PRESIDENT CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
[UPDATE 3:52AM] Still banging it out…
Later tonight, probably much later… I’ll publish my research on all Presidents born to a parent or parents born abroad. I’ve conclusively established that, with the exception of Chester Arthur, every President – that wasn’t made eligible to POTUS under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause – was born on United States soil to parents who were both United States citizens.
As for Chester Arthur’s father William, we haven’t found the exact date he was naturalized, but we’ve found proof that President Chester Arthur lied about his father’s history, his mother’s history and his own age. Why did he do that? Well, it appears that William Arthur probably naturalized within months just before or just after President Chester Arthur was born in October 1829. The 21st President clearly lied about his birthday, pushing it back a year to 1830.
For those of you who may find it hard to sleep tonight, grab a cup of tea and join me for a late night American history lesson and the unfolding of an eerily bizarre coincidental scandal involving Chester Arthur, our 21st President, and also a proven liar. He was born in the United States, but allegations he wasn’t may have provided cover for another eligibility problem.
December 4, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Thank you for educating America, Leo. You are light in present darkness. I have been following your case since the day it was docketed by Justice Thomas and it has been astounding to see the incompetence and laziness of today’s journalists. I thank God for the grace He has given you. May He strengthen you as you walk through the coming days. You are continually in our prayers. Thank you so much for your patriotism and for caring so deeply about the rule of law.
I can’t wait to hear about Chester Arthur!
December 4, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Hello Leo,
Here is some more innacurate garbage reported by the Chicago Tribune…You wil get a laugh at this one.
***********************************************
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,3247305.story
December 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Leo,
Please put a convenient link in bold at the top of your blog home/landing page which jumps to a blog entry or separate page with a summary of your case and a link to dowload the brief. The meat of your case is getting lost in all the sundry other blog entries in you blog. Nice stuff and good reading for those of us who have been following your case. But for NEWBIES landing here the first time, and especially writers for the press or other media who want to find the facts about your case real fast, because most are lazy, you need a hot button link RIGHT AT TOP which stays there for the pertinent and germaine key differences in your case. A citizenship for dummies 101 type dissertation. Just my humble suggestion from a person who has done some PR in my days in business. As the expert said in his book, “To catch a mouse you have to make a noise like cheese” in the headline at the top of a story or blog, to get them to read more, and to give them the story or a link to it in 10 seconds or less … or they are gone, and won’t get it. And tomorrow morning and all day and all weekend people will be coming to your blog. So please get some sort of hot button hyperlink to the facts of your case and a download link up there, ASAP. JMHO.
Goat
December 4, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Will there be any news tomorrow? if so will it be reported? I’m on pins and needles. I’m also worried that whatever outcome ultimately comes of this could create civil unrest. I wish I could go to Washington tomorrow and just sit on the court house steps. I understand there is a planned rally. I wish I could be there.
December 4, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Hey Leo.
Just wondering if you got a chance to take a ‘crack’ at another ‘crack’ at you and your case…not the typical ‘blathering’ from some of the other blogs and articles out there…looks more like an attorney for the Obama camp wrote this piece…
http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/12/03/puma-watch-conspiracy-theorists-still-trying-to-disqualify-the-president-elect/
BTW, I wish your case the BEST tomorrow, I do hope that justice WILL be served!
Paul
December 4, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Leo,
I’m all in for the lesson!
December 4, 2008 at 8:41 PM
wow Leo unbelievable.
December 4, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Leo, here is another article that you must read….It started off being fairly accurate with the exception of a couple of minor details, but towards the end it turned into a load of horse shit.
http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2273/Thomas-breaks-custom-forces-court-to-look-at-Obam.aspx
December 4, 2008 at 8:48 PM
I totally second what you say about Arthur. I think I wrote roughly the same on federalistblog. Looking forward to more evidence.
December 4, 2008 at 8:49 PM
[...] PRESIDENT CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY [...]
December 4, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Which ever way it goes for our country tomorrow, Leo.
I thank you for the patriot you are.
Many Thanks,
Carole and Dave
December 4, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Past the tea, my brother… well into the Pinot.
Am waiting with baited breath for the history lesson.
Thank you, in advance.
December 4, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Leo,
Nice new links in the right frame. That is good. But maybe a hot link over there to a simple summary of your pleadings. Something written in basics for legal dummies that summarizes your case. With that, then I think what you’ve done is excellent and will help the newbies find the details of the pleadings. Thanks for all your hard work.
