? First the Court had to find that Miss Elg was a US Citizen, then whether she could keep that US Citizenship. They didn't look to the 14th Amendment, and deemed her specifically a natural born Citizen because her parents were naturalized before her birth in NY.
From Orly Taitz's website …
Breakthrough! Congressman Goodlatte acknowledges Congressional investigation of ObamaFraudGate!!! Keep burning the phone lines. Demand meetings with chairs of committees ASAP, Pronto!!!
I've followed this issue from before the election and I use Facebook as my method of spreading the word. Something is not right and some group is preventing Facebook from posting any URL from your site. If this is not resolved soon I fear the education of the American people will be hindered. May God Bless you Leo…
ed. If true, I take that is a huge sign of success and fear… Readers, please test this out. – Leo
With all due respect, would you opt out of doing what it takes to see this to the end if your filmgoers and poker games are in The United States of Marxism? What is of the greatest importance, not just for you, but for the sake of our country, our laws, our fellow men, and the God who ordained men to do what is right to lead their country? (Romans 13) I pray the Lord will give you wisdom in this, and I do thank you for all your labors; they are NOT in vain, nor will they ever be. What was the spirit of our forefathers? They were outnumbered and yet they prevailed, because they served the truth and our Creator, and He blessed them. May this be where you get your peace, comfort, and strength to follow His will.
ed. What more do you want me to do? – Leo
why vote, not a single lawmaker cares.
what difference does all this make? three hundred million people are going to suffer because no one has the guts to put this communist criminal regime in prison where they belong! he gets a free pass because he's half black,democrat/socialist and everyone's scared of a race riot in the big cities.so our country continues to be destroyed from within just like kruschev said it was back in 1959.hello new world order and world war 3.europe's already socialist and soon will be muslim majority,ladies and gentlemen meet the antichrist.he is alive now ready to take the world stage at the proper time,obummer is just the forewarning from the KING OF KINGS, JESUS CHRIST !
I don't know how to answer your question, but I believe this captures the spirit of truth today as well as it did then, and it would do every reader on this blog good to read the monumental, historic speech of our patriot father, Patrick Henry. We need to prepare.
"But As For Me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
My opinion has been for some time that in defining nbc for the purpose of presidential eligibility in non-biinding SR511, the Senate, for the first time in US history has provided a defintion which may be used by the courts to determine presidential eligibility and it was passed before the election. The definition therein was, basically, born of American parents on American soil. I have never understood why the results weren't challenged by a single member of Congress or ny Chief Justice Roberts.
ed. Senate resolution 511 has absolutely no legal authority… it is no more law than a tweet is… it's a fancy opinion, nothing more and it doesn't appear to require birth on US soil, but it does require two citizen parents. No senator will answer you if you ask why they required two citizen parents. Truly bizarre. You should all write to the Senators who signed that thing and ask them why they required two citizen parents in the resolution… ask what their policy was for two instead of one. Whatever their policy was – which they will never respond to anyway – ought to be aimed towards Obama as well. Here is a Senate resolution not one of them will ever truly discuss. It's the policy behind their requiring two citizen parents which will get them all tongue tied. Knowing they have set a trap by their own words, they will certainly stonewall any inquiry thereto. – Leo
Anyone running for the 2012 presidency, who does not address Obama's ineligibilty, does not get my vote.
Senators have never responded to anything I say lately. I'm faxing regularly, about various issues, and I get no response. Of course, they are both Dems. My congressman never answers either. I wish redistricting would put us somewhere else, but I'm afraid we are all stuck with folks who don't represent us at all.
I'll find time this weekend, maybe, to pick out a question or two from that "refutation" and thanks. We all have to keep at this issue.
ed. Thanks for understanding my point. I do not see anything in that reference which bothers me. The arguments are juvenile. If any of it resonates with you, then please ask a question. I think you will probably be able to get through the propaganda by looking closely at the words used by the courts in my quotes on this issue. – Leo
The Religious Cult of " Political Correctness " , is the shield thats allowing all of this to take place . As far as I am concerned Political Correctness is and has influenced and effected all political debate and Legislation or lack of legislation and political debate just like the Left has declared Religion in general is a Influencing factor in Political discourse , and is why they so strongly Demanded the Separation of Church and State be adopted , right ??
So this Political Correctness has Alienated a larger portion of the electorate and is as much a tool for segregation of Just Political Debate and discourse as the claim of Church Influencing Politics has been all these years , so I think We the people who are effected by this Should Demand that there be a Clause that Separates Political Correction from Influencing the state just like they demand a separation of Church and state .
