SCOTUS IN “WONG KIM ARK” AND “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT” RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” -…(snipped by Ed. 03.03.09)
[UPDATE: 03.03.09 Apologies in light blue.]
[UPDATE 5:08 PM Rewritten. Changes in purple.]
They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball and get hit.
[I apologize to the Honorable Court for making the above statement. The statement was an emotional response not grounded in facts or law. 03.03.09]
I get more questions about United States v. Wong Kim Ark than any other case. Recently, Steve Marquis wrote to me and asked for a clarification about this. Steve is the person who first sued the Washington Secretary of State back in October. I was inspired by Steve’s action to file my own suit.
I now find this all irrelevant since if the court was ever going to uphold the Constitution, it would have done so by now on this issue.
[Same apology as above.]
As I’ve stated in comments to my last blog (which was satire people), you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court. You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.
[Same apology as above.]
But, out of respect for Steve’s effort and the overall confusion this case has caused on the natural born citizen issue, I’ve written the following explanation thereto in the hope that the current court will receive no historical cover from Wong Kim Ark as none is due.
In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
(Emphasis added.)
Look at that, you have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .
In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“
[UPDATE: 12:11 PM ...(thanks to reader "rossalgondamer" for pointing out the following). The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a " natural born citizen" - as I've stated in the original post here - but the reader points out that the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a "citizen" at all.
I will add to the reader's comment by pointing out that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor, but Minor doesn't really support the holding in Wong Kim Ark, it's just that Gray's opinion makes it look like it does.
US History desperately needs to consider whether Justice Gray's appointment by Chester Arthur infected the opinion he wrote in Wong Kim Ark, since that opinion looks more and more dodgy every day in that it has the appearance of sanitizing Chester Arthur's citizenship problems as to POTUS eligibility since his father was not naturalized until Chester was 14, as we recently discovered, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth, just like Obama. ]
For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the “natural born citizen” issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of whether each person was a “citizen”.
But they discussed the “natural born citizen” issue thoroughly. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark quoted this EXACT passage from Minor. And in doing so, Justice Gray and the court punted on whether Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen” specifically limiting their holding to state that the person was a “citizen”.
There’s a clear distinction made in the Wong Kim Ark case between “natural born citizens” and “citizens”. Justice Gray’s majority opinion said Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen” but went no further than that. He cleverly evaded the issue of whether a person born in the US to parents who weren’t citizens was a “natural born citizen” although a lazy reader of the case might come away with the wrong impression. (Intentional?) Since Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, they were able to punt:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.)
They held that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” but they did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen”. And Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case wherein the Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being the only definition which is free of doubt.
I have stated over and again that the Wong Kim Ark decision supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen in that the court clearly had the chance in the Wong Kim Ark opinion to define “natural born citizen” as being inclusive of persons born in the United States to foreign parents… but they didn’t.
And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”, or, as the Court in Minor discussed, whether such persons are even “citizens”.
Certainly, since Minor came down in 1873 and the Supreme Court then refused to confirm or deny whether persons born in the US to foreign parents were even citizens, then at the time Chester Arthur ran for Vice President in 1880, the issue of whether he was even a citizen was in doubt. The issue of whether he was a “natural born citizen” therefore leaves no doubt. He wasn’t, and either is Obama. But this isn’t the same United States. Back then we had a Constitution. Now we don’t.
Those “doubts” mentioned in Minor needed to be discussed and adjudicated by the current supreme court. But they didn’t have the right stuff to take the issue on. And that makes them neither supreme nor even willing to live up to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
[Same apology as above.]
Shame on them. Shame on this court who lacked the courage to do their job by taking on this tough issue and having it out in open court. Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied.
Instead of respecting the citizens who took time, money and risk to bring these actions, those citizens were subjected to the most bizarre clerical behavior this lawyer of seventeen years has ever seen or could ever imagine.
This current supreme court is a blasphemy to justice. They have no honor. They disgust me in every fiber of my being, a sick joke to a sick country in their silly robes and ruffles.
[Same apology a above.]
Neither Obama nor McCain was eligible. Calero was obviously not eligible having been removed from the ballots in five states.
The Secretaries of several States claim no authority to remove names from ballots or to determine who is eligible to be President, but five of them did just that as to Calero. He was the official Socialist Workers Party candidate for President, but the party was forced to remove his name and substitute that of James Harris in five states.
Is this just racism vs. Latin Americans or what?
McCain’s birth certificate proves he was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama. Colon is a big city in Panama and Colon Hospital was not part of any military installation. Calero was born in Nicaragua.
Word up. (See image above. Offensive image removed. same apology as above.)
December 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM
[...] SCOTUS IN "WONG KIM ARK" AND "MINOR V. HAPPERSETT" RIGHTFULLY PUNTED ON "NA… [...]
December 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I agree with your findings. I see the citizens efforts to stop this fraud from occuring as a just and noble cause. Unfortunately we have allowed people in trusted goverment positions to be corrupted in ways that make our future questionable to say the least. The breakdown accured at so many levels that one must ask if it was not an ordained action by all involved.
The law is was our last safety net and now with that gone the inmates are truley running the assylum.
December 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Leo,
I understand your anger and frustration, many of us hold the same WTF opinion? What you have done and the personal risk you have taken is appreciated by millions… I believe you are holding a pair of pocket rockets and we have yet to see the flop. Hang in There…
Thank You Again
I read interesting baseball analogy on the AOL eligibility poll:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate
JC8:00PMDec 17th 2008
Obama Did Not Touch First Base
The Constitution says that he must touch first base.
The Rule of Law must be followed. Even in the game of baseball you must touch first base.
The batter hits the ball hard out into the field. He runs to first base while the ball strikes the top of the fence and falls to the ground just inside the park. The ball is fumbled, retrieved, and thrown to third base too late. The ball is fumbled again then hurled toward home plate. Before the ball can make it to home plate, the new star of baseball slides in for a home run. The crowd goes into wild cheers of celebration as everyone declares, “IT’S A HOME RUN!”. That is, everyone but the first baseman. Above the jubilant, giddy squeals of the crowd, he shouts to the first base umpire, “HE NEVER TOUCHED FIRST!”. The first baseman yells to the pitcher, “Throw me the ball!”. The pitcher, almost casually, throws the ball to first base. The umpire must, by rules of the game, declare, “HE IS OUT!”.
All the crowd witnessed a home run. But the umpire, hemmed in by truth, knew the video cameras had recorded fact: THE RUNNER HAD NOT TOUCHED FIRST BASE.
The Constitution of the United States of America is clear, crystal clear: first base for President of the United States of America is to be a natural born citizen. If the cameras prove without question that Obama touched first base, it is a home run. If he did not touch first base, he is out. Let us review the evidence with an open mind just to make sure home plate is not stolen.
December 19, 2008 at 10:18 AM
What can be done after January 8th???
December 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
The “silence” of the Supreme Court on this case, and others like it, is a fraud on the American people. The People, citizens, of the United States are entitled to seek and receive guidance and leadership in ultimate legal matters. It smacks of politics in justice to have the Justices evade their duty without comment. And, this is precisely what brings down institutions, and governments. The behavior of the Justices is Nazi radicalization. Are they kings? Are they imperial dictators? If not, they must explain their actions.
When I was young, in my hometown, I was impressed at an early age by an inscription above one of several Superior Court court rooms, right above the judge’s seat; it simply read: “Reason is the Life of the Law.” Can there be more of a fraud on the people by the Court’s negligence in cases seeking to resolve such an important issue as the qualifications of the POTUS when the Justices remain silent? Should not the Court realize that leaving so much doubt among millions and millions of citizens can only foster dissent and discord.
Reason is the life of the law; therefore, the Supreme Court must always be of a mind to express the reason for decisions — clarifying as to avoid doubt and remove confusion. The idea that the Court can simply make “no comment” is ludicrous. By not expressing a rationale to the public, the Supreme Court of the United States is become a vulgar institution of political intrigue and nothing more.
December 19, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Leo, fomenting cynicism, you are making a bad situation worse. Non-lawyers will not appreciate that, judges are not required to reach issues immaterial to the point of the present case; not reaching immaterial issues holds no bearing on the import of these issues in other circumstances; and dicta is not precedent. Procedurally, the case you brought in NJ was a long shot. You wanted the NJ courts to impute a ministerial duty to the S of S to vet the nominee from a major political party as to Constitutional eligibility, where none explicitly existed in state law. (I still think you would have had a better chance if you had argued that the admission of the staffer in her office, namely, they “assumed” the DNC had vetted BO; constructively established that vetting was a ministerial duty and further, that they had sub-contracted out this state function to the DNC, implicating them as state actors, too.)
Assuming his father is Barack Obama, Sr., I absolutely agree that Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS because he is not a natural born citizen. And even if his biological father turns out to be an American citizen – no one knows without the documents – I believe subsequent events like a birth in Kenya or an Indonesian adoption also point to his ineligibility. The reason the courts have thus far refused to consider the issue lies not in being presented with a faulty substantive legal analysis but with a faulty procedural legal case.
So, will you help me to put together a sound substantive legal case that will survive procedural challenges?
December 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
[...] Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted his thoughts today on specific cases presented in Cort Wrotnowski’s case, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and [...]
December 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Leo,
I agree and think there are other words that would well discribe the SCOTUS,as well! We had a site that worked hard and full of information
but it was hacked and destroyed. Just in case you ever visited I am forwarding the new site link..it will be a short while to get it back up to speed!
Wanted you to see this video in case you might have missed it! I know it is to little,to late, but it is well worth the laugh! Joe Scarburogh goes off on the media! hope you enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF07DUYmjUY&eurl=http://www.thecommentary.net/
Love your music by the way!
Fairflight
December 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
OOPs!! Forgot the link to D-D! democratic-disaster2proboards.com
December 19, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Early in this debate I wrote you that this court suffered from chickeness, you at the time expunged that comment as not being respectful of the court. To you I aploogized. Now, my original comment seems very prescient,especially since I just viewed your label over our less than esteemed court. In just 2 generations (from the greatest to now the wussiest)we as Americans have thrown our legacy away. Natural born citizens are the spawn of human beings who have both the soil AND the blood of sacrifice in their veins. That is why those truly esteemed framers risked they honor,their fortunes and lives to write our Constitution. To that end they set the highest standard for Commander and Chief(Natural born citizenship) If a leader was to order other citizens to risk the same as the framers they wanted that person to be of the highest qualification. What is truly shocking is that not even 4 of the 9 wussies was even willing to explore the issue, and to dismiss your suit without even a comment shows the lack of courage we now have in our national leadership. In the end though we get what we deserve and as a society we’ve allowed this cancer to grow since the early 60’s and this may be the point where it metastasizes. God Bless The USA whoever your God is. Because now men/ women have shown they need blessings more than ever.
December 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Welcome back ….
No matter your frustrations you are still a very powerful force in uncovering the truth, just early to the party,
Keep up Leo
Hope you played a couple of rounds of golf before the snow….
December 19, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Leo,
I read in a blog somewhere that the SCOTUS may have denied all petitions so far bec:
1. Wrong remedy or procedure availed of
2. SCOTUS will not correct anybody what is the correct procedure, otherwise it becomes a party litigant not judge anymore
3. People should keep trying until the correct remedy is being used.
4. Since there is no decision on the merits, then the SCOTUS is just waiting for the right case or procedute to be used.
December 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I, hereby with free will and testiment pledage that upon the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States of America, an ineligible candidate, a known voilation of the US Constitution Art 2
Where as only a Natural Born citizen can hold office of the Presidency.
Failure of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of the United States to protect and defend the Constitution as per their sworn obligation, duty, and office.
I will not acknowledge Barack Hussien Obama as the legal President of the United States.
I will not acknowledge his authority as Commander in Chief
I will not acknowledge his authority as President of the United States
I will not obey any order either directly or indirectly give as per
as Barack Hussien Obama is an Usuper, holding the Office of the President illegally.
I will not acknowledge any appointment by Barack Hussien Obama as legal
I will not acknowledge any Legislative laws and amendments as they have failed to protect and defend the Constitution as per their Oath of Office, and sworn duty.
I will not acknowledge any Judicial laws and amendments as they have failed to protect and defend the Constitution as per their Oath of Office, and sworn duty
December 19, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Leo, Could the Supreme Court just be waiting until the whole process of electing a President has taken it’s full course? This would seem to make sense that they would not want to rule on such a matter until it was clear that after the full process has been completed and then and only then they could intervene, if they thought the Constitution was not being upheld. Hince Berg’s case being distributed January 09 one day after the electoral votes are counted.
December 19, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Hey Leo, correct me if i’m wrong here but isn’t your case still “pending”? I know they denied the stay, but what if they are waiting until after the 8th of Jan. when it’s official so that he can then be brought up on criminal charges legally?
From what i understand, he hasn’t actually committed the crime till after the inauguration. Maybe you can shed some light on this for the rest of us.
Notice the Supremes scheduled a conference on Bergs case for Jan.9th ??
December 19, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Leo, what if SCOTUS is only willing to act after Obama becomes President-Elect (or tries to be)? After he’s actually gone against the Constitution. Why don’t you file a writ anyhow after the Electors vote and have Cort file one after the 8th? You have nothing to lose. Why not just file one just for the heck of it? Since time has passed, you have more than enough good reason to change the remedy. You could ask that the SS and the state of NJ not recognise Obama as President (or PE), or something like that.
Both your cases are still active. File something dammit. There’s nothing to lose. Giving up just because the stay was denied makes no sense.
December 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Let us remember what the founders of this country were risking:
—–
During the American War of Independence notable captured colonists, such as signers of the American Declaration of Independence, were subject to being hanged, drawn and quartered as traitors to the King.
Until reformed under the Treason Act 1814, the punishment for the crime of treason was to be hanged, drawn and quartered in that the condemned prisoner would be:
Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead (hanged), then
Disembowelled and emasculated and the genitalia and entrails burned before the condemned’s eyes, then
The body divided into four parts, then beheaded (quartered), then
The five parts gibbeted (placed on public display on poles or in iron cages).
—–
Compare those men who risked all and more with those WUSSIES now charged with the preservation of our constitution.
December 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM
file a petition to the stay the Congressional ratification next, Leo?
then after that file a petition to stay the swearing in by the Supreme Court Justice?
Of all the stays , it seems, that only the latter above has any merit with the Supreme Court where the actually have a say in the process according to the Constitution.