I also sent a thanks to “Holly” who did all the genealogy work I forwared to you awhile back. Great work “Holly”. And great work Leo.
Tomorrow is the day of reckoning.
Goat
P.S. I watched MSNBC and the Professor correctly identified your key issue but he said the SCOTUS would be “loath to take up such a case” given the politics involved. He said the SCOTUS always avoids such cases. We’ll see who is right.
December 4, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Past the tea, my brother… well into the Pinot.
Am waiting with baited breath for the history lesson.
Thank you, in advance.
December 4, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I told a lawyer friend of mine are you ready for the big case tomorrow and he said what case? i said the supreme court to decide the presidency of the united states. the world has no clue to whats goning to happen. i pray that the supreme court rises to the moment and be men and women of courage and honor and not make a mockery of the constiution because its crystal clear it says natural born THE HALLS OF JUSTICE ARE A SLOW GRIND BUT JUSTICE COMES SWIFTLY!
December 4, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Leo,
Something I forgot to say in my earlier post: Thank you!
I know this is probably one of the most stressful undertakings of your entire life and I want you to know many of us are so grateful. I will say a prayer for you and be with you in spirit.
Best Wishes, J.J.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Leo,
If we go by your arguments, then it wouldn’t matter whether or not they were naturalized citizens. Per Blackstone’s commentary, William Arthur would not have shed his original allegiance to the Crown and would have therefore subjected his children to being under British citizenship at birth. You don’t seem to be acknowledging the fact that your argument stems from them being also Crown citizens “at birth” when it comes to Arthur.
If your whole case rests on Obama having “split loyalties” from birth, then you must recognize that Chester A. Arthur and James Buchanan would have been subjected to the same split loyalties from birth, regardless of whether or not their parents where naturalized.
You don’t get to change the rules just to suit your argument. Good luck trying to squeeze that one by another skilled and very well-educated lawyer, who you will no doubt be up against.
December 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Leo,
Excerpt from “Miracle in Philadelphia”
This book by Catherine Drinker Bowen was published in 1966. It is a story of the views of the framers, and the Constitutional Convention, May to September of 1787. I scanned a few pages that are pertinent to the issue at hand.
PDF’s are downloadable at :
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=866
December 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Go get em Leo! Also, I agree put a link at the top that leads to the crux of your case.
Regards
December 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.
We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.
We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).
14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:
1. BORN in the United States
OR
2. NATURALIZED in the United States
A child BORN on US soil receives the same type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized.
Either could serve in the Senate or House but NEITHER can serve as President because they are only citizens. Not natural born citizens. They receive the same type of citizenship in different ways.
A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.
A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.
A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.
All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President.
So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?
A person with two US citizens as parents
December 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Good luck with your case. Can’t wait to see the look on the media’s faces when they have to report the Supreme Court plans to hear your case.
Maybe Keith Olbermann’s head will explode on MSNBC.
December 4, 2008 at 10:16 PM
[...] who you are!), Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, will be donning his professor hat and explaining how President Arthur had been (and may continue to be) quite the scandal and detailing his research [...]
December 4, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Good work.I’d tell you to get some rest and sleep,but I’m sure you are too anxious and fired up over tomorrow.Please don’t worry about the vigil.Hopefully there will be little or no signs.The msm doesn’t need to read signs as they will do as they please regardless.I find your case the most promising,simply because this really has nothing to do with Obama’s birthplace.In addition to the NBS argument it has to do with accountability and checks and balance.And also judicial misconduct.If this usurper takes office,no matter how many lawsuits are brought to SCOTUD,it is pretty much all over for our erstwhile great nation.This case will determine if there are any honorable men and women left in our corrupt government.I agree with your comment tonight that there is no fear at SCOTUS.If they can’t see it is imperative to demand a canddidate for the highest office of the land prove his eligibility to we the people,they have sent us a strong message that we are serfs,not sovereigns.And that they are corrupt.
December 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM
mtngoat61: I’ve created http://www.fortheconstitution.com mainly as Leo’s case mirror. I gathered all the documents and blog posts of Leo’s websites.
December 4, 2008 at 10:47 PM
If my last post was too long, here is a condensed version:
14th Amendment citizens cannot be President.
Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is achieved in three ways:
1. Being naturalized
2. Being born on US soil to two non US citizens
3. Being born on US soil to one US citizen and one non US citizen
If Arnold can’t serve because of #1 then neither can anyone that falls under #s 2 or 3. Barry is a #3
December 4, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Good luck! Thanks for standing up for the Constitution.