Leo How do these senators or congress stay in Office if they will not answer the call for US constitutional rule of law to be up held , and they do nothing , like you say about the SR 511 trap they set themselves up by requiring the 2 parent rule , how can they not be seen as Frauds and phonys and still keep their seats ???
ed. they stay in office because people vote for them… bc people are divided by party lines and they hate the other party so anyone is better than someone form the other party… the two party system must end if we are to preserve the nation… people need to abandon the major parties and stay indie. – Leo
Great article however I've come to the conclusion that dual citizenship although an important point does not in and of itself disqualify BHO from being a NBC ….
The term indigene as used by Justice Marshall when quoting an earlier translation of The Law of Nations in The Venus makes it obvious that a NBC is nothing more or less than an an indigenous
US citizen since being indigenous requires birth in country to parents who were it's citizens ( or IOWs indigenous themselves)
even though Justice Marshall did not use the term NBC in that decision the place where he uses the term indigene falls in the exact place where the term NBC is used in the later English translation of the Law of Nations ( Yup the Law of Nations is not
US law. ) …
Naturalization makes the naturalized person like unto an indigenous citizen but NBC is acquired and defined "at birth" …
This is why the discussion of BHO not re-upping on his Kenyan citizenship is just more smoke and mirrors and Berg going down the rabbit hole over BHO's alleged Indonesian citizenship is just more nonsense ….
BHO was never a NBC and can never be a NBC since it requires birth in country to parents(Who would be at least considered NBCs)
who were it's citizens to be a NBC or indigene …
This idea is blatantly apparent from the Preamble of the US Constitution where the Framers who would have been the "We the people" in that they referred to themselves as that in the Preamble then guarantee themselves and their posterity the protections of the US Constitution and thus the Preamble gives the frame work of who were considered citizens at the framing ….
This "posterity" are THE ONLY BORN citizens Waite is referring to …
The Framers and the original citizens were the "ipso facto" citizens that Waite refers to in Minor vs Happersett and then when he refers to "citizens being born" he is is referring to the children of citizens born in country that w/o a doubt are citizens also ….
Article I section 8 gives Congress the limited power to write uniform naturalization laws …
Thus there is no mention of the children of foreigners being born citizens at all anywhere in the US Constitution …
Thus in Minor vs Happersett the NBCs are the indigenous born citizens and everyone else that wasn't "born in country to parentS who were it's citizens" needs naturalization per his ruling and that of course is why the 1790 law and subsequent 1805 law were written to address this issue IMHO.
In the Law Of Nations paragraph 214 when Vatell is speaking of naturalization as an interesting aside Vattell mentions the British naturalize the children born in country to aliens ….
Ҥ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."
So this is irrefutable evidence that Gray when citing English Common Law was not correctly interpreting the cases he cites
for WKA since the children of aliens were naturalized in
England and not natural born in the truest sense of the term….
I found an article ( It may have been on your blog) that I'll have to cite later in which the author speaks of the Cooke case Gray cites involves the idea that amity with the king was required for the child of an alien born in England (Thus a naturalization process ) )and in fact as the author of that article points out that Gray goes to great lengths in WKA to establish amity by establishing that WKA's parents were merchants in California so as to demonstrate their being residents rather than being vagrants ….
Even the lame 14th argument the BHO apologists would use is littered with absolute legal nonsense landmines even if they wanted to appeal to the 14th amendment/WKA because the British naturalized the children of aliens born in England so even the NBS = NBS is nonsense when examined in the light of day !
This is of course why Waite can speak with absolute certainty of which class of children are NBCs and that class is not the one that BHO belongs to !
ed. You make a very interesting point here about the children of aliens born on UK soil being "naturalized" upon birth. This ties in with another report I am working on. If you have any links or cites regarding this, please forward them in a comment. – Leo
If Obama's father was still alive today and living in Kenya as one of it's citizens would people still say that Obama is a natural born citizen?If the answer is yes then Putin could be the father of Obama and Obama would still be considered a N.B.C. Common sense is all that is needed to understand the intent of the natural born citizen clause .
ed. How about Kim Jon Il, or Hitler… – Leo
FYI. . .My facebook post re. this blog entry worked just fine. Hopefully a few will actually read it {shrug}.
ed. Thanks for the FB update. – Leo
"No senator will answer you if you ask why they required two citizen parents."