You obviously discussed some of these points with the Supremes, did you not? Can you share with us some of the questioning and posturing to give us some idea of the Justices’ thought processes (I assume you met with them face to face, no?). If so, please discuss.
BTW your case appears on “orders for pending cases”, so it appears that it wasn’t entirely dismissed. So I would be going off on the Justices until your case is completely dismissed. Leave yourself some wiggle room by not ticking them all off. Still interested in feedback on your meeting, if you are willing to discuss and how it impacted your post today. Thank you very much.
[Ed. My case is done. The Supremes didn't discuss anything with me. That's hialrious. And they aren't Supreme to me.]
December 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM
From Minor you quote;
“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.”
Then you conclude;
“And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”.
How do you reach your above conclusion that “as to this class” means NBC?
Isnt ‘a-t-t-c’ to be read as an exclusive direct reference to Citizen designation (only) for children of foreigners born in the US – not NBC?
December 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
From Minor;
“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.”
Your conclusion;
“And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”.
How do you interpret Minor’s “As to this class” to mean nbc? It clearly and exclusively links citizenship (only) to children of foreign parents born in US – not nbc.
[Ed. See update in blog. Thanks reader.]
December 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Leo,
You are a patriot and speak for millions of us who have no voice before the Supreme Court.
I, like you, wanted the Supreme Court to act NOW, but they haven’t. But I do think it is very significant that they have not denied certiorari in any of the four cases now on the SCOTUS docket (Berg, you, Wrotnowski, and now Lightfoot).
I believe the Judicial Branch is waiting for the Legislative Branch to fulfill their Constitutional duties. Each and every member of Congress has taken a sworn oath:
I hold out hope that either:
1) The Congress will faithfully discharge their duties and find Obama has “failed to qualify” (per the 20th amendment).
or
2) If the Congress certifies Obama as President elect, then the SCOTUS will grant certiorari to each of the cases challenging his “natural born citizen” status.
I understand your frustration, but mocking the court now will not help your case later if they grant you certiorari.
Please hold your fire until a decision is made on certiorari. The court may be chosing not to act unless/until the failure of the Legislative Branch forces them to act.
December 19, 2008 at 12:33 PM
[Ed. The reader perfectly states my thoughts on this issue.]
Look, if SCOTUS were interested in the rights of the electorate, they would castigate the SOS of NJ (in Donofrio vs. Wells) and the SOS of CT (in Cort’s Case) and every other SOS, whom them had amply time to contact since Leo’s first filing to determine what they did or did not do to vet candidates.
It is absurd to say that SCOTUS has not yet been presented with a sufficient case to merit their hearing of it.
The entire active electorate of the US was just defrauded of their right to participate in their state’s apportionment of electors according to candidates for the Presidency, and SCOTUS refuses to issue a stay of the Electoral College! Come on!
Those electoral votes were apportioned according to bogus ballots, ballots made bogus by the SOS failure to do the simplest of duties incumbent in the very essence of the job to prepare an electoral ballot.
This is so simple an injustice that every school child in American could see it!
No, SCOTUS clearly prefers pharasaical procedures to civil rights and the US Constitution. And having lain aside their honor as a Court, those Justices who voted as a Minority for the stay, should have spoken out and decried the ignominy of their peers, because there is something more important here than good manners: the very liberty and rule of law is at stake….
Grave injustices have been done the entire electorate of the nation, by no measure of reason or justice could the Electoral College be allowed to vote.
Just because the Constitution requires the Senate to quality the eligibility of candidates on Jan 6th (this year Jan 8th), does not mean that it can be sanely interpreted to NOT REQUIRE anyone else to do this prior to that.
Such an interpretation, (not to require anyone else), is absurd, irrational, and so ridiculous that no reasonable man should advance it.
And this can be shown by the fact that even though the Congress can refuse to sit an elected congressman for the sake of irregularities in his election, yet nevertheless every official who admits an ineligible candidate on a national ballot for congress is held to vet his eligibility, and this is a long established principle.
No, it is obvious that SCOTUS has played politics and ignored their constitutional duties.
They deserved to be impeached, each and every one…..
December 19, 2008 at 12:33 PM
First of all, what happened to the previously held thought that the Supreme Court Justices, if they ruled against your approach, must have some reason in law that you are not aware of, due to your admission that they are superior in knowledge of the law than yourself? I mean, that was your original high minded approach. What happened? I’m just saying that because no one does know the basis for their actions so far. Some have reasoned that they were unable to act in the actions requested and also at that particular time in the election process. Some say that after Congress certifies this person as having been completely legitimate for all citizens to consider and even AFTER they had been requested by the citizens they serve to look into this matter before such certification, that then is the time for those – whether they be citizen groups who have a basis for feeling disenfranchised and thus harmed, or those on the ballot harmed by this failure to uphold oaths of office for ALL citizens, or, say, reps of the military (esp. retired who can still be called up and who can more readily speak out over the active duty who are more constrained to speak) who also feel harmed, by their very lives being put on the line while not knowing if this POTUS is legit.
And PLEASE explain why there is interpretation out there that these filings are still open for further opinion. Do you who have filed and been denied have to supplement the filings with now a challenge to what the Electors have actually done and also challenge what Congress will have ultimately done? Sour grapes isn’t a solution when there is still the real possibility for misunderstanding the reasons for denial. Wish you and Cort would simply send your filings to Judge Bork and at least get some kind of opinon to explain why what has happened so far happened and IF there should be another attempt AFTER the process of election is over – as a challenge to THAT!
December 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Leo! I am soooooo glad your back! I was very concerned about you after your very depressing, negative, but prophetic statements that SCOTUS would not take your “airtight” case because “someone higher up on the food chain” is calling the shots. THAT is big-time conspiracy in SCOTUS!?!? Leo, you have so much to give in defense of America, that you just have to get back in this apocalyptic battle you have instigated and for the millions you have inspired with your love for the law and for the Constitution.
I hope jbjd, December 19, 2008 at 10:43 am, above, will cooperate with you in filing a case with NJSC that is procedurally so airtight that it will stop them in their tracks and force them to deal with it. Leo, I am praying for you that God will give you the fortitude and wisdom to see this through to a successful conclusion.
But, that obama twins conspiracy sounds like 60s O’Leary dropping acid and tripping into a schizo psychedelic dreamscape. Please remove. It invites your enemies’ to denounce you as a psycho.
December 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Leo, I share your frustration. You have nothing to feel bad about—-you are a hero and patriot. hold your head high for your efforts my friend.
These nine stooges couldn’t field a brewery sponsored , slowpitch senior softball team, let alone sum up the courage to do the right thing.
One word sums them up: COWARDS!
I have been so dissapointed in my country & the judicial system it brings me to the only logical solution:
WE THE PEOPLE MUST TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY. We must remove all of those in power and start over.
A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION. until them, we will not have justice and the constitution will continued to be trampled, and we will continue to be ruled by the dishonest,the greedy and the unqualified that aspire to govt because of what they can GET, rather than serve their fellow americans. GOD HELP US ALL.
December 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Glad to see you back in the game – we need you! The vast majority of us do not understand the procedural requirements, much less the legal arguments. We need you and your expertise to help us through this maze. It isn’t the first attempt nor the second that is important, rather it is the last attempt (the successful one) that merits the prize. We have not won the prize… there is more to do.
Thanks again for all you have done!
-gk
December 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I am not a attorney so I will be brief. From what I did read this morning which seems to make some sense. The pending lawsuits now in front of the supreme court will not be looked at till Nov. 9 because of the newly elected president is not legally the president until the electors are completed. Then at that point the supreme court can then look at the argument because at that point the law would have been broken.
Even though from my standpoint many laws have been broken by BHO already like the birth certificate, selective service registration and the list goes on and on
JBH
December 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Hi Leo,
Welcome back to the fight!! I’m glad to see you are in here with us punching back again. They have not beat you. And we need you and your voice in this battle. You just wrote a gread piece here in your blog. You have nailed them precisely, imo. Again, welcome back.
Goat
December 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
You have been a very important motivator to the other cases moving through the system. There MUST be some pieces missing and the suggestion to consult an experienced Judge is a good place to start. So, Leo, welcome back; time to pick up our socks and get going again.
December 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Hi Leo,
I suggest you write/petition to the Supreme Court to request leave to write an “amicus brief” for the Berg case, as that CERT case is still active and in front of the court. Even if you don’t totally agree with Berg’s approach to the issue in his case, by getting leave to file a brief in his case, you would get the opportunity to tell the court what you said above and argue your points again to them …. for the sake of the historical record, if nothing else. There is one request in the Berg docket already. Why not add another,
Go get them Leo.
“Motion for leave to file amicus brief”? Make them hear you or duck another punch, for the record.
Goat
December 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Coming soon: New words in our everyday vocabulary – poseur, impostor, usurper, & Misprision of Treason – see U.S. Code § 2382.
December 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM
The outcome of your case is frustrating to me because they chose to deny without comment. No comment? Nothing? Did they even discuss it? There is something very wrong here and I hope that the pressure of case after case will eventually “out” the truth.
Obama either was born in Hawaii of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., in which case he is not eligible using your case, or he was born in Kenya of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., in which case he is not eligible using one of the many other birth certificate cases (and yours!), or there is – something. else. going. on. here.
Impeaching all of the justices sounds great, but really, Obama will then fill the court and, well, now that I think about it, no change at all. Why bother?
December 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Leo,
Unfortunately, your case may not be heard, but it might have added to their desire to question Obama’s eligibility. It appears they will discuss Berg’s case on January 9. This just came to my email. No other news elsewhere yet. SCOTUS SCHEDULED FOR January 9th. Were they waiting for the Electoral College to vote before doing something?
If they are discussing the merits..does it mean they have read the others ahead of this one and see there might be a constitutional problem?
Will the Media Report? Is there still a chance that Obama won’t make it to inauguration?
*******************
“Obama “Natural Born” Goes SCOTUS Round 3
It seems that Phil Berg may finally get his day in court.
The Democrat activist lawyer, who was the first to bring forth a legal challenge to US-president elect Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his “natural born” status, is scheduled to have the US Supreme Court discuss the merits of the suit on January 9, 2009.
Berg originally brought his suit to the Supreme Court in October. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari and an application for injunction of the election; the injunction was rejected by Judge David Souter’s Clerk. The case has been in legal limbo ever since.
Berg’s case marks the third time the US Supreme Court will argue the merts of a “natural born” lawsuit. The two previous cases, filed by New Jersey resident Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski. were both rejected.
“I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States,” Berg wrote in a statement on his Obamacrimes.com website.
The “natural born” status of president-elect Obama remains in question. Berg contends Obama was adopted by his step-father while living in Indonesia, thus removing his “natural born” status. An audio recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother admitting Obama was born in Kenya has surfaced. Additionally, Obama’s own “Fight The Smears” website said Obama was a Kenyan citizen until 1982.
Hawaii governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, has sealed Obama’s birth certificate from public access. A member of Obama’s election campaign dismissed the lawsuits as “pure garbage“.”
http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=638
December 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I am not an American, but as a citizen of the world, I am also affected by what happens in America. If a nation has little respect for its own Constitution, then, who should respect it. Obviously the people themselves should have standing as it is their Constitution as well and anything or action that diminishes it diminishes every American.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should be approached another way rather than by strict legal procedures. Let’s ask the Court if they agree that being a natural born citizen is a requisite for becoming POTUS? Then ask them, if Mr. Obama being born of a foreign father with british Citizenship is a natural born American Citizen? Their answer has to be either yes or no.
If the answer is no, then there would be admission that he cannot be sworn in by the Supreme Court as President of the U.S.
If the answer is yes, then we should ask whether being born to a foreigner is exactly the same as being born to an American? If so, then being a foreigner makes one an American as well, so if Mr. bin Laden’s son were to have a child with an American woman in the U.S., that son will be a natural born U.S. citizen, who could become POTUS.
I understand that the Supreme Court would like to stay out of political decisions, but I believe they have a higher duty to all Americans to ensure that the foundation of the nation, its CONSTITUTION is followed, especially when it is so easy to establish whether ir is being followed by simply examining the birth certificate of anyone who seeks to be POTUS.
December 19, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Jake Says:
December 19, 2008 at 11:29 am
Leo,
I read in a blog somewhere that the SCOTUS may have denied all petitions so far bec:
1. Wrong remedy or procedure availed of
2. SCOTUS will not correct anybody what is the correct procedure, otherwise it becomes a party litigant not judge anymore
3. People should keep trying until the correct remedy is being used.
4. Since there is no decision on the merits, then the SCOTUS is just waiting for the right case or procedute to be used.
========================================
THERE SHOULD BE NO OTHER PROCEDURE! LEO AND CORT HAD IT RIGHT. TO RISK THIS ENTIRE NATION BECAUSE A CASE IS NOT WORDED EXACTLY RIGHT IS CRAZY! THEY JUST DID NOT HAVE THE YOU NOW WHAT TO TAKE THE CASES ON
LEO, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FEEL THE WAY YOU DO. I AM GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE TOO. STAY STRONG BUDDY, WE WILL MAKE IT
December 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Leo,
Also, do a blog on Perkins v. Elg, the 1939 Supreme Court case that gives examples of what a natural born citizen is as well as other classifications. It’s this case which has the solid footing.
Lawyer from Missouri
[Ed. Elg was a natural born citizen. Two citizen parents naturalized in 1906, and she was born in US in 1907 = nbc]
December 19, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Actually, Dr. Orly Taitz discovered that J. Roberts has been a financial benefactor of the Annenberg Foundation…
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/chief-justice-john-g-roberts-jrs-ties.html
I think 50 cent’s song “I get money” is appropriate to what is going on…
complete coup de’tat if you ask me
December 19, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Leo-
Personal note and question.
Is there any merit to the theory that SCOTUS will not see the matter as institutionally/procedurally ripe until after the the EC vote is certified?
If memory serves me right, the inauguration date was moved up from April 30 to January 20 in 1933, which reduced the window of corrective action regarding presidential eligibility from ~4 months to ~2 weeks.
Obviously, you have made the point that this court wanted to ignore this issue, which means they would look for any scrap of rationalization under the law to bootstrap legitimacy for their decision, if available.
There’s an old executive axiom that grows more true every day I get older: “Don’t believe everything you think.”
There is greatness in each of the Justices or they would not have risen to this station. However pragmatic and ruthless their parlor games they cannot escape the truth of what is at stake and what they have done.