December 4, 2008 at 10:57 PM
We, the People of the United States of America,
Demand the rule of Law,under the Constitution Be Upheld!!..
Thanks Leo ! . We, the People are standind up!
Quote:
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled
if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our government is the potent,
the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people
by its example.
Crime is contagious.
If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .
” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S.
December 4, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Paul – thanks for the compliment. I’m glad to be “not the typical blathering,” and I’d welcome a debate-off with Leo on the law behind his complaint.
December 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Constitutional vs Common law pertaining to the definition of natural born citizen must be clarified by SCOTUS..
If a POTUS is elected by the electoral college and then in a year from now is shown to be ineligible.. Every law, appointment to office would be illegal and or null and void..
Or worse.. If USA was attacked, POTUS would be powerless to command the military..
The supreme court must NOT allow this to occur… whoever is president
SCOTUS must protect us
December 4, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Leo, I am amazed at your ability to explain legal things! I understand now and actually look forward to the possibility of this playing out to be on the side of Americans that love our nation and all it was founded on. Like I tell my kids, truth is truth is truth! Your fight is right! Let no one make you think otherwise. I just wish we had more brave politicians and judges with a cause greater than themselves. I will pray for you tonight, you get rest and be ready for them tomorrow. God Bless You! You are a good and honorable man. Your cause is worthy!
December 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
Greetings in Jesus.
I want to be frank and candid. Those out there in the public who tell you that The President-Elect is the president elect is full of bull crap.
Lets start off with the facts. He is NOT the president elect no matter how much he wants to stand in front of the cameras to say he is. He will NOT be the president elect until the electors are ratified by the states on December 15, and ratified by the Congress on January 9. Then and only then does he become the official bona-fide president elect. Until then he is just a private citizen or still a U. S. Senator. He wants people to buy into this illusion that he is. Therefore he is lying about being the president elect. I will say it again. He is NOT the president elect until January 9th. There is no ifs, ands or butts, he will not be the president elect until that time.
Why does this irritate me? Because of two things.
1. I am a Federalist, as in a member of The Federalist Party, yes it still exists in some parts of the country. Its the duty of a Federalist to being a guardian of the U. S. Constitution.
2. I am a trained historian as having been trained in college as a history instructor.
When these uninformed journalists can not get the facts straight, really an undying irritation.
Mr. Donofrio, may God give you the courage to continue stand against the evil in the government because it has gotten away from the Lord High God.
Let us now humbly pray as The Saviour taught us to pray…
Our Father,
Who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name,
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done,
On Earth as it is in Heaven,
Give us this day,
Our daily bread,
And forgive us,
Our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass
against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from The Evil One.
For thine is The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory
is Yours, Now and Forever.
Amen.
+Stonewall
December 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM
We are all praying for you Leo and we know justice will prevail. Hang in there you are a true American hero. Go get em!!!!
December 4, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Yes all the lawyers have the right to have their own legal theory and handle their own cases as they see fit. I say work togeather and don’t fight each other working toward the same goal. That is to expose the fraud of Obama and that he is not a valid qualified candidate for president because his birth is in question. At birth he either was not a natural born citizen, he is a dual citizen or he is not a US citizen at all. All the evidence points to the fact Obama is a fraud for various reasons. A house divided cannot stand.
December 4, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Intereting.Leo,I heard you come back on the show.I understand your frustration.It’s common sense to attach the 2 sentences to any case.Yes,extra work,but well worth the effort.And the most salient point you brought up was the fact once we get past the 15th and BHO is President-Elect,it will throw in another legal hurdle that will be almost insurmountable for any cases from any “strategy”.Anyone that has heard you a couple of times knows that you are gregarious and frank in your demeanor and approach.And that is misconstrued by some as arrogance.And you have every right to call him out on lies of posting nasty stuff on this blog,or staements his colleague wrongly attributed to you.And when the air is cleared you always try to mend fences.Yet,the person in question went on to malign you.Pride and insecurity.But,Cort came on and defended you.Keep fighting the good fight my friend.
December 4, 2008 at 11:48 PM
On the original law suit it was determined by Leo that by “logical conclusion”, if obama had an alien parent therefore he was not a natural born citizen.
I read the entire document and I thought that MCcains claims were very well explained.
However, I do not see the conection that links Obama’s parenthood issue with that of Mccains. They seem to be to separete issues, and Leo connects them by logical conclusion.