But they didn't 'require' two parents. They only made the statement that McCain 'had' two citizen parents. The whole resolution was a farce from the get-go!
ed. Part of the basis for the resolution was that McCain had two citizen parents which is why they state that directly in the resolution. – Leo
Dear Leo,
I am just trying to prepare a response to … (ed. snip – I don't publish the names or URLs of persons I think are fraudulent. The propagandists feel compelled to reply to everything I publish. I do not feel compelled to discuss their false opinions. They are frauds. I ignore them. They can't ignore me. Think about that. I can ignore them because my work seeks truth and people can see that. Since people can see that, they are forced to attack me. I don't feel the need to read their attacks or to respond to them. They speak for themselves. And my work speaks for me. I don't need people to believe me. I only need to do my best at finding and publishing the truth. It's not my burden to counter every liar on the web. – Leo
The Court in Minor construed A2S1 to establish citizenship as an independent ground in support of their decision that women were not given the right to vote due to the 14th Amendment. Why then is this not considered legally binding precedent?
ex animo
ed. Considered by whom not to be legal precedent? It is legal precedent, but history has only revealed it as such since I published these last reports. I can't find a prior reference to anyone stating that the Court in Minor construed the A2S1 nbc clause. I'm not proud of not having caught this earlier, but that light just recently wen on. I don't know why. – Leo
@ Paul Smith,
I am not a lawyer, but when I read SR 511, my thought was that the questionable part of Mr. McCain's eligibility was the location of his birth.They had no need to " 'require' two citizen parents" that was not the part of Mr. McCain's eligibility that was being questioned.
My point was that SR 511 is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Congress of the US or any part of it had ever even addressed the definition of the term nbc for the purpose of presidential eligibility.
It is my thought that it does not have to be a binding law to serve as the opinion of the Congress iin such a matter.
I would expect that Mr. Donofrio would almost certainly have a better grasp of the matter than do I, since he IS a lawyer.
ed. It has absolutely no binding authority at all. It is no more law than a letter to the editor. It's fancy puff and stuff bloviations. – Leo
Now that you have been financially harmed by the direct action of the Obama administration (Obama circumvented bankruptcy law and you have been sanctioned because you defended his victims), would you yourself have Quo Warranto standing?
ed. Forget about me entering a federal court of my own free will ever again. – Leo
Absolutely fantastic. I posted a link to your article on the MoJo blog where I've been arguing the NBC issue for the past three months. Independent of your blog, I've used a lot of the same arguments except the one you gave here. I didn't understand about "dicta" before. I knew that WKA set precedence, but I was arguing the point that it gives naturalized citizenship at birth and not NB citizenship.
I totally relate to your anger about the courts not having to give you a reason for their ruling. My mother and I ran into the same thing when we sued a car dealership several years ago for replacing parts that were not defective. We won our case, but the judge shorted the return of our money by a third for NO reason. When I tried to find out why, I was told that they don't have to give a reason. It made me so angry that I got into studying politics to try to find out why — LOL. What I have found out is that the liberal courts are so corrupt, that it's almost impossible to get a fair ruling any more. I was absolutely stunned by what Obama's "car czar" got away with when they closed down the viable dealerships without going through bankruptcy court.
I get the news letter from Devvy.com and she has explained a lot of why these cases against Obama haven't been heard. It sounds like it will take Congress to do something and I don't have much hope of that. Maybe, with your new discovery, they will feel they have a chance at winning the argument.
In the Chester Arthur question of eligibility, they did the same thing with the question of WHERE he was born instead of the question of was he a NBC. I realized that the same mistake was being made with Obama. Focusing the attention on the red herring that would never go anywhere.
I'm still wondering why it took two and a half years for him to come up with a long form hospital birth certificate IF he was born in Hawaii? The depressing thought is that ALL of the politicians are in on this scam since they are ignoring the issue.
I really hope that your discovery does the trick this time. Great job and thanks for being so dedicated to the truth.
ed. This nation is truly in danger of losing its Constitution. There are hounds circling the wagons and the bench has been uniformly infiltrated. The most insidious coup is under way… slow, silent and steady. I feel that in all of my cases, because they were so on point and because the Court had no other choice, they chose to soil themselves in public… to come out from their dark coffins and bare their fangs… and I sport these fang marks in full daylight with honor. – Leo
Obama posted a COLB and LFBC online, but isn't what matters is what evidence is introduced in court?
Has his defense team introduced proof of his birth in court?
Leo: I'm a 4 yr vet of the korean conflict, i'm 77 dis-abled retired sheriff.
i have become very interested in politics since retirement.
the questions i want to have answered, I have asked 4 constitutional attorneys, and Leo, i'm frustrated….all seem to have a little different response…
I would gladly donate to your cash flow if I can get some similiar answers….
first: i have asked this question : can obama be impeached, the answers i get are yes, and no…..the yes answers are stated that because he was legally elected, legally sworn in, he is the pres., and then there is the other side of which you are on (?) no, because he was not legal in the first place….now this is frustratation…!!!