None of us should pretend to know what life brings next. It is not a loss of Faith to spin 180 degrees in our expectations, to do so in realism, and to be right. However, it’s entirely another thing to lose our resolve.
Be cautious in your anger. This is your history too. Leave nothing undone and you will be free of it.
It will haunt you if you don’t. Let it haunt them instead.
Let this grand act of performance art be rendered complete.
December 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Leo,
Good to see your back and Fighting mad! Go Get’em!
December 19, 2008 at 3:13 PM
ITS GOOD TO SEE THAT THE SCOTUS IS JUST ANOTHER ARM OF THE ELITE, JUST LIKE HOLLYWOOD, AND ALL OF THE MEDIA. IT SHOULD’T TAKE MUCH LONGER AND THEY WILL TAKE OVER THE INTERNET AS WELL. WE CAN JUST STICK IT IN OUR REARS AND LUMP IT. THEY KNOW WE ARE JUST STUPID LITTLE PUPPETS IN THE GAME OF LIFE.
WAKE THE F!!!!!!! UP PEOPLE
I WANT MY AMERICA BACK AND I WANT IT NOW!!!!!!!
NO MORE TV NEWS
NO MORE HOLLYWOOD MOVIES
NO MORE LIBERAL RUN SCHOOLS
NO MORE PRE CHOSEN CANDIDATES FROM THE ELITE
NO MORE CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER RELIGIONS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND OFFICES WE ARE CHRISTIANS
CHRISTIAN VALUES OR GET THE OUT!!!!!!
WHY MUST WE EMBRACE OTHER COUNTRYS PEOPLE AND LET THEM HAVE EVERYTHING THAT OUR FATHERS AND MOTHERS WORKED SO HARD TO ACHEIVE SO WASHINGTON THEIVES CAN GIVE IT AWAY.
WHY?
December 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM
EVERY STATE GOVERMENT IS UNDER ATTACK FROM THE POLITICIANS. THEY ARE ALL DOING PAY FOR PLAY ANTICS AND THEY ARE CRIMES JUST LIKE THE POTUS CRIME. THIS IS A WIDE SPREAD PROBLEM IN THIS NATION AND IT IS GETTING WORSE AND WE SEE DAILY THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS CRAP. SO I GUESS WHAT WORKS AT THE TOP LEVELS ALSO WORKS AT THE LOWER STATE LEVELS. THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDER ATTACK FROM EVERY ANGLE AND IS BLEEDING FROM THE OUTSIDE IN!!!!!!
December 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM
NBC wrote: “Just because the Constitution requires the Senate to quality the eligibility of candidates on Jan 6th (this year Jan 8th)…”
I said it before and I’ll say it again, especially since this morning, we uncovered even more proof – the Senate was IN ON IT fROM THE BEGINNING.
Go back to Februrary and probably even before that, you will see the Senate preparing to introduce S.R. 511, a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain as a “natural born citizen”. But it gets BETTER yet! Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill offered that bill and it was co-sponsored by Obama and Hillary. But McCaskill wasn’t doing this for McCain at all! McCaskill was the lead campaign head for Obama in Missouri per the Missouri Governor! What’s more, she was behind the threats with the prosecutor’s office and the Obama camp in Missouri, to sue and criminalize ANYONE who had anything bad to say about Obama. Remember that? Connect the dots!
It was McCaskill and others in the Senate, including Chairman Patrick J. Leahy who already had lawyers submit a brief-like proposal to the Senate, which included arguments for United States vs. Wong Kim Ark. long before anyone realized what was going on.
Furthermore, the MSM finally realized this past week that they screwed up and hadn’t investigated as much as should have since the Blagojevich scandal hit and they admitted as much.
The video of the MSM is here: http://grou.ps/zapem/home
The proof of the Senate manipulating the “natural born citizen” clause is here: http://grou.ps/zapem/wiki/23460 (which now includes an update; an open letter to Stephen Pidgeon, Esq. since I didn’t know if Leo would be back.)
Contained in those links is also the Missouri Governor’s warning of the situation and naming Sen. Claire McCaskill and you can also view it direct from here: http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj
This is no joke. The Senate KNEW exactly what was going on and expected someone to bring up this matter and they tried like hell to shut them up and they still are.
If the MSM would grow a pair and at least report this and start demanding answers, maybe we could get to the bottom of it, because the proof is all there. This should be a criminal matter because it’s a deliberate coverup at this point with actions taken to further stifle anyone from speaking about it in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
December 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I am the most common of all commoners and I agree with you. SCOTUS is a big dissappoint. In my legally uneducated oppinion, constitutional intepreation and logic would prevail if SCOTUS had the guts to face the issue. I am really dissoppointed. Can our form of government, our constitution, survive this kind of cowardly abuse from its appointed protector?
December 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM
[Ed. Kelo is gross. I agree and I should have been more aware of just how sold out the court was at that point, but they keep you in there with that 5:4 crap... who knows what that actually means. Kelo sux big time. I agree, that was the end of the sentence. This is just the exclamation mark.]
Leo, first off, thank you for all your efforts. We all share your frustration with the judiciary, and especially the SCOTUS. No matter what, we can’t let this issue of Obama’s faux birth certificate deter or let this issue just slowly disappear from the news.
I’ve been angry with the SCOTUS for a long, long time. JMO, I thought that five justices should have been removed with Kelo v. City of New London, and my feelings here are no different. Which leads to my next question. If Chief Justice Roberts swears in a faux usurper, then in my opine, with all the Obama cases that have reached his doorstep, then Roberts should be just as guilty, and too should be impeached/held accountable. I know you attorneys for some dumb reason bow to “judicial independence,” however so far, this unwritten doctrine have destroyed our courts, and country. Simply put, our courts must be held on the same scale of accountability as our politicians. Your thoughts?
December 19, 2008 at 3:39 PM
BRAVO LEO!!!!! Thank you for speaking out. Thank you for speaking the TRUTH!
We love you Leo Donofrio!
December 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Also of interest. Look at the run of dockets in the cases before the United States Supreme Court. I have listed the three of them who were denied and conferenced.
Look at these:
Donofrio:
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Wrotnowski:
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Berg:
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
We see two entries for the same date on each of the cases listed. Two cases seem to imply the Justices who were favorable towards hearing the case; whereas the last one doesn’t have a favorable entry, it was denied after submission to the second Justice, yet all three cases are DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE.
December 19, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Leo,
I am very happy that you got back here and hopefully back into the fight. I was very worried about you for the last few days.
If there is anything I can do from where I am, if you are going to go forward with anything on this issue, please contact me. Oh, by the way, did you see the piece about Obama and the Mrs not being OWNERS of the property that they reside in. Their names, neither of them, are on the Deed or Property Tax Liability registrations. It is owned, according to the Assessors Office in Crook County, IL., by Rezko’s Attny, a man named William Miceli. He is either renting it, or it is a “pol” favor, Chicago style. Here is a link to the info, if anyone wants to take a look at it:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/12/obamas-house-is-owned-by-rezkos-lawyer.html
Welcome back, and the fun is still happening, every day there is more bad news and info coming out about this “Fraud and Imposter” to the Presidency.
December 19, 2008 at 3:46 PM
when reading your post ,this jumped out at me
———–> “”and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China,”"
Question; wasn’t Obamas father involved in the Kenya Government ?
December 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Hang in there Leo.It is not over yet.You know yourself that for SCOTUS to step in prematurely would create a National upheaval.Philip Berg’s Writ was just slated for conference on Jan.9,2009,three days after Congress corrects or proliferates the mistake.If they cert him,damages can then be shown on a National level,and I believe SCOTUS will then act.They are duty bound to follow procedure to the letter.THIS IS FAR FROM OVER.ALSO your stay was denied,not your Writ’s (yours and Cort’s).
Tom
December 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Leo, just an observation, not a call to action on your part- as I understand you saying your case is “done and dusted”: remember when you said you would do NO more press and SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED YOUR MIND because backing away from the media seemed to energize the opposition? Well, do you wonder now if your pronouncement about not pursuing any further course of action may have had the same effect? Might SCOTUS be more inclined to rule differently on either your “pending writ” (or even longshot Berg’s case) if they thought you would be vigorously fighting Obama’s swearing in by WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE? Again, I’m not suggesting you start a revolution or anything at all, but just them knowing you are a future force to reckon with could counter them being emboldened as they were earlier by your *(understandable) retreat?
December 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Let’s all just step back and take a deep breath. There will be plenty of time to rattle our swords later if needed. For now let’s just examine the facts as we know them:
1) Mr. Donofrio orchestrated a constitutional infraction which should have been obvious to a lot of “sworn” government officials.
2) Our economy is in a recession-depression period for whatever reason after a long period of economic prosperity.
3) We as a nation are conducting combative war overseas with a large portion of our military committed elsewhere
4) A first time nominated black man who has charisma through awsome eloquence has aroused the liberals and underclasses, and especially the aproximately 20% black segment of our populace.
5) Alleged violations to the U.S. Constitution have been enacted by the congress and presidency since 9/11.
6) A dramatic increase in gasoline prices occurred and peaked just before the October pre-election weeks.
7) The law suits re the NBC issue have receive little press coverage in the MSM
9) No formal reaction/opinion has been rendered by the USSC yet.
10) Other suits are getting in line for court review.
With all these facts there can be no deductive conclusions about what will or must happen in the near future to restore our US Constitution.
We all must do what we can for now and await further evidence upon which we might make solid conclusions. While, I hope there will be lawful resolution to the NBC crisis before Jan. 20, I would hold back my conclusion regarding the US Supreme Court’s proper handling of this matter until say Feb.1st. If there is no movement toward truth and justice by then, I might conclude it is time to get ready protect my family and especially ready to meet my maker. So, while I am not without drama, I don’t believe it is time yet to make conclusions.
BTW I loved the baseball analogy, thanks.
ref: JC8:00PMDec 17th 2008
Obama Did Not Touch First Base
December 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Any chance you will make one more attempt??? You write, I’ll pay the fees and do the leg work????
December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Calero wins ballot “seat” in New Jersey – and approved by courts !
Ah…….. just trying to think of a headline.
December 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Timing is everything in a case and the Justices denied Stays/Motions while keeping the cases alive. Be patient, the election process will soon be over and any ruling will completely fix a flawed process.
The Justices have a copy of Obama’s “original” birth certificate that was filed by his mother with his passport application in 1962.
Have faith in the rule of Law Leo and our Constitution that protects us all.
December 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Leo, can you please email me? I am compiling examples of conduct demonstrating the Democratic Party, both national and state, acting qua state in terms of ‘vetting’ the candidate for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility to get onto state ballots; for the purpose of naming them as Defendants in a federal civil rights suit. Thank you.
December 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Keep up the fight for truth, my fellow Americans. I still think we need to over flow the Supreme Court, with citizens marching there, and demand respect, and answer’s. God Bless America. Never give up the fight.
December 19, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I’ll answer my own question
BO Sr. was a Kenyan senior governmental economist
December 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Our reps are too stupid to see the truth.
I sent this rep [mine] a very long detailed letter. This maybe long, but I tought it would be good, to see what was sent and his response.
**********************
Here is my letter to Mr Simpson
Mr Simpson.
As you maybe aware, President Elect Obama has been questioned about his citizenship status.
I herby request that you as my elected representitve, demand that full disclosure is required before Congress certifies the Electorial College vote in January 2009.
The Constitution, clearly states that ONLY a “Natural Born” citizen is eligible to hold the Office of the President.
REAL FACTS
1) Hawaiian officials have never said Obama is a natural born citizen.
2) Hawaiian officials have never said Obama was born in Hawaii.
3) Hawaiian officials have never said the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Fight The Smears and Daily Kos is valid or that it matches the information found on the original Certificate of Live Birth.
Obama was at birth born as a British citizen! This is not a conspiracy. This is not an allegation. This is a FACT. You can see it for yourself at “Fight The Smears”, Obama’s campaign website. Or you can read it right here:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
To be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), Obama NEEDS to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. only!
Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner! To qualify as a natural born citizen of the U.S., only those born in the U.S. mainland with both parents being U.S. citizens is what our U.S. Constitution Law states!
In order to be a “Natural Born Citizen” of the U.S. the individual must be born in the U.S. mainland with both parents being an U.S. citizen. Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen!
If an individual was born in the U.S. mainland without both parents being a U.S. citizen, the Constitutional Term here is called a native born citizen. And if only one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other is NOT, and that individual was born in the U.S. mainland, this would be a citizen of the U.S. only.
Barack Obama has ADMITTED he had dual citizenship at birth.
In addition, the Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper for which Obama swore by taking an oath states:
“I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years age, and have been a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years”.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information on this nomination paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office that I seek having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona’s statutory requirement for placing my name on it’s Presidential Preference Election ballot.”
This document was signed by Barack Obama and notarized by a Mr. Roy Anderson on 20 November 2007.
A signed legal document by Obama where he swears that he meets the requirements to hold the office of POTUS as contained in the US Constitution. However, Obama has publicly admitted to duel citizenship on his own website.
You took the OATH of Office to protect and defend the Constitution, failure to do so is an act of Treason and Dereliction of duty.
*************************
Here is what I got back.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 2008 Presidential Election. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.
Each day many Idahoans contact me through letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls to express their opinions on a host of issues. Your views on the election are insightful and interesting, and I am glad you have shared them with me.
You mentioned your opinion on the citizenship of President-elect Obama. The Supreme Court has turned down the appeal that questioned the eligibility of President-elect Obama to hold the office of President. The Court did not comment on its order.
Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. I look forward to working with the new administration to continue serving Idahoans throughout the 111th Congress.
Once again, thank you for taking time to contact me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.
Sincerely,
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress
December 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Leo,
I’ve long looked to the courts as the last stronghold for the republic but this… the republic is dead. Has been for a long time. Who knew that Star Wars would have a line that was so prophetic and appropriate. “So this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause.” (only good line in the whole movie). http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UsMTppdpkMU/SREyUxR2R-I/AAAAAAAAAiI/Pdhog1j3FSI/s1600-h/American+Tombstone.jpg
December 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM
SteveC..that is the response I get back also. Since the Supreme Court denied, BHO is eligible. What a crock.