Does anyone have the same doubts?
December 4, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Here’s an issue that I’ve been wondering about:
in a case such as Mr. Donofrio’s in which only a secretary of state is a named party on the other side (unlike those cases such as Mr. Berg’s in which Obama and the DNC are named parties), and assuming that Obama, DNC, McCain, RNC, etc. are not necessary parties and have not intervened, then is the attorney general operating in a vacuum representing the sec. of state or are the attorneys for Obama and the DNC working behind the scenes with the attorney general?
December 5, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Hello Leo,
I know that Mr. Kreep is a fellow lawyer to you and I hope that I don’t offend you, but the man is DENSE!!!!…I was just listening to him on the radio and he doesn’t seem to understand that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. Others tried to explain it to him and he just couldn’t seem to wrap his mind around the concept….Lordie!!!….This guy is grasping at straws with his case….It’s a damn good thing that “we the people” have you representing us Leo….”We” owe you a world of gratitude for taking on this battle….Please don’t let the other confused minds that are out there frustrate you too much.
My sincerest thanks to sir!!!
December 5, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Tonights Phil Hendrie show got a caller saying how absurd it was that people were requesting so much information about Obama’s birth/family history and that is was unprecedented. Phil then made some comment about Kennedy’s mother being from Ireland and how the interest in Obama was politically motivated. Just more people that do not care to read the Constitution or the case filings. Thought you’d like to know. I turned the show off.
December 5, 2008 at 12:19 AM
@Melissa:
There might even be another constriction to your reading of the 14th Amendment citizens. The Amendment mentions that these citizens are not only born or naturalized but are also subjects to the jurisdiction of the US. If you are born on US soil, but one of your parents is a non-US citizen, and is also a citizen of a country that by law extends its governance over the parent also to the child upon birth, then the child logically is not only subject to US jurisdiction, but additionally a subject to the jurisdiction of its one parent’s country. This is the case with Barack Obama. It may be that these children are not even “born citizens” under the 14th Amendment. (But I’m not sure if I’m reading it correctly.)
December 5, 2008 at 12:33 AM
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid={35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3}
December 5, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Hi Leo,
I heard You on Plains Radio.
The point the female caller (forgot her name) was making about the possibility that on Obamas real BC another father than Obama sr. is named.
This bothers me. What if there is no father named or an American citizen?
Just the fact that he doesn’t show his BC makes me believe there is a problem. Possible his birth place. maybe more.
He got away with attending a racist church for 2 decades and being tied to Rezko and Ayers.
Why would he mind being the son of somebody else than Obama sr.?
I don’t see that.
Anyway… distractions.
I really wish You well tomorrow.
The fact that Judge Clarence Thomas is involved in Your case is the best news I had this past month.
He is a straight man and a proud American.
He will do the best he can I know that.
And I feel he is fearless and also naturally not into race card games.
GOOD LUCK TOMORROW,
Yours
Berlin Wall Child
December 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM
God Speed to you Leo. I and others will be praying for You, Cort, Philip, Alan, Orly, and others who filed to the Supreme Court. To me you are the true Patriots of his Land. I still can’t believe Barry has followers after the picture of him posted not saluting the Flag, Removing the Flag from his Plane, Refusing to wear the Flag Pin on his Lapel. People of this land are no longer God Fearing Americans who love this Country. Only those who stood against this Fraud (Less than Half of this country God Help US) deserve to enjoy her freedoms. I am praying the Justices will do the right thing and approve this case and lead us back to being a Free Country again. If not, we will loose our freedoms and be delivered to the World Court to be subjigated under Foreign Powers. Obama is even now trying to push a law into Congress that would give the World Leaders of the UN control of our country while in the process taking away our 2nd amendment rights to protect ourselves. And the “Fairness Doctrine” will take away our 1st Amendment rights. Once Again, I am praying for you and the Supreme Court (All 9 Justices). May God Protect you and all of us. AMEN.
December 5, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I’ve had this thought in my head for the past day or so. The phrase is “natural born citizen”, right? Not native-born citizen, or naturally-born citizen.
So how aboout we split the phrase this way:
natural=The condition of having pure fidelity to only one country (i.e., the US). OR: The condition in which one’s fidelity to country is unadulterated by a competing loyalty to another soveriegn.
born citizen=U.S. citizen by virtue of the circumstances of your birth, and not by operation of law. In other words, born to two U.S. citizens.
December 5, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Mr. Donofrio,
I just now realized that I never heard what party you are from. The truth is: I don’t care.