I am a Constitutionalist, and an Independent..? i have read and not remembering where exactly, is that first….where do people get the idea that obama is a U.S. citizen and a British subject, or a kenyan cit.? ( Dual citizen) ?
I do not understand how he is a U.S. citizen? I do not stand on the side of he was born in hawaii at all…..never read where he ever applied for naturalization to the U.S. , and i believe according to the hague convention (?) when a young child is adopted by an Indonesian, he must give up all former citizenships…then he is only an Indonesian….In my thinking to this day…he is nothing but an Illegal" Indonesian muslim…!!! …
and anyone who thinks different is wrong, not only by my thinking, but in a movie rental store i encountered two muslim students, and we began a conversation….they love it here, and would love to simply stay after gradutation….
but the reason for the explanation is that they say ob is definitely a muslim, and all muslims must learn the koran in arabic( memorized) ob in his cairo speech spoke in many greetings and sentences in the islamic or arabic language…what they said is when ob visited arabia and bowed to the king, he did so to show the muslim world he is one of them…..
his wife michele went to paris to do some shopping, but in reality she was not allowed in arabia, since she is a christian….the worst part is that as the (pres) he has the inside tract to all of our military secrets and reports from on the internet say he has spoken to iran and he told them to stand down until he settles the issue of his "obamacare" and then he will show his true colors far more openly
i am sure you know that a monument was already erected in kenya, and the Egyptian prime minister stated on arabic tv that when he visited ob that ob told him he is still a muslim, the son of a muslim, the grandson of a muslim, has three muslim brothers, in his book he stated that if the winds shift in an ugly direction that he will definitely side with the muslims….so much for the christian horsepuckey….
second : i understand that the word "standing" was made up by the aba and judges, and is not in the constitution…i'm from wash. state and we all have "standing"….i believe that any legal American citizen, and legal voter should automatically have "standing" with anything dealing with the constitution and general national elections….their refusal that it has been thoroughly vetted by twitter…that judge should be knocked forcefully off the bench…he is very ugly for his high and mighty attitude, as if we are to trust those on twitter, that ob was legally vetted….
as i understand it the constitution belongs to the people of this nation, and definitely NOT to the Scotus…am i wrong in believing that they are supposedly seated there to decide cases relating to the constitution….in which case, i have seen envelopes pass to judges while a sheriff, and in govt. you seat a Scotus member, he owes you, so of course,,"what ever lola wants, lola gets"….same old game going on for years……money or sex will get you just about anything you want….
when they owe you, you are not going to get a legit decision, you are going to get a bush-gore decision payback….
third: i do not believe in those executive orders by-passing (although "corrupt" congress) and unless ob is thrown under the bus by soros, he will grant exec. orders for amnesty…how do we undo that ?
: as a sheriff, i despise anything illegal….but i am totally "frosted" by not having any "recall" for senators who absolutely refuse to listen to their constituencies…this let's them do what they darn well please….as we have all noticed…. we all know that corporations and the aba and unions run this country
possibly along with the electoral college…..what do we get for electing them …..rudeness and holier than thou attitude…
( WHY ?) are all legislatures so afraid of demanding in their state constitutions that to be placed on the ballot, a candidate must show (verifible) evidence of Nat. BORN CIT. ????
i await your answers —jer m.
ed. I don't answer questions based upon whether people will donate, so dont worry about that. But I will tell you that the answers to your questions regarding impeachment have been discussed in my previous series of articles on Quo Warranto…start reading here. – Leo
"ed. You make a very interesting point here about the children of aliens born on UK soil being "naturalized" upon birth. This ties in with another report I am working on. If you have any links or cites regarding this, please forward them in a comment. – Leo "
Other than Vattell I haven't as of yet found a specific reference to naturalization taking place …
However I just found these articles which discuss what it means to be in amity with the king … Unfortunately the first article is written leaving wiggle room for BHO that IMHO isn't deserved ! :
"What does it mean to be a "friend" of the Sovereign?
American law on natural-born citizenship was descended from English Common Law. Like today's jawboning about Wong Kim Ark, the lazy reading of English Common Law has led to the popular meme that children of aliens born within the kingdom were British subjects. English law, however, never stated such a rule as to the children of "all" aliens. In addition to the predictable exceptions, such as for those aliens on official duty of another government, Blackstone himself stated that the law applied only to "aliens in amity" with the Crown.
What does it mean to be "in amity"? First, as Calvin's Case (1608) sets out, amity is the opposite of enmity. Enmity means to be positioned as an enemy. So, at the minimum, being "in amity" means not being an enemy, but being a friend of the king. Obviously, that is a question of fact. The bottom line is: to determine if an alien was "in amity" or "in enmity" requires an examination of the alien's circumstances. In particular, it requires review of the nature of his legal and practical ties, or lack thereof, to the British Empire.