December 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Leo,
We need you, Bro! If I sound selfish then so be it, but I need you. Leo, is it true that you can still file a Writ App? Is it also not true that Cort’s case is still at SCOTUS and that they only denied the Stay? How about Members of Congress objecting to the Electoral Vote? How many members are required? I know that your case is different than Phil’s case, but what happens if SCOTUS grants Writ of Cert on Jan 9?
Bro, please, you are the Poker player. Anybody that can do that has fight in them. I need you man. Have you done enough? Have you really gone over all of your options? You had to of missed something. Bro, no matter what happens, you will always be admired by me and many others. I won’t ask again, but will say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and thank you, Leo. Thanks Bro!
December 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
This is for Stevec. Please, ask Simpson the following question. If dual citizenship meets the eligibility requirements then why was the opinion of Mr. Chertoff the basis for SRS 511 the resolution declaring Senator McCain a natural born US Citizen? Chertoff said:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
Please, don’t just let it go. The Senate created this problem. This resolution does not have any legal bearing. But it allowed to keep McCain in the running. According to every member in the US Senate Obama dos not meet the eligibility requirements. By his own admission his father was not a US Citizen.
Leo, I am not a lawyer and don’t know enough as to how I can follow up with this, please help me.
December 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
What im trying to say… If the SCOTUS used this as an excuse ( if they twisted that in some way ) … then it maynot hold water since BO Sr. was a Kenyan senior governmental economist.
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. ” (Emphasis added.)
December 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
BOTTOM LINE, IF THE SUPREMES WON’T DO IT, THE PEOPLE DEFINITELY WILL, W/O SCOTUS IF NEED BE.
The issue will N E V E R go away! To millions of Americans, Obama is not and will never be the President. Why should they even pay taxes to an illegal regime.
Leo, you DID ALREADY get the job done. You established the airtight case, SCOTUS or no SCOTUS! The people will take your case and run with it if SCOTUS elects not to pick up the ball — and, by the way, for all intents and purposes, SCOTUS’ failure would mark the end of their legitimacy plain and simple.
At the end of the day, a new republic will have to be established if SCOTUS fails. That’s how important this is.
In the meantime, I’ll again say this:
DONOFRIO/WROTNOWSKI IS NOT DEAD — IT IS AIRTIGHT – THE SUPREMES KNOW IT BUT ARE AFRAID TO ACT — SO THE EXECUTIVE AND/OR THE PEOPLE WILL DO SO — EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED — HERE’S HOW (READ CAREFULLY):–
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
December 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
Absolutely great explaination of the case.
December 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM
“Thalightguy Said:
Leo, Could the Supreme Court just be waiting until the whole process of electing a President has taken it’s full course? This would seem to make sense that they would not want to rule on such a matter until it was clear that after the full process has been completed and then and only then they could intervene, if they thought the Constitution was not being upheld. Hince Berg’s case being distributed January 09 one day after the electoral votes are counted.”
It doesn’t matter. The system is BROKEN. The election has been a fraud, and, should Obama be ineligible, Biden will get in when he shouldn’t even have been in the running.
That’s the real issue here.
December 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Would you please expound on the perplexing assessment of the minority opinion written by the two SCOTUS Justices in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Specifically their equating that this 6-2 decision for Wong had been an opinion regarding “Natural Born Citizen” status and not merely “Citizenship”! As Chief Justice Melville Fuller joined by Justice John Harlan argued: “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not”. This is quite a troubling application, in that the Court’s finding in favor for Wong Kim Ark was interpreted by the minority as a determination regarding “Natural Born Citizen” status not just citizenship! I am of the same opinion as you, in that the majority Court never came to such determination. However is it possible that the current Court is considering this in determining the intent of the Court at the time of their finding in favor of Wong? This would be quite unorthodox but the Courts actions of late are tending to such orthodoxy in relieving themselves of their Constitutional duties!
[Ed. The dissent also makes a distinction between "citizens" and "natural born citizens" and in the very next paragraph after the one you've quoted, he discusses that the standards to be representative are only that of "citizen" not natural born citizen. ]
December 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
He is aware now Stevec and his failure to take action could be evidence supporting a charge of treason against the United States and the Constitution.
Save the letter as evidence to be used at his trial.
The only way to clean out the snake pit of congress is to only elect those who have not sold their soul to lobbyists or special interest groups by holding another office.
Experience is a bad thing in the current Congress.
How do you feel about the pay raise they recently passed for themselves?
December 19, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Obama has reportedly spent between $500,000-$1,000,000 for legal protection from the fraudulent birth certificate charge.
How is this not Pay to Play?
I’m starting to think the Blago story is just a foil. It’s like they threw the press a bone.
December 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Leo,
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 directly supports your case. Why don’t you file a Writ of Certiorari just to complete the circle? If you don’t there will always be the possibility that you missed your chance because the Court was waiting until the political process had run its course before dealing with the situation. If they turn down the Writ that would prove your assessment of the situation and eliminate any ambiguity.
Thanks for all that you have done,
Wayne Porter
December 19, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Mike Simpson,
Enemy of the People
December 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Is it the same in America re: writs of Quo Warranto, where a writ may only be granted once there has been an exercise of the purportedly usurped office?
December 19, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Good to see you back again, Leo. I missed reading your educational material.
December 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Welcome back from all your fans and supporters! We have ALL missed and worried over you!
It’s my understanding that there are 20 new cases working their way towards the scotus (I refuse to capitalize it) as we speak. Surely they will start to pay more attention just from sheer volume of cases?
Has there ever been as many cases querying the SAME problem working their way through the system at the same time?
Passive Resistance seems in order…simply acknowlege anything to be done as part of his “laws”–then ignore it.
A quote from Bill Cosby’s childhood comes to mind: “you ain’t the boss of me”.
PLEASE–keep up the good fight–we badly need a charismatic leader like yourself!
December 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Leo;
You truly are my Man of The Year. Please keep fighting, there are a lot of citizens who are behind your efforts but remain silent.
December 19, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Leo
this BC bs that is floating around.
tell me please, is there a single Crime Scene or ex-CIA or ex-FBI epxert who has come across and verified that Obama’s birth docs are fake?
how could you perpertate such nefarious and ill-factual rumors and then use it as a side show for your NBC arguments and expect to win?
if you, a failed leader of the NBC and BC movement, cannot even stick to proven expert oriented facts and legal opinions, why should Scotus bother?
just my two cents.
[Ed. Have you read nothing here? My case has nothing to do with the BC. Obama admits he was a dual national at birth, a subject of the British monarchy. The framers had just fought a war to escape the British monarchy. No way in hell they would allow somebody who was a British subject to be President in 2009.]
December 19, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I can’t see how the SOS cases can prevail If all the SOS has to do is verify that a candidate is ‘generally-recognized’ or is on the ballot in other states. Am I missing something? It would appear that the vetting has to happen long before the SOS gets involved.
I. QUALIFICATIONS
The candidate must be:
A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
B. At least 35 years of age, and
C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)
II. REQUIREMENTS
There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary Election:
• by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
• by circulating nomination petitions.
A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES
1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. § 60411
Criteria for determining “generally-recognized” candidates include, but are not limited to:
a. Being generally recognized as seeking and advocated for the office
b. Qualifying for federal matching funds
c. Appearing in public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, debates, etc.
d. Being on the ballot in other states’ primaries
e. Actively campaigning in California
f. Having a campaign office in California
g. The Secretary of State may also rely on advice and input from the state party chair.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/dempres_2008.pdf
[Ed. SOS takes Federal and State Oath of office to uphold the Constitution...]
December 19, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Do I ever feel better. I was soooooo worried about you. You just do not know how great it is to see you on here. All is not lost yet.
December 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Dear Mr. Leo Donofrio,
Thank you for another illuminating article!
So far as I can judge, with Calero you put your finger inescapably on the inappropriatenss of SCOTUS’s inaction.
Turning again to another matter of substance, could you (or a knowledgable reader of the ‘comments’) provide references to, and/or citations from, Hawaiian or U.S. statutes and/or decisions bearing upon the following questions?
Given the “fightthesmears” quotations from Joe Miller’s 29 August 2008 “factcheck” piece, it would seem Mr. Obama thinks he was a dual-British-U.S.-citizen at birth.
If so, is he correct in thinking this?
Was Barack H. Obama Sr. already legally married to someone else prior to, and during, the begetting of Mr. Obama (Jr.) and the whole time of his ‘marriage’ to Miss S.A. Dunham?
If so, does this have any legal bearing, in (then current) U.S. law, on his transmission of British citizenship to his son?
Is his acknowledged paternity (e.g., in the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcement, and in the name-giving generally) decisive in U.S. law with respect to his transmission of British citizenship to his son, regardless of his legal marital status?
Is it possible that Mr. Obama derived any citizenship he had at birth solely from his mother (and the place of birth)?
Does his mother’s age at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth have any bearing on any maternal transmission of citizenship to him?
It seems (to one without legal qualifications) conceivable that Mr. Obama is in fact “a natural born Citizen” on the basis of the citizenship of his mother if she was his ’sole legitimate legal parent’ (so to put it), assuming he was indeed born in Hawaii.
But is this a real possibility in (then current) U.S. law?
Until all the legally relevant facts are clearly known, there can be no certainty that Mr. Obama is legally eligible to be POTUS.
Therefore, it seems incumbent upon our Representatives and Senators to prevent his being ‘elected’ or ‘confirmed in his election’ (or whatever the proper term is) or inaugurated, unless and until these matters have been made unmistakably clear.
Again with thanks,
Allochtoon
December 19, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Leo,
I share your frustration. SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves. In my own research and debates with others on this subject, specifically Obama’s eligibility, I have used this from U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf) See top of page 9.
“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.”
As well as showing the difference between the Slaughterhouse cases 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
It is ONLY in Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) that the person in question is declared a “natural-born citizen.”
The MAJOR difference being that Elg’s parents were already naturalized citizen prior to the birth of Miss Elg.
SCOTUS knows these facts, they just don’t have the stones to take it on the merits
[Ed. Agreed.]
December 19, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Prowlland,
At the time Obama Sr., got Miss Dunham pregnant he was a STUDENT and NOT employed by any Government capacity, he was on a Student Visa. In fact he met her at the Coimmunity College in Hawaii where they were both studying a course in Russian. She, Miss Dunham was 17 years old and he was 23 -24 years old and in Hawaii studying.
His Barry’s grandfather was an employee of the State of Kenya and an Envoy of sorts to Britian, but NOT Barry’s father, his grandfather.
I believe you got the two confused. Father and Grandfather…..
December 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Don’t have to post if you don’t want..you’ve probaly seen this article already. But in case you haven’t..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=2
[Ed. Funny that McCain's BC and COLB state he was born in Colon Hospital, Panama - not on a military base.]
December 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM
[...] Could it be that Obama really was born in Kenya, and the proud family is having trouble hiding that fact? It is unclear what the Kenyan government means by persmission, but the U.S. Supreme Court could probably tell you… [...]
December 19, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Hey Leo,
Not sure if any of this is relevant anymore or if you’ve already seen it but it is in Blackstone’s Commentaries about Natural Born Subjects: http://tinyurl.com/4vwfev
“But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attained, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
This paragraph is mentioned on Michigan Law Review site in an assessment of John McCain and his citizenship. Page 5:
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf
Does this mean Obama was a natural born citizen AND a natural born subject?
[Ed. nbc and nbs mean different things.]
December 19, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Leo,
Good to know you still take a look at your BLOG as I do and will for many months after all is said and done.
I think you know better than anyone how it is to talk and not know if you are heard or ignored. That is just freaky… the SCOTUS defies it’s on self in doing We The People business behind closed doors.
It drives me nutty and all I did was take the oath when I joined the military. I love the Charters Of Freedom. I love this country it is the best there is out there. The SCOTUS can educated by being open if they so choose or the people demand it. For the people to demand it they need a leader. That is what those that love this country and the Charters of freedom need is leadership.
Your leadership on this BLOG was slurped up by those thirsty for true unencumbered leadership and you gave them that as best I have seen since I served under Captain Hayes in the United States Coast Guard. He was a full Captain of WWII and I had the honor of serving in his Command.
True leadership is a very rare thing Leo and you have it in you to be what ever you wish to be. I recommend that you get at peace and do what ever it is that makes Leo happy. The rest as we say here in the South will come out in the wash On Monday.
Those that made you and yours know you have brought them no shame.
Texo
[Ed. Flattered by your words. Thank you. In sure I don't measure up to you CO.]
December 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Rob S. wrote: “The Justices have a copy of Obama’s “original” birth certificate that was filed by his mother with his passport application in 1962.”
—-
How do you know the above is a fact? Thanks.
December 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Prowlland: When Obama was born, his father was a student, or had been a student at the University of Hawaii 1960-61. He later went to Harvard, after he and Ann separated.
December 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Leo, you wrote: “Not one of them had the decency to at least issue an opinion to the nation as to why the applications were denied.”
I read, and I’ll get it for you if needed, that many written opinions don’t come out until JUNE.
You might want to double-check as to why you haven’t gotten a written dissent.
[ed. If it comes out in June I'll be shocked. But the country needed it before the inauguration. By June the whole world could be radicalized by events. Their special clerk still works there so that's enough for me to know there is no justice. The only Justice is from God. And that justice is real. The SCOTUS is not a house of justice. It is a house of facilitation.]
December 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I still come here to see your thoughts, Leo. I feel they are valuable and worth the read. I still hold on to hope that some way somehow our Constitution can be saved. It hurts too much to let her go.
December 19, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Good work.It’s worth doing for the historical record as the nation implodes like Rome.The corruption is across the board.Scotus has skidmarks dealing with people that believe they are free,when in their eyes we are serfs.Berg’s case will be heard on Jan.9th.But if Barry is taken down it is by Illuminati design.Because every case was valid.A free people do have standing to seek redress of grievances.And protocol notwithstanding the issue is so vital that someone in some branch of government should’ve done something long ago.Sctus knows that,and should’ve at least commented on the cases.