You are standing for all Americans. I am but starting my journey of adulthood, with each step of the way encumbered by the government.
Your case is a possible beginning of a movement in the United States. A movement made of ordinary people that stand for something. Stand for the Constitution.
Fight the good fight for us sir. Regardless of tomorrow’s outcome, don’t give up.
You, Berg, Keyes, Cort, and myriad others are onto something here. I do not know how we could have strayed so far from the Constitution.
Please work with them if necessary.
It has been reported that Obama has three law firms behind him. That’s right, FIRMS. He has the monetary advantage too.
I pray for a favorable outcome tomorrow.
In mind and spirit,
CPCon
December 5, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Sadly, it’s hard to find anyone who’s aware that a December 5th SCOTUS conference is possibly the most important political event in world history. Leo, the world doesn’t deserve you, but we are all awfully happy for what you have done.
December 5, 2008 at 1:05 AM
[...] to serve, continues to rack up comments here (read one gem) and at Donofrio’s own blog, on his latest thread, where one of his readers seems to think I’m a transition team lawyer. [...]
December 5, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Defining Natural-Born Citizen / Investigating Obama: The Donofrio “Natural Born Citizen” Challenge
Essence of the case
Neither Barack Obama, John McCain, nor Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) qualify as “natural born citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states:
“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.”
Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells
To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, the explanations of the founders, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases at the time of its framing. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers as they drafted each element of the Constitution.
Accordingly, being a “natural born citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution’s framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio’s own words from his blog:
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama’s U.S. citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.
According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.
According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.
Merit: context, corroboration, and case law
Corroborative to this case, the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to “define and punish… offenses against the law of nations.” The Law of Nations has been international law, which as assembled by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212,
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
It follows with paragraph 215, in which Vatel asserts,
“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say ‘of itself,’ for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.”
The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated the dual criteria stating,
“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.”
An extensive analysis citing this is Defining Natural-Born Citizen, by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, in order to be called a “native born citizen” (see, The Law — Perkins v. ELG, blog, The Betrayal).
St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution… which became a recognized resource for determining the framers’ original intent. In his Volume 1 — Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 “natural born citizen” requirement purposed to avoid competing allegiances:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one such subject would travel abroad to declare himself a “Citizen of the World” before hundreds of thousands might also have provided a relevant warning).
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html
DEFINING NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
Fourteenth Amendment
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”
Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
UPDATE:
I came across this interesting speech by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814:
“The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.”
Cheves is obviously drawing on the works of Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. Not something you would expect from the Speaker of the House of a Nation that supposedly adopted England’s common law.
December 5, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Investigating Obama: The Donofrio “Natural Born Citizen” Challenge
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html
December 5, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Go get em, Leo. The ball is in your court, hit it right smack down the center and no one can catch it till it hits the wall. There are many of us out here on the other side of that wall that are hoping and cheering you on, because we know just how much rests on this case and on your ability to smack it home true.
Please let us know a soon as you can what the outcome is, so that we can all relax and get un-tensed. Will they let you know tomorrow or within the next day or so, what they are thinking?? I sure hope so, because it will be a very long weekend and week if nothing is decided soon. I know that I will be checking back probably 20 or 30 times a day until I hear something, and I am sure many others will be doing the same. Take care and God be with you tomorrow.
December 5, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Hello Leo,
Thank you for everything.
For me it’s not who wins the election. It’s protecting the Constitution and the United States that’s important.
Thank you again.
Interesting article I found:
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the
U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President
To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause
Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
by John Yinger(1)
Revised Version, April 6, 2000
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
December 5, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Leo you are the right man at the right time. You’re ALL IN. You have 3 Aces. I figure at best he’s got 4 clubs. A card to go. (one of your aces is a club). Thank You!!
December 5, 2008 at 1:54 AM
More prayers your way Leo…
I’ve written ALL my congress people urging them to do their jobs – defend our constitution!!
Your efforts represent the patriotic wake-up call our great nation so desperately needs.
Godspeed.
December 5, 2008 at 2:03 AM
I look forward to hearing “The Rest…..Of The Story.”