American jurisprudence on natural-born citizenship has not focused explicitly on whether the alien parents in question were "in amity" with the United States. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's analysis embraced this very inquiry. In Wong Kim Ark, for example, particular facts about the alien parents' ties to the United States were integral (material) to the Court's holding."
Thus IMHO if the British were determining whether the child was "in amity" … There is nothing natural-born about that process and they were it appears using the same criteria as the US 1805 law which required the child of an alien that was naturalizing to swear an oath of allegiance at the age of majority…….
"(1) First, the general rule To be born a British subject, a person had to be born "within the allegiance." This meant born on British soil under circumstances in which there was a duty of allegiance, including obedience, on the part of the person born, and a reciprocal duty of the sovereign to provide protection. Each was considered a "compensation for the other." To be born within the allegiance, a person had to be born under the "protection and control" of the Crown.
(2) The common law contained at least two "exceptions" (A), a person whose parent was a foreign diplomat or on a foreign public ship, and (B), a person whose parent was a member of a foreign military force occupying the territory where the birth took place. Actually, these "exceptions" were not really exceptions, but rather applications of the general rule to specific factual circumstances, since the requirements of birth "within the allegiance" were not satisfied in either case neither the duty of obedience nor the duty of protection.
The Wong Kim Ark Court implied that some aliens outside the common-law "exceptions" might also not qualify for birthright citizenship. It stated that "[s]uch allegiance and protection … were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom" [Emphasis added.] meaning that allegiance and protection are among the attributes of the legal relationship between aliens "in amity" and the sovereign while such aliens are within the sovereign's territory. "Amity" is defined by Webster's 1828 dictionary as "friendship, in a general sense, between individuals, societies or nations; harmony; good understanding…"
The Wong Kim Ark Court's reference to "aliens in amity" came from Calvin's Case (1608), described by the Court as the "leading case" on the "fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality." A commentator recently stated that
"[Sir Edward] Coke's report of Calvin's Case was one of the most important English common-law decisions adopted by courts in the early history of the United States. Rules of citizenship derived from Calvin's Case became the basis of the American common-law rule of birthright citizenship, a rule that was later embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment." (Polly J. Price, 9 Yale Review of Law & the Humanities, 73,74, 1997)
Coke (1552 1634) seems to have understood the phrase in a way that would exclude more than hostile enemy soldiers, more even than the subjects of foreign sovereigns with whom the English monarch was at war. Although it could not have been Coke's intention to exclude from the meaning of "aliens in amity" any alien who was in England in violation of its immigration law (there were no such laws), he did make statements with an apparently similar meaning.
Coke explained that an alien was either a friend (amicus) or an enemy (inimicus), and could be a friend only if there was a "league" between the alien's sovereign and England's. If a league existed, the alien was a friend (amicus) and could enter England without "license" of the English sovereign. The implication is that if aliens requiring a "license" came into England without one, they would be regarded as not "in amity." Thus, their children born in England would not be born "within the allegiance."
The last paragraph is enlightening in that a treaty or league between sovereigns had to be in place for the alien to be able to be in amity with the king and no "illegal" aliens need apply !
Here is an article that describes how an alien might become
what is termed a denizen through a specific act of the king which required a letter of patent …
This enabled the denizen to own land and then pass that land onto his posterity although that right could be revoked at the whim of the king ! :
"Before discussing colonial conditions, it will be necessary to learn what ideas regarding citizenship and allegiance the colonies inherited from England. All Englishmen coming to America brought with them the common law, which in this case rested upon the feudal law, whereby every man was attached to the soil and owed allegiance to the overlord upon whose land he was born. Thus allegiance and citizenship, like family and race, were determined for the individual by his birth. Personal choice was not recognized; political institutions rested on natural laws. England held to that principle without a break until 1350, when she permitted children that inherited and were born out of the English allegiance to have all the rights of natural-born subjects. It is worth noticing that in this respect the United States courts followed English principle and maintained the feudal law until 1855, when citizenship was extended to persons born of American parents outside of the United States.