December 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM
The positive aspect of these cases being denied is that many people that believed we still have a Constitutional Republic,now had a trigger event,and are aware it has degenerated into a mob rule democracy full of corrupt politicians that are Global Socialists.And that the MSM is a controlled arm of the communist government worse than Pravda ever was.No amount of ad hominem attacks by the MSM will put these people back to sleep.Leo,your work is not in vain.Regardless,of what the elitists allow to take place with BHO,you are educating many Americans.Incidentally,your satire was apropos.You didn’t tell people you are “the one” or they would have an “epiphany” telling them how to vote.Barry did that.And the MSM pushed the messianic overtones as well.By the way,the reason there is no accountability is because the legal framework has been put in place for decades,whereby the people are not entitled to redress of grievances,unless the court decides arbitrarily to grant them such.They have no fear of legal recourse against their treason.Just look at the hook clause in the Constitution that has a phrase identical to the grievance against the tyrannical King George monarchy.The masons slipped that one in.The fact that Arthur appointed a crony that subsequently authored the 14th Amendment is more than happenstance.And Obama might actually use that to his advantage in conjunction with his understanding of how we went from common law to maritime law in the past.If he fefuses to acknowledge any lawsuits or the courts,he is homefree.And the Administrative State that has nullified the Constitution is not lost on him or his protectors,both in government and the mainstream media.Here are some interesting dates and events to research for future strategies: The Articles of Confederation made the States Sovereign nation-states.The Illuminati knew this,and came up woth the Constitution which is brilliant,but contains a hook clause that allowed for centralized power in D.C.,whereby a process of gradualism could be used with passing draconian laws to enslave sovereign people by making them citizens of D.C. instead of free Citizens and Sovereigns.Article 1,Section 8,Clause 17–”Congress shall have power to exercise legislation in all cases whatsoever.”This is the same phrase used to define the tyrannical power of King George in the Declaration of Independance. 1861-Go over Lincoln’s actions that year and you will find that he destroyed State Sovereignty.Essentially,we degenerated from a Republic to a mob rule democracy.On April 15, 1861,
President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1):
“I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.”
Ceasar (President) is now in full control even over the Senate (Congress).
A Presidential dictatorship has been imposed on U.S. citizens. The sad thing is, “Most American people do not realize it yet.”
1868–the 14th Amendment is alleged ratified.The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure. You know,prior to this time we were Citizens of a particular State.Afterwards,a citizen of D.C. either born in D.C. or naturalized in the United States.
US citizens (Chattel Property) are belligerents in the field and are
“subject to its jurisdiction”
(Washington DC)
U.S. citizens are 14th Amendment citizens implemented by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 originally established for the newly freed slaves.
That is to say: “Now slaves of the corporate government plantation”
The 14th Amendment
was not ratified.
Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646)
1871-The corporate government was established.
The corporate government created in 1871 will continue to exist as long as:
“state of war” or “emergency” exists (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, War on Iraq, etc.),
the President does not terminate “martial” or “emergency” powers by Executive Order or decree, or
the people do not resist submission and terminate by restoring lawful civil courts, processes and procedures under authority of the “inherent political powers” of the people. 1913-Federal Reserve Act passed establishing the 3rd and final Central Bank in the USA. 1920- The ITA Act suspended the de jure Treasury Dept. and gave it to the Fed.Resrve. 1933- USA bankrupt-actually back in 1930]–turned into a Corporate State. 1946– APA Act of 1946 was an act of treason that created the Administrative State.It created a new Bill of Rights and a Fourth Branch of government.Being the the Administrative State not sanctioned by the Federal Constitution.This destroyed checks and balances in the USA.Judges became Administrators of laws,not arbiters of truth and a person’s rights under the Constitution.FDR knew that to entrust federal agencies with legislative, executive, and judicial powers was also to risk corrupting these powers, and “to develop a fourth branch of government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.”But it was passed nonetheless.
The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes and standardizes the procedures of 55 federal agencies responsible for implementing and enforcing federal laws. A manual for governance, APA requires transparency in agency rulemaking, opportunity for citizen participation, and protection of individual privacy.
Further buttressing the foundation of American civil rights, these among many provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act require that:
Agencies shall “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making…”
Agencies shall “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized.”
Agencies shall “establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records…”
Whenever any agency fails to comply…in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency…”
A person compelled to appear in person before an agency or representative thereof is entitled to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel…” 1933-War Powers Act of 1933 put us in a perpetual state of National Emergency,as well as changing our judicial system from “common law” to “Maritime Law”.The people went from free Sovereign
Citizens to Subjects.
December 19, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Dude! We have a… Car CZAR!
When are we going to get some of these CZARS in the Supreme Court!?
AMERICA: A.CRIME.A
December 20, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Leo
Welcome back.
It is a rare individual that can swim so freely betwen the logical hemisphere and also ones creative side!
I was wondering if your law loving side would forever be drowned away by your artistic endeavors(not to mention discouraging non-actions by SCOTUS)!
We may have to wait years for the memoirs to come out to ever read if this was a deliberate evasion of a truly abhorrent situation or a mere procedural technicality they could not overcome. The clerks actions makes it seem more likely the former.
One thing is abundantly clear in all branches of our government, we are being led by liars.
I wrote about this and the legacy of our offspring’s future here:
http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/libertyforusa/2008/12/19/the-new-forked-tongue
BTW- Happy holidays to all!
December 20, 2008 at 1:00 AM
When raising my 5 children I tried to teach them to love, respect and obey.
We as a society have done away with obedience, you can not allow people to not keep the law.
That is what we are asking of Mr. Obama. He is not natural born and is not qualified to be President as our Constitution now reads. If the Supreme Court will hear his case and decide this issue and provide rules as to natural born requirements it will settle this urgent matter for the future Presidents.
Your principles can be wonderful but without laws there is no peace, only division and confusion. Justice comes by the rule of law. All men are created equal but integrity, honesty and freedom must be earned by obeying the Law.
Mr. Obama, a Harvard grad and a Constitutional law teacher, knows he is not a natural born citizen but he did not want to obey the law. He has put the U.S.A. in a crisis by his choice to not obey the natural born clause in the Constitution. Since June 2008 we have tried to get the people aware of this. He is deceiving the public about his being natural born. He signed sworn statements for almost every state in the U.S.A. saying he is natural born. His father was a U.K. citizen (duel allegiance at birth) Mr. Obama has this fact on his web site.
Without laws and judges who cannot be bribed, America is just another 3rd world country ruled by a Dictator who just didn’t want to obey the law!
Mr. Donofrio, can Mr. Obama be charged with a criminal case instead of civil?
Thank you for your art and music but most of all for your Patriotism. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Very Blessed, IJ Gregory, Mother, G-mother G-G-Mother
5 children 20 grand children 2 great grand children
P.S. Please help save America for all our children. My heart cries and my eyes fill with tears over the way we have become such a lawless country. G-d bless and give you great wisdom is my prayer. If there is anything I can do to help you , Please let me know. I will try my best to do every thing you need,.
December 20, 2008 at 1:32 AM
SCOTUS belongs to Annenberg what did you expect. Nothing we do no case we put before them is going anywhere. They are but puppets the same as Barack Obama.
December 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Leo,
Glad to see you in better spirit. The essence of champions is that when they get knock down, they pick themselves up.
I do not hold that much faith in SCOTUS either, but what I am convince of is the cummulative and relentless effect of the protests. It was paramount to take a stand for the History book records. It is also essential to keep up the fight alive if only in legal fillings. Eventually something will give.
Nixon thought he was above the law and look where that (eventually) got him. Obama thinks he is above the Constitution, his fall will be even more resonant.
December 20, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Leo – So proud and thankful for all you have done to uphold the constitution. We raised our family in a town near you and were gleeful that a Jersey boy took on this very important fight. Again, my sincere gratitude.
The odd thing about this is how incredibly “dumb” the so-called great minds have become on this issue. Elected officials, media, journalist, conservative talk show hosts, the current President and even the Judges are REFUSING to…comment. Is it possible that there is a grave threat against this nation and that the current President Elect has ordered this silence?
Too far? Maybe. But there is something very sinister about this economy, this election and this silence. Let us not forget that there are millions of people who have declared war on us. We were attacked on 9/11 in the heart of one of our major cities…by a simple plan of turning our own aircraft against us. This is a cunning and serious enemy who is also very wealthy. Wealthy enough to buy our elections? Quite possible. Follow the contribution trails. Are some citizens, even natural born ones, so greedy for power and wealth that they are willing to accept money from foreigners who do NOT have our best interest at heart. Apparently, this group of traitors has no fear of electing a man who is NOT a natural born citizen. In fact, it might even be considered by them as…better credentials.
As Americans, we need to know we are in a poker game…and the winner will take all, unfortunately!
December 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Sometimes I think the Internet is exacerbating the already considerable difficulties in political communication in this country. Conservatives read conservative sites, and liberals read liberal sites. True, some venture to the other camp’s sites, but by and large, when they do, if they comment they are mocking and rude.
Before the Internet, we had maybe two local newspapers, and we had national magazines. That situation exposed each political camp to the thought of the other camp. And that was a time when journalists actually reported news objectively, or at least far more objectively than they do today.
And today there is no sober hearing-out of the other’s point of view. The preacher is always talking to his own choir. We are stuck. I know there are terrific benefits of the Internet, but in the area of political discourse, I think its record is abysmal.
The forums that allow comments on articles are frequently inhabited by near-illiterates who apparently have little knowledge of how government works and think nothing of displaying their ignorance by their inane pontifications and conjectures. I’m getting close to the point of abandoning the Internet as a source of political news altogether. I am very discouraged.
What has led me to this point has been the absence of any serious discussion of an issue that has been relegated to the “fringe,” though it is a reasonable issue to raise. “What issue might that be?” you ask. “I hope you don’t mean that silly “natural born citizen” issue. Please grow up.”
Yes, that’s it. And that’s the response, even from some otherwise sober conservatives, that leads me to think the Internet is killing rational discourse.
December 20, 2008 at 3:02 AM
This was interesting.
Jonathan Soros, not a natural born citizen, piously opines in the WSJ now owned by Rupert Murdoch that our Electoral College and the associated Constitutional restrictions and buffers should be destroyed and relegated to the dust bin of history.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122930124441705413.html
This is EXACTLY why our Constitution’s framers wanted a TWO GENERATION buffer before a foreign national’s offspring could be called a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible for the presidency of the states.
Do you see the biggest foils confounding our national politics, culture and society are coming from foreign national influence and their newly matriculated children? We are awash in foreign influx.
All the Constitution’s framers asked for was a TWO GENERATION buffer to protect us from wealthy and powerful emigres and their children.
And now this buffer is “so wrong” and unacceptable? How could the Framers get everything else so right and then get this so wrong?
They didn’t.
Look at the mess we have now.
December 20, 2008 at 3:05 AM
About Kelos and these two denials of injunctions, what if anything was a period and what was an exclamation point:
1. We do not know whether or not reform under the present Constitution is achievable in the future, ours or others’. Meanwhile, some of the Constitution will be maintained, while some is not.
2. Long before Kelos, the Supreme Court denied not only the principle behind the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, but the most essential, natural human right upon which our nation was founded. If the Court can abrogate our sovereign Right to Life, it can determine that anything else in a life may be violated, as well.
Having fought with those seeking to bring America to its responsibilities to the most basic right of man (thoroughly, for the first explicit time ever in its history) I do not concede any “end of sentence,” unless it happens to be for the purpose of writing a new one.
And, I do not concede to the Supreme Court, corrupt or not; it must be forced to face its blessing or curse, whenever the opportunity arises.
December 20, 2008 at 3:51 AM
I just read “Zapem’s” comment posted here at 3:26 p.m.. Leo, perhaps SCOTUS sees what Congress pulled on the American people and feels the mess should be dumped in the lap of Congress on Jan. 8 as opposed to SCOTUS taking the rap for exposing Obama? Regardless, SCOTUS needs to uphold our Constitution. Judging from the responses received from various Congressional members, it appears NOT ONE of them intends to come clean. We need to rid ourselves of the entire lot – they’re all a bunch of stinking rotten apples.
December 20, 2008 at 4:23 AM
I wonder if the Scotus even could have issued a stay. They may have figured that they could not.
The Constiturion states “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
The 12th amendment does not give any wiggle room either. It basically states that the election will and must happen on the date that congress has chosen.
Doesn’t this pretty much preclude the Supreme Court from issuing a stay, as it seems that the timing of the electoral process is a power reserved for the legislature? That only the congress could delay the time, and not the other branches of government?
If this is the view of the court, then a denial of the stay without comment would be appropriate, and the question of the Secretary of State not exercizing their duties may still be a debatable issue to the Scotus.
Just my hairbrained laymans take on it.
[Ed. If allowing the EC to go on would allow a clear Constitutional violation then SCOTUS can order a stay. Suppose it came out that a candidate was only 33 years old and it was proved beyond any doubt. Would SCOTUS just look the other way or would they issue a stay? ]
December 20, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Leo,
I realize how frustrated you are, but you keep saying that “it’s done”, and that the constitution is doomed. Is it because you’ve given up, or is it based on your pride, or disqust? Other experts are claiming that it’s all about the timing, and that your case is still pending, waiting to hear more from you, and you say “Its done”.
You might be right about everything, but lets just say you’re not, and the Court itself is waiting for that certain time, that certain case, or that certain arguement? Is it not worth your time to listen to what others are saying about this subject, and resubmit your case to them at the time “others” have lotted as being “the right time”?
The Right side of Life is saying differently, and claims that you should continue in your fight. Please consider that sometimes we see the small picture instead of the bigger picture. We need you, and unless you want to watch Obama destroy this country, I suggest you at least weigh the odds of filing again. Please help us Leo, it’s not a time to get broken down by corruption, but rather a time to fight it harder, and with a more open mind.
December 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Leo: I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that the Supreme Court may not have taken the case because it is their job to interpret the law not to enforce it. I think it is the job of the FEC or the Secretary of State of each state to enforce Obama’s elligibility. The law seems to be against Obama but unfortunately the courts are for him!
[Ed. There is precedent. In McCarthy v Briscoe the SCOTUS ordered the Texas Secretary of State to put a man's name on the ballot because the Texas law keeping him off was Unconstitutional. We asked them order the NJ and Conn. SOS to take names off the ballot. There is ZERO difference in the power attributed to SCOTUS and accepted by SCOTUS.]
December 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Leo –
Your website has both your terrific give and take, and offers a venue for a lot of very good information and insight from those who comment.
What Mike Simpson, Member of Congress, still needs to know, in Stevec says (12/19 at 5:01 pm), are the facts concerning Barack Obama!
Congress holds confirmation hearings all the time, and so it knows that when someone gives assurances that they are qualified for a position of trust, they must have the ability (when asked) to produce evidence of that eligibility without delay, or the hearings will not proceed any further.