December 5, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Leo,
A couple of “us lawyers” involved as members/officers in a little civic awareness taxpayer group in Ventnor (yes, New Jersey!!!) have been putting up posts with news and information about your case in our Election 2008 Forums, trying to digest the chronology, and provide useful links.
http://www.ventnorevoice.com/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=1124
After starting an earlier post about some of the earlier-publicized cases, as they started to crop up on the Internet “radars”
http://www.ventnorevoice.com/bulletinboard/showthread.php?t=1071
…. we became aware of your lawsuit, and as it became obvious that yours had been strategically thought out, and raised a question of LAW rather than a claim of not fully provable FACTS, and, moreover, raised that question in an impartial fashion which took a look at more than just ONE candidate for office at the time of your initial filing (before Nov. 4th), it was obvious that a completely separate treatment of Donofrio v. Wells was in order.
The “natural born citizen” clause has (amazingly) gone for 200+ years without a definitive SCOTUS ruling on its proper interpretation. It’s to be hoped that it will finally get an interpretation worthy of the inspired Highest Law of the Land, on its “originalist” footings, AND that these cases (all of them) will point to the need for some authoritative branch of government to realize that the PROCESS of assuring actual eligibility has serious flaws. There are either inadequate state statutes to provide for it, or inadequate-to-the-task state officials failing to discharge them.
Ventnor is next to A.C. and, when this case is over (hopefully, with a SCOTUS vote for a hearing which can then formulate a ruling), know that on your next trip to the shore you’ll be due for some local Jersey-style hospitality!
A lot of people around the country appreciate your standing up for the rule of law; but the people of NJ are doubly-indebted since the state statutes and state courts are the legal framework which also impact our lives and our ability, at election time, to make meaningful choices among legitimate candidates.
December 5, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Leo, you have been and are in my prayers. An extra one tonight! Blessings on your head!
December 5, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Snake Eyes,
The way I understand is that when William Arthur became the citizen of the United States, he automatically shed his allegiance in the eys of the American law. If he could have shed his British subjecthood, he would. But at the time, it was impossible to do so. The important thing was that he voluntarily declared his oath of allegiance to the United States, and so, as far as the U.S. laws were concerned, he did not have dual allegiance. The U.S. did not recognize dual citizenship at the time – that’s the key point, in my opinion. Today it might have been different, both because many countries recognize dual citizenship and because it is possible to become voluntarily expatriated.
Another point Leo stared to make, I think, is that Chester Arthur went to incredible lengths to conceal the exact dates of his birth and his father’s naturalization, which should demonstrate to us that he was well aware of the natural born citizen requirements. The fact that he tried to conceal these circumstances strengthens the definition of the natural born citizen that Leo advanced. It means that Chester Arthur understood the requirements for the natural born citizen in the same way that Leo understands them.
My third point is a question for Leo and other legal minds on this blog. Let’s say that it is proven that Chester Arthur was born before his father became a naturalized American citizen, which means he became the President through cheating. Does the fact that one sneaked through the system now invalidate the constitutional requirements for the natural born citizen by way of historical precedent?
December 5, 2008 at 2:34 AM
This was posted onto another blog almost 2 years ago by an anonymous poster (Madison perhaps?) and it succinctly explains Leo’s argument to the T. But it goes a step further to argue that “A natural born citizen is one who is born to an American Father”. That explains the “Natural” as “Natural” implies “Natural Law”, i.e. FATHER. So, the argument here means mothers DO NOT dictate natural born citizenship as per the original citizenship laws in the late 18th century. Simply fascinating…:
When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it as it was practiced under common law, and instead, abandoned common law practice of jus solis.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could renounce their allegiance, i.e., expatriate), and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself, no matter to whom. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” There was to be no dual allegiance in the United States, and the framers went to pains to make sure such absurdity could never exist under American law.
After the current Constitution was adopted, America devised its own rules governing citizenship that resembled nothing like jus soli under common law. Instead of forcing allegiance upon a person by virtue of birth, it was required that the father consent in advance and renounce all allegiance he owed to his country of birth.
Under American law it was required for foreigners three years before admission to first record their intent to become citizens with a local court. Furthermore, foreigners were required to take a oath that it is their intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that they renounce forever any allegiance and fidelity to another country. Upon this, children born to him/her would be considered born within the allegiance of the United States, and thus, a citizen of the United States even though the father had not yet been awarded citizenship.
Please note: There were two oaths required of a foreigner, one at the time of their declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, and an oath at the time citizenship was awarded.
States before and after the federal Constitution was adopted determined who shall be born citizens within their respective limits, while Congress was responsible for defining rights of alien citizenship. All State laws which records survived required an oath of allegiance along with a record of intent to reside within the State. Without this, most statutes deemed infants born to aliens to be aliens and not citizens of the State.