England at first divided the people who dwelt within her borders into three classes—natural-born subjects, aliens, and denizens. The first two do not need definition; the last applies to a class of residents occupying a position between the other two. Denizenship was a status conferred upon an alien by letters patent issued, by the monarch, whereby the foreigner was enabled to hold lands as well as inherit and transmit property to the children that were born after denization was granted.1 These letters were considered matters of high prerogative and could be issued only by the king. The status thus given bestowed on the recipient a distinct advantage which the alien did not possess, inasmuch as the latter could not inherit or hold lands, although allowed to have personal property. The privileges of denization were very precarious, for they rested upon the monarch's will alone, and consequently were apt to be withdrawn. There was such a withdrawal of privileges in the time of Philip and Mary. One of the laws of the time provided that letters of denization that had been granted to Frenchmen since 32 Henry VIII. might be repealed by a proclamation made to that effect, and that while the lands of all such denizens might descend to their heirs, yet the profits of the lands during the life of the denizen should go to the Crown.2 The same law provided that aliens who were licensed to stay in the realm had to give security that they would obey the laws. Even in the time of Henry VIII. we find laws commanding all foreigners having letters of denization3 to obey
Besides denization there were two other methods by which an outsider might enter the British family fold, viz., naturalization and conquest. By the former a man was given the rights of a natural-born subject; by the latter his allegiance was changed and he was made a subject of England, but he was not necessarily given the full rights of one who was born in England itself. The privileges of naturalization might be conferred upon a person either by general act, applying to a class of people, or by special act, applying to particular individuals. The latter was the early method, while general laws were a later development.
It will be necessary to consider the English law of citizenship in detail, because some of these acts affected the colonies directly, while others, by making a man a citizen in England, affected his status in America. It is doubtful, however, if letters of denization gave any rights outside of England. We have already seen that the first break in the old feudal idea came in the time of Edward III., when children of English parents born out of the king's allegiance were given the rights of citizenship.2 Primarily the law was intended for ambassadors' children, and would only touch the colonies in case such persons went thither. Another act of Edward III. provided that children born beyond the seas in the king's dominions could inherit in England.3 This was an extension of English privileges, although by no means a departure from the principle of the ancient law, for place of birth was still the all-important factor. "
Perhaps it is these denizens that Vattell is referring to when he speaks of naturalization although the author speaks of this practice separately from naturalization ?
Since there were three classes of people in the realm which
included NBS , denizens and aliens…..
The child of a denizen had to have a parent that was a denizen
to be considered eligible to own and inherit land , etc. and then become a subject at birth !
Dear Leo,
Today I sent the following letter to the Sec. Of State for Georgia,
Dear Sec. Kemp,
I have been advised by the Federal Election Commission that they have no jurisdiction in the matter of confirming potential Executive Office Candidates' conformity to the Constitutional prerequisite imperative of being an Art. II natural born Citizen to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the offices of either POTUS and or V-POTUS.
2006 Georgia Code – 21-2-5 (b)
21-2-5. (b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering.
In order to assertain whether I shall file a written complaint stating my objection to any candidate qualifiyng for the Executive offices of the President or Vice-President of the United States, I am requesting that you provide me with the controlling "legal" precedent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by which the state of Georgia is bound to make the determination that a potential Executive Office Candidate conforms in order to be "Certified" as eligible by the State of Georgia to be placed on the ballot to hold the offices of President or Vice-President of the United States.
In my view the state of Georgia must be bound by the legal precedent as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875),to wit: that being a child born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens.
My source:
Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated and aid me in determining any further action that might be at my disposal in a timely fashion.
This information will also aid me in informing Georgia constituents as to the standards their elected leaders have chosen to follow in this regard.
Email response is acceptable.
ex animo
If and when I get a response to this request, I hope to gather around a group of other concerned citizens that are willling to carry this fight to its furthest reaches.
I also hope I can inspire others from around the counrty to petition their elected Sec. Of States to do the same with a plan to
raise enough funds to file a case during the two-week period after qualification wherein which ordinary voters have standing to challenge a candidate's qualification.
I will soon have a website developed to help other from around the country who would wish to do the same. I figure it's the least I can do and if I fail, at least I can say to myself, "David, says I, "at least I tired."
I have started building my website at htto://nolp.blogspot.com/
At present I haver reposted your case, along with proper acknowledgement. But I plan to use the map to keep track of all the other states that will be participating as well.
Please advise it you see fit.
ex animo
Does your assertion, "US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT" really work?
Let's say you're correct that
It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.
But in order to prove your assertion, it seems that you really need something like
A ruling that ONLY both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizens are natural born citizens
And I don't see that you've done that.
ed. I didn't do it, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett did it when they stated that those born of non-citizen parents were a different "class" than those who were natural-born, hence precedent. – Leo
Yes, I see your point and will change it.
Paraleaglenn, I would like to re-work the initial Sec. Of State letter and post it on my website now underconstruction, so if you would like to take it and re-word it, I would deeply appreciate it.