Secondly, Congress knows that if it vests executive power in the President on terms dictated by the President-elect, then Congress will become in the eyes of the President-elect no more than the precious treasure of Mandarin eunuchs preserved in alcohol, and kept in a porcelain jar called Capitol Hill, which is an image that is probably unacceptable for the permanent legacy of Congress.
I simply do not understand anymore the haze of disinformation that has descended upon this nation! Oh, the incompetency!
December 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Leo,
Now is the time to bring suit against each individual judge of SCOTUS for violation and perjury pursuant to their oath of office of which they are Constitutionally mandated to uphold and support. It is not very difficult to get each and every individual judge’s oath of office and hold them to that document that each of them swore to uphold. Constitutionally each oath of office has to be stated word for word as mandated and if it isn’t they, him/her is in violation, again.
It appears that their are no attorneys that will hold a judge to his/her oath of office. Also, it appears that the BAR is more concerned about the pocket book and having a job then about the law. Thank you, Barbara Hulet
December 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
THIS AMAZING (YET TYPICAL) RESPONSE FROM A REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBER (IDAHO CONG SIMPSON) — THE 3 BRANCHES OF GOVT ARE NOW PERFECTLY WILLING TO CONTINUE WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION:–
“You mentioned your opinion on the citizenship of President-elect Obama. The Supreme Court has turned down the appeal that questioned the eligibility of President-elect Obama to hold the office of President. The Court did not comment on its order. Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. I look forward to working with the new administration to continue serving Idahoans throughout the 111th Congress.”
December 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Stevec, You should of included something like this in your letter to the congressman, i did when i sent mine into Rep Tom Cole.
No Merit
It is quite apparent that the courts have found that a U.S. Citizen cannot challenge a Presidential Candidates eligibility to become President.
Clearly this is a Constitutional matter and surely a U.S. Congressman would have grounds to question such a matter.
I am still awaiting a response from Rep Tom Cole. I will post his response as soon as it arrives.
December 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM
So, Mr. Donofrio, are you just going to QUIT??!!
Doesn’t that put YOU in the “wussy” category also?
What about all the people who believed in you, that put their time and money into supporting you and your efforts?
Don’t WE deserve more than to be simply left stranded while you run away to lick your wounds?
Well?
Are you just going to slink away and QUIT?
[Ed. I never said I was quitting. I said I was going to take another route to the destination of truth. The courts are a dead end. So why waste time there? I have other talents which need to be exploited and will gain even more attention and media coverage. Art, music, sports, games. Watch for me.]
December 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM
NOTE to jbjd: If you are compiling a list of nomination paperwork submitted by Pelosi to the offices of all 50 SOS’s on behalf of Obama, you should also compile a list of the paperwork submitted out of the Republican National Convention and RNC on behalf of McCain, as well. Plaintiff Hollander in one case against McCain was already on the warpath in the summer. The third party elector Markham Robinson out of California was also on the warpath in litigation in California Federal District Court. A class action lawsuit by citizens, or military personnel, or whatever eventually gets put together as a “group of outrage” is going to be positioned far better with media coverage if it is predicated on the claim that the entire voting population was defrauded of meaningful choice due to ineligibility of both major party candidates.
NOTE to Zapem: There is a more complete timeline about the NBC and the Congressional role in first trying to change the Constitution (i.e., play baseball by the rules) and then later pull off an end run around it (what happened in 2008). It extends back in time to the past 10 years. Half of the “effort” came from Democrats (HJR 88 introduced by Barney Frank in 2000) plus the largely Democratic co-sponsorship of the “McCain Peace of Mind Resolution” SJR 511 in April 2008, which had Obama at its heart.
The other half of the effort came from the GOP with Orrin Hatch’s similar 2003 Senate Resolution to get a Constitutional Amendment allowing for foreign-born citizens to run for POTUS if they had been naturalized citizens for at least 20 years. Take a look through this link on a Forums that has several threads covering the NBC cases around the country:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-821638.html#821638
Leo: Have you completely discounted the idea of reviving your case as to its Writ of Certiorari potential? If you were to revive it, then maybe some of the others of us who are posting on your blog and registered voters in NJ could hire a reputable law firm to lend some added weight with an amicus brief. It would be ideal if the citizens came from both parties. There might also be a few civic non-profit groups with bipartisan memberships from around the state who could be asked if they wanted to add their backing to such an amicus filing. I know of a few which formed in reaction to eminent domain abuse in their towns, and regard Kelo as an abomination with the way it stretched the plain meaning of the “takings” clause vis-a-vis “public use”. It’s important that the denial of meaningful choice be the thrust, that the voices lending weight come from a wide spectrum of political leanings on a variety of issues, and that there be equal weighting of major party registrations. Flat out, voters who naively believed that someone in authority existed to keep the ineligible off ballots got shafted in 2008. Calero is living proof of that. From just the standpoint of “truth in advertising” laws, one could argue that there should be a big fat CAVEAT EMPTOR at the top of every ballot carrying an advisory to all voters that the presence of a name on the ballot does not mean that the individual has met eligibility criteria.
December 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
The poster posting as “LAWYER” noted the importance of the Perkins v. Elg case and he is, I believe, correct in so doing. It is later in time than some of the other cases cited, having been decided in 1939. Some of the other cases wax on and on with “dicta” rather than “ruling” and only ruling has precedential value in stare decisis.
Link to summary of dual citizenship cases, each with a cross link to the actual case itself (hint: don’t trust the summaries to be complete nor completely accurate):
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
Link to Perkins v Elg:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325
Critical facts, showing birth on U.S. soil and a status of “naturalized citizenship” present in both parents, are presented at the beginning of the case:
“The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.”
Critical language is found at the very bottom, under the fifth issue receiving decision:
“Fifth.-The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ’solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
December 20, 2008 at 12:42 PM
…AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT CONGRESSMAN BLUNT (R-MO) — who essentially dittos the above — THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A GIANT RED HERRING!!!
THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS THAT OBAMA IS NOT AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS A KENYAN/BRITISH CITIZEN WHEN BARACK WAS BORN!!!
Moreover, the Hawaiian officials merely say that an “authentic” birth certificate is on file there, NOT that iT shows birth in Hawaii.
December 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
This whole experience has left me feeling sick and disappointed and frankly, a little panicked. I can’t believe the great lengths SCOTUS, the media and others have gone to ignoring and denying this issue.
I heard someone else describe this as waking up in a world of “pod people” where it’s so obvious something is so very wrong but only a few can see it and are being PERSECUTED for it.
With every day that goes by it becomes hard to imagine that those “paranoid Christain zealots” who think Obama is the anti-Christ are wrong.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they are a passenger on runaway train and the emergency breaks have failed?
Brace for impact y’all.
December 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Dear Readers,
Has anyone heard back yet from at least one Senator and one Representative, that they will state according to the proper procedures,
that they object to Obama being elected on grounds of qualification?
I see Representative Simpson from Idaho was contacted and apparently will not be stating an objection.
I wrote my representative and Senators in California and have not yet heard back from them.
Yours truly,
James R. Peterson, P.E./M.B.A.
December 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Leo,
Please DO NOT give up the good fight…
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/secretary-of-state-requests-for-documents-sample-letter-responses-say-obamas-qualifications-never-verified/
Go play golf, play music, play Poker…You deserve a good Holiday..
We, America need you to stand on your Principals..
Your Wisdom, Integrity and Honor ….
Justice Scalia –Quote “Always worth it to stand on Principals”
He seems to have a GOOD sense of humor so mostly likely he may find your satire piece funny too..
UNITED WE STAND-DIVIDED WE FALL
December 20, 2008 at 1:22 PM
In the latest issue of Time Magazine photos of Obama when he attended college in California appear. In several of the photographs Obama can be clearly seen wearing a wedding band.
The question arises that if Obama was married, under what name was he married and if he divorced before marrying Michelle, under what name and Nationality was he divorced?
Divorces are public records I believe.
December 20, 2008 at 1:54 PM
prowlland Says:
December 19, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’ll answer my own question
BO Sr. was a Kenyan senior governmental economist.
No, he was not! That was much later in his life. He was just a foreign student in Hawaii in 1961.
December 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Stevec,
Your rep sounds like an idiot; I’m sure mine would respond in kind to a similar letter.
Leo,
Once again, I really appreciate your efforts and the information we’re able to continue to read from this website. I hope that you’ll still give us your thoughts even if BHO does become POTUS.
December 20, 2008 at 3:18 PM
SCOTUS likely realizes the pickle they are in with what this decision does to the “anchor baby” problem with Mexican border-jumpers, and are thus cowardly avoiding it.
They have two (three?) outcomes.
1) Conclude children of non-citizens are natural born US Citizens, thus giving the green light to Anchor babies and opening up the floodgates from Mexico.
2) Conclude children of non-citizens are not natural born, thus leaving the US with an usurper in office, with all of the mass hysteria and public unrest that would ensue.
3) Ignore the problem and let some future generation deal with it. (which it appears SCOTUS has been doing for over a century already).
I’ll opt for #2. All three will end up with civil unrest, so we should just go back to the Constitution and get it behind us, in order to lay the groundwork for the future.
December 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Leo and jbjd working together! The pen is much mightier than the sword.
Leo, you have threatened to quit 3 times. Last 2 times you came right back. I think you will return after you get over your disappointment.
December 20, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Leo:
May God Bless and keep those safe who serve us freely and with honor. Hope you don’t mind that we wanted to send this to you. It’s from LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN. Me….I’m only a shepard wishing for the best.
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn’t loud, and it wasn’t too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn’t quite know, Then the
sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
“What are you doing?” I asked without fear,
“Come in this moment, it’s freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!”
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..
To the window that danced with a warm fire’s light
Then he sighed and he said “Its really all right,
I’m out here by choice. I’m here every night.”
“It’s my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I’m proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at ‘Pearl on a day in December,”
Then he sighed, “That’s a Christmas ‘Gram always remembers.”
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ‘Nam’,
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I’ve not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he’s sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue… an American flag.
I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..
Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall.”
” So go back inside,” he said, “harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I’ll be all right.”
“But isn’t there something I can do, at the least,
“Give you money,” I asked, “or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you’ve done,
For being away from your wife and your son.”
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
“Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we’re gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.”
PLEASE, would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as many
people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our
U.S service men and women for our being able to celebrate these
festivities. Let’s try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people
stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.
LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN
30th Naval Construction Regiment
OIC, Logistics Cell One
Al Taqqadum, Iraq
December 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Quoting RobC:
—
“The Justices have a copy of Obama’s “original” birth certificate that was filed by his mother with his passport application in 1962.”
—
I was not aware of this. Who supplied the SCOTUS the original? Was it as a result of discovery in one of the earlier cases?
December 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Leo
There was a post on the Tecas Darlin wesite stating that there was a problem with the ratification process when Hawaii became a State in 1958.
Apparently Bill Clinton passed a bill concerning this. I have not researched this, but the facts are out there.
If this is true BHO’s could not claim he was born onUS soil!
Does this open up a can of worms? Or just another rotting issue for the court to avoid.
December 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM
SCOTUS keeps giving me the finger. Obama keeps giving me the finger.
This”Na na. We can do anything we want to and there’s nothing you can do about it” attitude is disgusting me. I can’t be the only person. They had all better pray to satan that the Lord Jusus Christ himself doesn’t grab them by their throats and shake the everlovin’ bat crap out of them. They have no idea what is in store for them if they are screwing with us. Do these morons really believe they can escape from the Lord God Jehovah? Good luck with that. Arnold Swartzenager isn’t the first guy to decalre, “I’ll be back.” Jesus is coming back. He is coming back to clean the clocks of evil sneaky people.
If they don’t beleive in Christ now and have no fear of God they will. Mark my words they will. I will have a front row seat to watch them tossed into eternal flames.
Leo, keep trying. If there is evil that should be exposed it will come to light someday. I will not give up but I know that I know that I know they will never outrun God. I don’t care what the hell satan has promised them. FOOLS!
December 20, 2008 at 9:37 PM
LEO…. HERE IS ANOTHER ANGLE….. PLEASE READ!!!!!!
Is this the reason why the Supremes are afraid to address the Obama issue? Bill Clinton signed on November 23, 1993 a United States Public Law 103-150 which acknowledged the illegal actions by the US Government in the overthrow of the legitimate Government of Hawaii, and the people of Hawaii never surrendered their sovereignty. Thus the people of Hawaii never legally ceased to be a Sovereign Independent Nation.
Well, if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii then he is fricked because he was never born in a legal USA according to the above noted Public Law 103-150 that Bill Clinton signed and this is a very serious problem, as he was born in an unconstitutional Foreign Sovereignty declared by the President of the United States.
[Ed. that's interesting.]
December 20, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Leo,
Something you might want to read over at SCOTUS Blog.com
Academic Round-Up
Saturday, December 20th, 2008 4:11 pm | David Stras | Comments Off | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!
The DePaul Law Review just published the results of an empirical study about the influence of Supreme Court clerks conducted by Todd Peppers and Chris Zorn, see here. The results of this paper were extensively discussed in a recent article by the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, Adam Liptak, see here. You may recall that Todd Peppers, a political scientist at Roanoke College, previously published an excellent book about the history of Supreme Court clerks entitled “Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk,” see here, which I reviewed in the course of releasing my own results of a study of the influence of law clerks on the certiorari process, see here. The bottom line of the Peppers and Zorn paper is that the ideology of law clerks exert an additional influence on the Justices’ decisions on the merits beyond the selection effects created by Justices selecting like-minded law clerks. The Peppers and Zorn paper is well worth a read.
This month’s issue of the Virginia Law Review contains an article by Amanda Frost entitled “Overvaluing Uniformity,” which analyzes the question of whether federal courts overvalue uniformity, see here. Of particular interest to SCOTUSblog readers, Professor Frost spends quite a bit of time on pages 1631-1639 of the article analyzing the Supreme Court’s substantial emphasis on uniformity in setting its agenda through the certiorari process. On an even more fundamental level, Frost dedicates considerable attention to the theoretical justifications for emphasizing uniformity, ultimately concluding that the uniformity rationale is not nearly as compelling as some of the other reasons underlying federal court review, such as ensuring the supremacy of federal law and the availability of a neutral forum for litigants.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
December 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I received the standard and for the record totally incorrect explanation from GA Senator Saxby Chambliss regarding BHO’s ctizenship status. Thank Goodness GA Rep John Linder plans to stand up and protest the electoral college vote on Jan 6th when they count the votes. I urge everyone else to contact their legislators and see if they can get any of them to act along with Rep Linder.