Under common law, none of the above was required, and so, proves without a doubt the United States never adopted common law jus soli. This of course, did not prevent the courts from rendering confusing court decisions on the subject.
The 39th Congress adopted the same allegiance in advance requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
What did “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? It was defined by Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
The primary author of the Fourteenths citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, said “subject to the jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
It is very interesting to note that Howard proclaimed the citizenship clause as a virtue of “natural law.” Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, to had inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.
Because a foreigner was required to renounce all allegiance to another country in advance of becoming a citizen, and declare their allegiance to the United States instead, a child would inherit his/her fathers allegiance to the United States, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, an American citizen.
The construction applied to the citizenship clause by its framers dramatically departs from the rule of jus soli, and thus, differs in operation. Under Howard’s construction the clause could have well read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Next time someone says America adopted the unconditional rule of jus soli, or adopted England’s common law of birthright, laugh at ‘em. Finally, I will finish with some words of wisdom from TR.
From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it. (Theodore Roosevelt, “The Children of the Crucible” New York, Sept. 9, 1917)
December 5, 2008 at 2:37 AM
For SnakeEyes,
I don’t understand your comment. I need an education about Blackstone’s commentary, I guess. Do you mean that Mr. Donofrio will argue that Blackstone’s commentary is more center than the framers’ intent?
William Arthur was from Ireland, wasn’t he? Do you mean Blackstone’s commentary didn’t recognize the immigrant naturalized?
James Buchanan Sr. was already a resident before the Constitution was ratified, so naturalization wouldn’t apply to him… would he not have been a citizen just as any author of the Constitution?
Help!
thanks
December 5, 2008 at 2:37 AM
The first indication if your quest is a success Leo will be the movement of troops into cities around the USA this weekend, Homeland Security will call it a preplanned emergency response exercise, but we will know the real reason come Monday at 10:00 AM.
December 5, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Do you think they will review all three pending cases on Friday?
December 5, 2008 at 3:23 AM
Hi Leo – I’m the permanent resident Brit who talked to you on Plains Radio (you told me “I’d nailed it” when I asserted that your case emphasises the similarity between the Framer’s eligibility and Obama’s).
My question to you Leo is this:
On reading the comments above and elsewhere, it seems that some reporters, and especially the lawyer’s article referenced above (the guy who does a lot of sneering and condescending) don’t view your lawsuit as an eligibility issue. Rather, they describe it as per the description on the docket – “Donofrio vs. Welles”. As such, they assert that your case is only about enforcing the need for SOS Welles to uphold her sworn duty and properly vet candidates, which was I believe your original suit.
So which of these two issues – eligibility or negligence – is in fact before SCOTUS today?
I am keeping fingers firmly crossed for your petition today! One way or another, justice will prevail.
December 5, 2008 at 3:26 AM
In a nutshell, this is what it is all going to boil down to tomorrow, Dec. 5th, 2008….We are going to have to all cross our fingers on this one.
December 5, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Leo, When’s the book coming out?
December 5, 2008 at 3:58 AM
The red text from the old website was the best explanation of this case. Please post that on this website because things are getting confusing for people.
December 5, 2008 at 3:59 AM
Other than for the fact that it is interesting, I would not let this Arthur thing distract me.
If I rob a bank and get away with it, can the next bank robber that is caught use as a defense the fact that I was not caught. Arthur may have pulled the wool over everyones’ eyes. So that now makes Obama a “natural born citizen!” Arthur did not have his Donofrio, it the only conclusion I can reach.
December 5, 2008 at 5:28 AM
i really hope that people keep it respectful tomorrow/today
December 5, 2008 at 7:16 AM
Go, Leo, go!
Have learned a lot from you – thanks for your generosity in posting all this stuff!!
December 5, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Thank you Leo for standing up for our Country and the Constitution. Our thoughts and Prayers are with you, the Justices and all of America. It is our prayer that Justice will be served and the Supreme Court will decide to hear this most important case. As it will establish what will happen in future Presidencies. We are waiting with baited breath to hear what the outcome is.
December 5, 2008 at 8:47 AM
There are two types of citizens:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Citizen of the United States
14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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…
Citizens of the United States under the 14h Amendment CANNOT be President. They can only be Senators or Representatives.
There are different ways to achieve the label of ‘Citizen of the United States)
1. Being BORN on US soil (Barack Obama)
2. Being Naturalized on US soil (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Both are given the label ‘Citizen of the United States’ under the 14th Amendment. Arnold because he was naturalized and Barack because he was born on US soil (to ONE US citizen).