Leo, I agree with your points. Strangely enough, all of a sudden I started having Internet connection problems over the past few days, but I do want to try and bring this plan together. The natural audience for this appeal will be grassroot Republicans who are always willing to tweak the nose of their party leadership when they have a good issue. I see this issue as just such an opportunity, an opportunity to elect electors who will chanllege Obama's NBC status.
ex animo
For the LIFE of me, I cannot understand why people INSIST on posting vital information using crappy-artsy-fartsy website layouts.
Has ANYONE associated wit this blog for instance, EVER tried to read this TRULY IMPORTANT material on an average slug's screen?
It is SO tough to read that I gave up on this site, which, like many others seems to emphasize being "cool', "modern" or "edgy", rather than focusing on the CRITICAL INFORMATION they are supposedly trying to share with us common folks.
PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN to your web site's graphic designer and INSIST ON a plain easy to read color palette and font for the main body of the site. You'll get a LOT more response and support, I assure you!
I for one landed here thanks to a referral from a ***READABLE*** post on Free Republic, but I won't be back any time soon due to the HORRIBLE presentation of the material hereon. Wake up and smell the coffee – you are supposedly running a web site as an information source for one of the most serious issues this nation has ever had to face – not some virtual graphics palette playpen for a frustrated would-be Michelangelo.
I can see how this Issue of Ineligibility has went un Challenged , because of the political correct Politics thats grown like a cancer in our Government to the Point that it has left the Will to scrutinize even the least Controversial talking point of a politician , left alone the Most appeasing of those comments that would render a Politician Incompetent to honor the Laws of the Land in which they seek to Hold Political Office in , like these quotes here . How does one Claim they Stand with Americans Long time allie like Israel when the quotes say Otherwise and the evidence of the exact Opposite is Now a Policy ??
For someone who poised as a Uniting Image of Hope , how did the Quotes in Obama's quotes get Covered Up ???
A Coil of Obama's Rage
Is the Quote in the link above ; " I will stand with the Muslims if the Political Winds shoft in an Ugly Direction " , mean that a Person who calims he is a Person who can Unte the World together as he said in the 2008 election cycle , does that mean what is being said in this Video link ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BH5SCUg3r8
And is this a action that speaks to that process of Unity in nthe world by a political leader of the FREE World ?
U.S. Designates Israel as Country That Tends 'To Promote, Produce, or Protect' Terrorists; Also Calls Israel Anti-Terror Partner , http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-designates-israel-country-tends-promo
I think we the people need some Clarification on just what the Plan is here for the future of the USA , because I am having a little trouble with this whole Uniter gig that we were sold in 2008 ?????
In the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court case, it was accepted that a person born in the U.S. of citizen parents was a "natural born citizen". However, it was not put forth that a person not born in the U.S. of citizen parents was necessarily not a "natural born citizen". Thus, the condition of being born in the U.S. of citizen parents was a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition. The condition falls short of a definition, but does nevertheless constitute a precedent. Persons born in the U.S. of citizen parents are "natural born citizens", but birth is not limited to the U.S.
Even had the Court established a precise definition, it would have been only a legal precedent. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to redefine the words of our Constitution. Vattel still holds.
ed. Nothing was left open and your logic is flawed in the extreme as the definition and meaning of legal precedent. The SCOTUS determines the meaning of the Constitution and that determination is law. The words of the Constitution have not been changed, they have been defined and no Amendment is necessary for that.- Leo
Here is yet another reason why simply using Alexander Hamilton's "born citizen" and those who think the 14th Amendment equates to an A2S1 nbc: US-born children need one less trip to dual Mexican citizenship
ex animo
This elucidation of Minor and the light is shines on the NBC issue is so paramount to today's political mess that I took the liberty of condensing it and uploading the result to my blog at http://obama–nation.com (WordPress) Here's the link to it. It's 5 pages in length.
The evidence of what a dismal condition the citizenry of our country is in is the fact that no one even knows the issue exists. And those who suspect it might aren't willing to have their mellow harshed by even thinking about it. Pathetic. The populous and their guardians are all asleep. It's like an iceberg that's completely submerged, like it doen't exist.
E-Verify says Obama not eligible for employment in the United States
What we have is 535+ political figures along with the DOJ are GUILTY of TREASON in THE HIGHEST DEGREE.
Question is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT what are any of you willing to do about it other than argue back and forth blogging on what we know the FOUNDERS established in the meaning of Article II Section I Clause V of our Constitution?