I want to believe that SCOTUS is waiting for the election to become final and then take up one of these cases but I am pretty sure they just don’t have the stomach for the firestorm that will erupt if BHO is denied his Presidency. Chances are someone high up has aleady chatted with Roberts and the fix is in.
Sorry you had to lose your innocence Leo. But there is still a good fight to be fought and eventually the truth will come out about BHO. I think people are finally waking up and taking notice of this eligibility issue. Its gaining traction and its not going to go away. We need guys like you and Cort and Phil Berg and Alan Keyes to keep this issue in front of the public.
December 20, 2008 at 10:45 PM
From daughter’s history text:
“Four thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean in the years 1760 to 1820 King George, the third, ruled England and, for part of that time, the thirteen colonies on the Atlantic shores under the impression that he was king by divine right. Like most of the kings before him he felt he was almost on a par with Jehovah. Indeed, he was the embodiment of all those who had gone before him. Pride, arrogance, and a desire for power characterized him.”
“Unfortunately, the English Parliament were just as convinced of the doctrine of ‘the divine right of kings.’ Together they thought they had the right of total, arbitrary rule over the colonies. Parliament wrote ‘The Declaratory Act’ which declared they had the right to: “bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.” This was in 1765.
The colonists realized that this use of power would eventually bring them into complete slavery to England….”
And it goes on to quote Algernon Sidney and John Locke.
Fast forward to the end of the book…
“The first question I am going to ask you today is: ‘What did the king who was supposed to protect the colonists do that brought about the war?’ In the Declaration of Independence you will find a long list of these things.”
“Today we don’t worry about these things. We have a Constitution and in our country those who love the United States of America obey God’s laws and the Constitution….”
And I guess I need to go no further…
December 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Leo, You have done a beautiful job of clarifying natural born citizens to all of us nonlegal types. One confusion I have, is it seems Berg’s case is being scheduled to be heard January 8. Or am I confused? If so, is it only scheduled for conference, where they will dismiss it also? Or scheduled for debate and Berg will present it. All the writs and injunctions short circuit my mind. Something seems dead, then you hear more about it, and this gets pretty confusing. It made me wonder if they, the supreme judges, possibly chose one of the cases, and his being the first, looked at what was coming in similar, such as yours, and decided to stick with his. Am I fantasizing? If they do have Berg’s and they do debate it, rather than dismiss, will he be able to use your natural born citizen approach, then, if subpoenas and certificates arrive, and he turns out born in Hawaii? Thanks for all you have done for us. Your work will support other suits, such as Washington and Mississippi, which actually seem to have tread sticking to the road.
December 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Good, Bro. Glad to see you poking out your head again. We need you… to resume that passionate, creative and selfless role you furrowed out among these legal issues so daunting for most of us. Help us keep up a stout heart and valiant purpose for the whole generation. swh
December 21, 2008 at 1:03 AM
WB Leo
Gotta love this from the new Illegally issued .gov Website! SAD SAD SAD
The Obama-Biden Plan
Barack Obama has spent much of his career fighting to strengthen civil rights as a civil rights attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator and U.S. Senator. Whether promoting economic opportunity, working to improve our nation’s education and health system, or protecting the right to vote, Obama has been a powerful advocate for our civil rights.
End Deceptive Voting Practices: Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
We’re Screwed!!!!!!!!!! ——— “NOT”
December 21, 2008 at 3:58 AM
Leo, so glad you are back on your website. I was worried when you “went dark.”
Thought there were a couple good ideas here:
How… do we obtain redress when governments commit crimes?
…we take back our rights of judgment and execution. We do not have to invent anything; we only have to learn English and American history. The right to take back delegated power was clearly declared during the American Revolution.
This right to resume delegated power is a component of the right of petition; thus, it is more particularly reserved to us by the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
…if Americans have a grievance, they have a constitutionally protected right to withhold their taxes.
…the right of petition is not a right at all – it is a power that guards all other rights, and makes governments accountable.
Did you notice how American Founders began, and then won, their Revolution? They first organized into “assemblies.” Here, they met one another; they discussed their grievances and ways to obtain redress; they declared their rights; and then appointed committees to accomplish their goals. By this procedure, they took back their sovereignty.
http://www.illuminati-news.com/anthony-hargis-5.htm
December 21, 2008 at 6:44 AM
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in brackets [ ], and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.
No Person except a natural born Citizen [or a Citizen of the United States] of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, 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] limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.
December 21, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Please post this, pass it on to many other folks, blogs, media, etc., – … and ask them to pass it on to many others too!
I’ve HAD it !!! Too many of the folks that we elected to represent us and support our issues just aren’t doing very much for us (we, the people).
Because some of the folks in Congress and the Senate just don’t seem to “get it” or have been mesmerized for the past couple of years, I just had to write my U.S. Senator (and I sent a copy to my Congressman).
If any folks out there are really feeling discouraged, – … now’s the time ( before Jan 8th, 2009) to send E-Mails and letters (they work best) to your assigned Senators and Congressional Representatives.
Feel free to take my issues, expand on them, or use your own. It would be good if some letters got in some newspapers. It might be best if you didn’t send just a “cut and paste” of the letter that I wrote.
Dear Senator Mikulski:
You recently replied to a constituent of yours who is a friend of mine. Below is an extract from your reply to him, which showed some apparent errors, distortions, and/or incorrect facts. Please read your reply to my friend and then my comments which will follow.
Your reply:
Thank you for getting in touch with me. It’s nice to hear from you.
I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts. Following Obama’s overwhelming and undisputed victory in the recent election, the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship and dismissed them as being without merit.
My comments:
You wrote, in part, “your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen”…. It shows as rather strange, when you, as a U.S. Senator, do not seem to understand the difference between an ordinary U.S. citizen and one who is a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States (as is required for a person to serve as President of the U.S ).
Facts:
1. Mr. Obama isn’t really the ‘President-Elect’ until after the Congress might certify such, on Jan 8th of next year. And, there is no such thing as ‘The office of the President-Elect’ !!!
2. It’s not a rumor that Obama is ineligible. His father (per Mr. Obama’s own admission) was a native of Kenya and a British subject in Aug of 1961. So was Barack Obama! Note: Barack Obama Sr. was NOT a U.S. citizen.
3. It doesn’t matter where Barack Obama Jr. was born in Aug of 1961; due to his father NOT being a US citizen, – … Barack Obama Jr. was not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States of America!!!
4. By the way, – … the Supreme Court didn’t dismiss all of the challenges. They only denied the requests for ’stays’ of the elections !!! Further, there are many other challenges in several states and in U.S. courts.
5. Barack Obama has NOT released his original or a valid and certified true (vault) copy of his birth certificate. The only thing that Barack Obama Jr. has released is a copy of a certification , which is a very questionable and inadequate digital image (it is not a certificate) and it has been reviewed by many who have said that it is a forged or phony item. Many people in the world are aware that Hawaii will issue a ‘certificate’ of birth to persons not born there.
Why has Barack Obama had three teams of attorneys devoted to NOT release his original birth certificate? If Barack Obama doesn’t have something to hide; – … he sure gives the appearances of such by not releasing it.
Based on the very apparent facts, the recent election of Barack Obama Jr. is not yet completed ; and it is indeed disputed due to his not being verified to be a natural born citizen, as required by our Constitution.
As a U.S. Senator of the state of Maryland it is your primary duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Accordingly, I request that you personally ensure to verify Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States of America, and especially that he is, indeed, a natural born citizen of these United States.
In doing such, please ensure that he is not just a citizen, nor a ‘native born’ citizen; – but, that he is truly a ‘natural born citizen’ as fully intended by the framers of our Constitution at the time of it’s writing, as the primary matter is one of devoted allegiance to our country, – and our country alone.
Please note that the framers of our Constitution changed the requirement to be a natural born citizen to help ensure allegiance. Also, please note that a ‘natural born citizen’ of our country has both parents who are citizens of the U.S., which is not the same as a ‘native born’ citizen of our country. Note the difference.
I request that your offices do an in-depth and searching investigation to ensure that Barack Obama Jr. is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ (not just a native citizen) and to pass the results to you by Jan 8th, 2009.
The Key Issue:
If Barack Obama has not been verified to be a ‘natural born citizen’ of our United States by Jan 8th, 2009; then you must put loyalty to your country and the Constitution before your party and other considerations, and, as part of your sworn duties, you must personally vote to challenge his eligibility, and you must also cause your fellow members of the U.S. Senate and Congress to do likewise.
I trust that you will uphold your sworn duties to our Constitution properly. I and many thousands of other Americans will be watching next month and after.
Sincerely,
Bob R
December 21, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Leo,
Please, PLEASE don’t give up on this!! I am BEGGING YOU! Someone mentioned contacting Judge Bork for advice. If I were you, I’d do that. Recall how VICIOUSLY Bork was treated when he was turned down from ascending to the Supreme Court. If Congress is “in on it,” as someone else suggested, then we can’t count on them to do anything to stop this usurper Obama from the presidency.
Someone else also suggested taking another approach in the case. Of course, I ‘m not a lawyer and wouldn’t know where to begin with such an idea, but I do believe that two, knowlegeable, thinking brains (like yours plus one more) are better than one!
Stevac,
Your response letter from that congressman sounds like a form letter sent out at rote by congressional and senatorial offices. Could it be that underlings are sending out these replies and the Congressmen/Senators aren’t even seeing these letters that have been written and sent by the public? I have seen THE SAME EXACT ANSWER given in blog posts by at least two other congressmen. Perhaps this is not unusual – but I question it just the same.
In my experience, when I have written Conservative Congressmen (e.g. the Prop. 8 ballot issue) here in California, I have received individual, personal replies from them! I don’t get “form letters.”
I read through ALL of the comments here and agree with those who have expressed their desire for all of us to keep the faith and keep this story (and our hope for justice!!) alive. We need to pray, work, and act against this debacle – no matter how long it takes! If SCOTUS doesn’t act after January 9th, I will use my savings and show up at the steps of the Supreme Court to protest their inaction and blatant ignoring of We the People!!
In the course of this terrible situation, I have often felt like a little pawn on a chessboard. Insignificant, can’t be heard by the powers that be, and easily disgarded by the chessmen of higher ranking than I.
Leo – my only hope is that you will NOT GIVE UP! You have a much higher ranking on our nation’s chess board of politics, law, order, and justice. I, as well as millions of other Americans are so extremely concerned about Obama getting into office and destroying our beloved nation. Please PLEASE do whatever it takes! We still have time!
Thanks for reading…
December 21, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Oops. Correction to comment:
In the course of this terrible situation, I have often felt like a little pawn on a chessboard. Insignificant, can’t be heard by the powers that be, easily disregarded, and deep, important concerns discarded by the chessmen of higher ranking than I.
December 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Perhaps there is a huge “sting” in the works and Obama will be brought down by the Blagojevich scandal!
The Citizen Wells blog has a series of posts expressing why Obama should be indicted! I learn something new about the case each day over there!
December 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Leo,
Obama has already admitted to what he is…a British subject. Why would the American people vote for a British subject? People need to hear this in a positive light “he is a British subject”, in lieu of the negative “he is not a Natural Born Citizen”. Obama would then have the burden of proof.
Dan
December 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM
How much corruption does Obama need to be involved in before the media will FINALLY do their job and report it?
Document drop: The story behind Change.gov
December 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Congrat’s Leo. I put you in the same class as the good Chief Editor Korir. You can retire from poker and the band if you just add a paypal button to your site, a’la Phil Berg.
December 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I am not an American but I have been following this issue regarding BO’s validity as nbc with some interest. I can understand some people’s fear for the word ‘conspiracy’ but it is with some amusement that I have to conclude that this is beginning to really sound like one and rightfully so!
Now forgive me for intruding and mentioning the word ‘conspiracy’! It’s just an opinion from an outsider. What I really want to point out and ponder about is the reason behind all of this. Why would some group want to ‘force’ a candidate into the position of POTUS knowing that he is NOT eligible? Surely they would have know that someone would at some stage start asking questions! And the deeper you dig it seems the more the questions and serious questions arises! It is becoming obvious that certain government institutions are not upholding to what they have been sworn in to do, uphold the American Constitution.
So in order for ‘them’ to succeed in making OB POTUS, they HAVE to undermine or ignore the Constitution. That which are hold dearly it seems by most American citizens! (And so far they are very successful!)
If this is not resolved, it would be fair to say that this is going to cause serious division in The States amongst it’s citizens and surely ‘they’ should be aware of that! Can one be so desperate as to get your parties candidate in the position of POTUS in the face of risking civil unrest? (Maybe even worse since the upholding of the Constitution is what America was founded upon?)
Or could it be that that is exactly what ‘they’ (whoever they are?) are planning for? I know this might seem extreme but the problem is things are being done for a reason whenever humans are present and it just seems ‘odd’ that someone is going through so much trouble to do something that is so clearly ‘not right’ (against the Constitution or undermining exactly what the Constitution was designed for protection from).
Now I know that this raises even more questions than it gives answers but given the serious circumstances it might be wise to try and gain some understanding as to what the future holds!
Finally I know being a foreigner I have no ’standing’ in this matter but I just wanted to share some thoughts since I find this very interesting and have been following this for some time now. Again if somebody finds the questions ‘extreme’, please just disregard them! I will not be offended as it simply is just the ‘thoughts of a foreigner’!
Thank you!
December 21, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Comrades:
This is the wish of the sheeple. I will now further dupe those that oppose me with bribes, threats and out right lies. I plan to turn this country into a supreme dictatorship supported by the sheeple.
(party approved message #666-983-AT9)
December 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Rob S. Said:
The Justices have a copy of Obama’s “original” birth certificate that was filed by his mother with his passport application in 1962.
I would love to know where you got this information. It could be extremely useful.
December 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Hi Leo,
The first rule of warfare in any type of fight and struggle is know the enemy and his tactics. And what better place to start than with their mentor … and the writer of their tactical training manual.
http://www.theobamafile.com/Alinsky.htm
Mountain Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org
December 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Leo,
I know that other commentators have already suggested that maybe the Supreme Court really did not fully decide your cases. You filed the two applications as follows (taken from the SCOTUS docket):
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg
Hence, the Court only denied your application for a stay. Assuming you also properly presented the underlying merits of your case to the Court, I do not understand why you believe the Court also decided the merits of your applications. Please explain.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
December 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Pick up the ball and run with it Leo.