Neither can be President. They are the SAME type of citizen. A citizen of the United States.
If Barack could be President by MERELY being BORN on US soil (citizen of the United States) and Arnold has the SAME citizenship by being naturalized in the United States (citizen of the United States), why can one be eligible and not the other?
The answer is: NEITHER are eligible because they are ONLY citizens of the United States as recognized under the 14th Amendment.
December 5, 2008 at 8:57 AM
I think we are getting caught up in the ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ part. It has been said that only THREE classes were NOT ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’:
(1) Children born to foreign diplomats
(2) Children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory
(3) Indians
Barack is admittedly a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment because he was born on US soil to one US citizen and one UK citizen.
Upon his BIRTH, he receives the same label (citizen of the United States) as Arnold Schwarzenegger received when he was naturalized in the United States.
It doesn’t matter if he WAS ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. He is STILL only a Citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
Arnold is ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ via Naturalization
Barack is ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ via his Mother’s US citizenship.
Still doesn’t mean they can be President
Same would go for Wong Kim Ark. He was a Citizen of the United States by virtue of being BORN on US soil (regardless of parents allegiance).
December 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Just how much of a mere coincidence could it be that both major political parties [which have de facto been the only two (and I use the term "two" loosely] parties in power in this great country of ours for a long time) would nominate constitutionally ineligible U.S. presidential candidates for the same election? It would behoove every God-fearing U.S. citizen to pray that the SCOTUS is a truly independent governmental body.
December 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Here is an easy definition of a natural born citizen:
A natural born citizen is anyone that is NOT a citizen of the United States as defined by the 14th Amendment.
Barack Obama = 14th Amendment citizen
Wong Kim Ark = 14th Amendment citizen
Arnold Schwarzenegger = 14th Amendment citizen
The 14h Amendment grants the same ‘level’ of citizenship to all three people, just under different circumstances. If Arnold can’t serve because he is ‘only’ a citizen of the United States, then neither can Barack Obama or Wong Kim Ark because they are ‘only’ citizens of the United States.
This same level of citizenship applies to them all.
December 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Quote:
“John Nada Says:
December 5, 2008 at 10:52 am
Just how much of a mere coincidence could it be that both major political parties would nominate constitutionally ineligible U.S. presidential candidates for the same election? ”
I don’t believe in coincidence here.
It is either to get rid of the NBC clause for once and for all.
Or it is to create a martial law situation. That would keep Bush in office.
December 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM
fascinating. I’m interested in hearing more. I have studying the constitution extensively and only Natural Born Citizens may be elected POTUS. 14th Amendment citizens may not. Now, im not a constitution scholar like Obama is supposed to be, but am i right? Please, somebody who is a constitution scholar, preferably one with a degree in Constitutional Law, clarify that.
Food for deranged thought: If it is found that Obama is not legitimate, the Supreme Court MUST overturn the election. Certain minority groups promised to riot if Obama wasn’t elected. Can you imagine the anger and chaos if Obama’s election is overturned?
December 5, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I would put forth one more thing:
If Obama is a “natural born” then every anchor baby in the United States is a “natural born”.
If all one had to do was be born on American soil, then we have a major problem.
December 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I’m glad people here want to see the Constitution followed. I’m sick of activist judges trying to read things into the Constitution that are not there.
I’d like some info to help me make better arguments with my friends that don’t understand that Obama is not eligible. Can someone please point out where it says that people with dual citizenship are not eligible? They keep claiming that as long as you were a citizen at birth then you’re a Natural Born Citizen. TYIA
December 5, 2008 at 7:29 PM
[...] PRESIDENT CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY [UPDATE 3:52AM] Still banging it out… Later tonight, probably much later… I’ll publish my research on [...] [...]
May 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM
doesn’t help!
My question wuz:
“How has Chester Arthur made an impact on others’ lives?”
if you still pay attention to this please tell me or email me:
gummybearsnumber1fan@gmail.com or moneylover4ever10@yahoo.com
[Ed. he appointed Justice Horace Gray. gray wrote the sick distorted and very legally wrong opinion in Wong Kim Ark... that chain of events had a drastic effect on our lives daily now that we have an ineligible President who was somewhat sanitized by that decision. Since Arthur was not eligible, his only SCOTUS appointment wrote the most BS opinion in SCOTUS history just to make his own right to be a Justice more sanitary. It reeks.]