Like them are you willing to put your life on the line or just sit back and keep blogging?
ed. if you blog, you put your life on the line… that is if you have something to say which threatens power. the pen is mightier than the sword dangerous. – Leo
J. Waite did not decide a question of 'natural born citizen' in its singular application as a term of art in Art II, he employed a device a step above dicta called Judicial Notice.
ed. Not so… it's precedent as my latest clearly established. Judicial notice is more to do with jury trials. For example, the Court might take Judicial Notice of an almanac for evidence that it snowed on a certain day. Judicial notice concerns facts or treatises offered into evidence. – Leo
This may be be a trivial point, but, then, again, Leo has shown us, even the seemingly trivial points when the topic of who is a "natural- born" Citizen is concerned may be dispositive. But John McCain's natural born status could be upheld if it every went to court because at birth, apparently, I don't know this to be fact, but I assume it to be true: the state of Panama at that time did not allow children of foreign military personnel born within their jurisdiction to become Panamanian citizen.
Furthermore, little John would have assumed the allegiance to the country of his father's citizenship until the age of 18, I believe, not Panama's.
ed. Stop… McCain was never eligible. read Minor v Happersett… it tells you exactly who the natural born citizens are, those born in the US to parents who are citizens. You can forget all other arguments. Until the current US Supreme Court rules otherwise, we have a clear concise definition of nbc. McCain doesn't fit. – Leo
Guys, this is just silly. The text of the decision does NOT say that people whose parents weren't citizens are not natural born citizens. It specifically states that it is not deciding that issue:
"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… For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
In other words, the court is saying that
a. Some people doubt that people like Obama are natural born citizens.
ed. No, that's not what the Court said at all, read it again… it said the doubts exist as to their "citizenship" – as to that class their citizenship was subject to doubt, but never as to the first who are defined by the court as "natives or natural-born citizens" which you failed to mention in your post. – Leo
b. We don't need to resolve that issue to decide this case.
c. For our purposes, all that matters is that everyone agrees that people born in the US with citizen parents are natural born citizens.
So the court didn't resolve the issue of whether people like Obama are natural born citizens.
ed. Yes, the court did resolve that issue by defining who were natural born citizens, and Obama would not fit that class. In 1875, prior to Wong Kim Ark, the doubts subsisted as to the "citizenship" of those born of alien parents in the US… the doubt goes to their citizenship, as to the class of natural born citizens, there was no doubt. The Court stated clearly who was natural born. In Wong Kim Ark, had the plaintiff been natural born like Mrs. Minor, the Court would not have required construction of the 14th Amendment as it did not require it in Minor. But since WKA was obviously not a natural-born US citizen, the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship whereas Minor's citizenship only required construction of A2 S1. – Leo
As a result, there's no precedent to draw on here. I know you want to find one, but you're fooling yourselves if you think that it's in this decision.
Okay, it Oct 10, 2011 now and Nordberg hasn't failed to contest points. He either can't or won't. Since true is uncontested testimony, we can now clearly see where the truth lies.
ex animo
Six days. Might be studying in stacks trying to refute…. Won't change anything. He's been beaten down .
Do you believe, as Grey did, that an alien that is "within the allegiance" when s/he is within our territorial borders? I certainly don't.
ex animo
I am at a loss why this imposter has not been impeached, is there anything that can be done to relieve this person of his post?
National call to Action
VETERAN DEFENDERS of AMERICA hand delivering a Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Rebublic join us Hundreds of Thousands of VETERANS marching on Wsahington.
WE are drawing the line in the sand.
Go to http://www.uspatriotsunion.org
And Read the NATIONAL CALL to ACTION
I believe that MINORR v. HAPPERSETT clearly took care of a "natural born citizen".
One other version offered was by an author named Pauli who explains that the vattel material was written in French, and when clearly translated it says that the bottom line is even more distinct…..some disagree with Pauli's description, but as a new French student the words used in Vattel do use French words such as "Patrois, Patoi, and all are defined as " FATHERLAND ".
HIS SUPPOSEE SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF VATTEL SUGGESTS THAT A "natural born citizen" IS VERY SIMPLY A CHILD BORN OF ANY CITIZEN "FATHER", EXCLUDING ANY SOIL NOR MOTHER…..STATING THAT A CHILD BORN OF ANY CITIZEN FATHER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IS A CITIZEN OF THAT FATHER AND HIS HOME NATIONALITY AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL OF THE FATHER'S RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF HIS HOME COUNTRY"……
[ed. easy on the caps next time, please. – Leo]
Well put Vattel blinded them with science "Natural Law" the laws of nature can not be changed by man. This is why the FOUNDERS used it for the two highest offices in the land. Total commitment to one nation. 11-11-11 Veterans day JOIN THOUSANDS OF VETERANS MARCHING ON WASHINGTON.
http://www.uspatriotsunion.org Read the National call to ACTION