December 21, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Mr. Donofrio,
I have very little doubt that you are aware of this source, but just in case..
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm
December 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM
While I’m not a lawyer here I do know that so much of how judges administer the law is a lot like saying the magic words to them which compels them to act.
Leo, I am unqualified to critique your work. I heap praise on you but, it about the work of compelling our government to act and not about anyone’s ego as you already know. I can’t even argue whether what jbjd, above, for example, says is correct or not or, what others here might have also said here. It seems right to KEEP BEATING THE DRUM, to keep up the search for a vein, to find an opening.
It would be helpful to educate the public so that those in government respond appropriately to the law. We patriots are not getting the public’s eye and need to.
My prayers and best wishes
December 21, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Leo,
You have already generated enough material to fill a book. You have also documented an historical issue and fact of great moment. Even if SCOTUS betrays its duty before the Constitution, you might consider finding a publisher — so that a permanent record is placed on public display. Now, how do you find a publisher with the courage to publish such a book? Not buried, like Chester Arthur’s case, this well-documented and well-researched challenge to an Obama presidency could serve the common good both now and for posterity.
[Ed. if you know anybody let me know.]
December 21, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Leo is it possible the Supreme Court wanted evidence of your claims? Like in the form of birth certificates proving that Obama Sr. was a British Subject. And a birth certificate from Obama showing that he was in fact the son of a man who was a british subject.
December 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM
If 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth –albeit he MAY BE a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat.
SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.
December 21, 2008 at 7:28 PM
[...] Scotus in “wong Kim Ark” and “minor V. Happersett” Rightfully Punted on … [UPDATE 5:08 PM Rewritten. Changes in purple.] They fumbled on purpose because they were afraid to run with the ball [...] [...]
December 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM
This is a little off the subject but could you please answer:
You have stated his is not a natural born citizen because he was a dual citizen at birth. Obama admits he was a kenyan ciitizen until age 21.
What is Obama asking us to believe, that he is a natural born citizen?
If this is so then this is felony fraud, is it not?
Has Obama committed the Felony Crime of FRAUD because he was a dual citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen as he wants us to automatically believe?
If he has committed the felony crime of fraud why hasn’t a lawsuit been filed against him. Is it because a Federal prosecutor in his state or any other state will not uphold the law and the US Constitution. His statements on his website directly conflict with article 2.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html
I am not a law student but it seems that the information below could be used against Obama.
§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=fraud&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001028—-000-.html
December 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Here is a Fun Puzzle – See if you can solve it -I did
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JIMMY CARTER, President of the United States of
America, by the authority vested in me by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), do hereby proclaim as follows:
1-1. PERSONS TO BE REGISTERED AND DAYS OF REGISTRATION
1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United States,
unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who were born on or
after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth birthday, shall present
themselves for registration in the manner and at the time and places as hereinafter
provided.
1-102. Persons born in calendar year 1960 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, July 21, 1980.
1-103. Persons born in calendar year 1961 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.
1-104. Persons born in calendar year 1962 shall present themselves for registration on any
of the six days beginning Monday, January 5, 1981.
1-105. Persons born on or after January 1, 1963, shall present themselves for registration
on the day they attain the 18th anniversary of their birth or on any day within the period of
60 days beginning 30 days before such date; however, in no event shall such persons
present themselves for registration prior to January 5, 1981.
1-106. Aliens who would be required to present themselves for registration pursuant to
Sections 1-101 to 1-105, but who are in processing centers on the dates fixed for
registration, shall present themselves for registration within 30 days after their
release from such centers.
1-107. Aliens and noncitizen nationals of the United States who reside in the United
States, but who are absent from the United States on the days fixed for their registration,
shall present themselves for registration within 30 days after their return to the United
States.
1-108. Aliens and noncitizen nationals of the United States who, on or after July 1, 1980,
come into and reside in the United States shall present themselves for registration in
accordance with Sections 1-101 to 1-105 or within 30 days after coming into the United
States, whichever is later.
1-109. Persons who would have been required to present themselves for registration
pursuant to Sections 1-101 to 1-108 but for an exemption pursuant to Section 3 or 6(a) of
the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 453 or 456(a)), or but for
some condition beyond their control such as hospitalization or incarceration, shall present
themselves for registration within 30 days after the cause for their exempt status ceases to
exist or within 30 days after the termination of the condition which was beyond their control.
“1-302. When reporting for registration each person shall present for inspection reasonable
evidence of his identity. After registration, each person shall keep the Selective Service
System informed of his current address.”
https://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf
http://nairobi.usembassy.gov/selective_service.html
http://smithfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/obamaregistrationcrisp1.png
December 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Mike Simpson, in the House from Idaho, does not seem to be proud to be a Republican…it does not seem to be mentioned on his web site, or I could not find it. Maybe he is saying the parties are not really important, as obviously they are not. It is too bad he does not do his own thinking and relies on the Supreme Court. He has the role, equal to the Supreme Court, to question a candidate’s eligibility, when it approaches the Congress. He does not need a Supreme Court decision to make his own decision, but he seems to be a go-along with the crowd person. It would take quite a bit of character and courage to stand up for the Constitution, and uphold the citizens. He seems to rely on others rather than his own logic. Obama is clearly not eligible, and there has been some inner club agreement to overlook it, it seems. I hope that these people are all voted out…those who seem to be taking their oath to uphold the Constitution so lightly. It does not take too much brain power to see what qualifies a person and who is not qualified. Leo has clarified the issue quite nicely. If Simpson needs the Supreme Court to think for him, he might want to let someone else sit in his seat who can think for themselves. The Supreme Court has not yet dismissed Berg, and as far as I am concerned, they can dismiss a million cases, which only shows they do not want to do their role of defining the Constitution and upholding justice. It does not mean that Obama is qualified.
December 21, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Leo, Could it be that Berg’s case is being held for review, because it is versus Obama, not versus the SOS. Maybe you should resubmit a lawsuit, this time against Obama himself, that he is ineligible to run as a candidate, in your state, and let it move up the courts, as they define ineligible and natural born citizen. Could it be that the justices are saying they support that the Secretary of State does not have jurisdiction? Worth a try!
December 22, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Leo -
I continue to pursue the other item, as much to assuage curiosity as anything else, though it’s been more than a bit hampered by a lack of power for a substantial period.
Back when I first read your self-presentation, you expressed your belief that you had a good case, but that you granted your interpretation might be wrong. This is what, to me, separated you from many of the other folks out there. I am saddened by what I read here today (though I loved your parody post, and fully grant your creative powers).
I’d like to make a couple of points – one or two about the Court and one or two about Wong Kim Ark.
I never expected SCOTUS to hear your case or the others, with regard to Obama’s citizenship, from state courts, because the issues, as presented, were administrative in their charges – that these individuals had failed to do their jobs, as described.
Looking back over the history of the state courts (including those still pending), the number of times an official’s judgment of that sort has been overturned is minuscule – and of those that have not, I’ve seen no election decisions reversed. (There may be some, but I haven’t seen them. I don’t have Lexus handy, though!)
Even if SCOTUS had taken the case, I would have been shocked to see them do more than send it back on procedural grounds, because this is The ROBERTS Court. Roberts has been trying to not make waves, but make consensus by weaving the narrowest decisions he could find! It’s the opposite of legislating from the bench, where we’d thought that Originalism was the opposite. It isn’t. The opposite is “Let’s not take a stand at all!”
That said, I do truly believe that if Justice Scalia saw a real constitutional problem that he would have said something. He is not inordinately temperate, more than willing to do and say things that upset the other justices, and seems to despise an injustice. I think you do him and Alito, in particular, a disservice – I suspect that they may simply disagree with your reading of the precedents and/or the law.
Beyond even that, to me, was that I didn’t think the REAL question – eligibility – belonged in the Courts once the Election was too close in time. I saw the place that this is “supposed to” get checked as being in the laps of Congress, when they count the votes from the Electors. That is where the Constitution lays the question of challenges to Presidential qualification.
[Ed. Well then you don't believe that we the people have the right to uphold the Constitution. Furthermore, it only was in the hands of Congress after Obama became President elect after the EC met. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for the popular vote so Obama was not a Constitutional Pres. elect until after the EC met and voted. We the people had every right to petition the courts if we saw a possible Constitutional violation on our STATE ballots.]
How they handle a challenge, if properly presented, dictates what happens in terms of the Court, in terms of the Presidency. If there is a challenge and they handle it cleanly, then SCOTUS will play no role. (Or if there is no challenge.)
But if they try to deny a challenge without breaking up the joint session and considering it FULLY, then SCOTUS comes back into play – and should, even in my opinion.
*******
The big place in which I, myself, disagree with you is in your reading of Wong Kim Ark – and it comes from Justice Gray. He explained exactly why he was quoting Minor – it was that *even* Minor did not absolutely declare that children of foreign aliens were not natural born citizens. As you and Justice Gray both noted, that decision simply ducked the question.
Gray, whatever your sentiments concerning his appointment by Arthur, seems to me to have been far more direct on the subject of Natural Born Citizens and the 14th Amendment than you seem to believe.
Judge Gray on Natural Born Citizens:
Quote:
“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, 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.
“III. 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.”
Judge Gray on the 14th Amendment and “under the jurisdiction” of the United States:
“From the first organization of the National Government under the Constitution, the naturalization acts of the United States, in providing for the admission of aliens to citizenship by judicial proceedings, uniformly required every applicant to have resided for a certain time “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and thus applied the words “under the jurisdiction of the United States” to aliens residing here before they had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, or had renounced allegiance [p687] to a foreign government.
“These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”
*******
To just point the finger at Justice Gray, and suggest that his appointment, tainted though it might be, is the thing that has brought us to this pass, strikes me as disingenuous, because Wong Kim Ark was a SEVEN to TWO decision. Yes, Gray penned the opinion (and, as one writer observed, traveled through all of Western Civilization to do it), but the opinion was broadly supported.
Leo, it’s far too easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of one side or the other. This is not an issue with only one side to it, in terms of the eligibility question. There are scholars on both sides of it, and have been for at least 150 years.
Please give some thought to your earlier position that perhaps your interpretation might be in error?
Again, thank you for your time and thought.
Yours, in curiosity and research
[Ed. It's clear that the framers of the 14th Amendment were more than adamant that a Natural Born Citizne was one born in the US to two citizen parents. Gray knew that. Gray also never said Wong Kim Ark was a NBC. The Constitution provides three distinctions between nbc and citizen. To be President the framers would not have accepted Wong Kim Ark. If you think the framers would have allowed Wong Kim Ark to be President of their new United States, their infant nation - you are delusional.]
December 22, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Hi Leo,
I think this excerpt from the open letter created by Dr. Orly Taitz may give you some incite regarding a conflict of interest within the SCOTUS and why both your and Cort’s applications were denied:
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=592
The plaintiffs are also concerned about the following: You have recorded a program “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts”. Numerous high schools students were flown in to DC and participated in discussion about the Constitution, law and the Supreme Court with you. This program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, is it clearly states on the video released, and it appears that as a Chief Justice of the Supreme court you consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization, supporting the Constitution and you support their efforts. The problem with it, is that Annenberg has been employing on their Annenberg Challenge board William Ayers, a non-repentant terrorist that participated in bombing of police headquarters in 1970, Capitol building in 1971 and Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in NY times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough”. From 1995 the chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama. Annenberg has created an offshoot, called Factcheck.org, Annenberg political Fact check, that was supposed to provide unbiased fact check. In reality Annenberg fact check has actively and intentionally defrauded American public in letting them to believe that Mr. Obama is a Natural born citizen and eligible for US presidency. Annenberg fact check intentionally omitted
[Ed. Interesting.]
December 22, 2008 at 2:49 AM
LA TIMES DELETES REFERENCE TO SCHWARZENEGGER’S WANTING TO BE PRESIDENT AND CONSTITUTION’S “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” PROHIBITION AFTER DRUDGE REPORT POSTS STORY (obviously because its implications re Obama):
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/dear-la-times-looks-like-schwarzenegger.html
December 22, 2008 at 8:03 AM
P.O.C.
….Protect our Country
….Protect our Children
….Protect our Civil Liberties
….Protect our Constitution!!!
December 22, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Hi Leo,
A great new video has been put up at YouTube. It is very well produced. Here is the link. As you know this is the next step to block Obama via political action. Readers of this should forward it to their Senators and Representatives … and the President and Vice President.
A Message to Members of Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE
If this fails, and Congress is filled with cowards, then on it is up to SCOTUS after that to act … or we’re doomed. I still have hope that for their own legal perfectionist type viewpoint and motives that they have decided to wait until Congress screws up and confirms an unqualified person before they’ll step in, i.e., the last minute to act, giving the political process every chance to follow the Constitution first. I hope it does not come to that. It’s like watching a train wreck about to happen and seeing know one is acting ahead of time to stop it. But if it does come to that, then I hope SCOTUS does act decisively between 8 Jan 09 and 20 Jan 09 to stop the travesty to our Constitutional Republic and blocks the swearing in of Obama.
Goat
December 22, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Stevec:
Your are in error !
Re: “only those born in the U.S. mainland with both parents being U.S. citizens is what our U.S. Constitution Law states!”
The Constitution does not say you have to be born in the U.S. mainland. The much cited Law of Nations says BOTH parents have to be Citizens of the same country to be considered Natural Born Citizen.
[Ed. Law of Nations says person born in the country to citizen parents is natural born.]
December 22, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I’m relieved to know that you are okay, Leo. I was a bit worried when you were absent for so long.
December 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM
HELP US OBIE WAN KENOBI IT’S OUR DARKEST HOUR.
December 22, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Leo,
Please step back, take a breath, re-evaluate the situation and (if you still can) get ready for more. I have already heard from the middle class, their feelings. A friend the other day said something I found somewhat prophetic. He said: “To hell with gold and silver… invest in brass and lead.”
December 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM
While the “October Surprise” credit crisis netted Obama the general election, a “January Surprise” constitutional crisis will NOT net Obama the Presidency!
December 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Are comments no longer being allowed, or have there simply been no comments here since the 19th?
k
December 23, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Leo, are you aware of Senate Resolution 511?
It was signed on April April 10, 2008 by Mrs. McCaskill , Mr Leahy, Mr Colburn, Mr Webb AND
MR OBAMA AND MRS CLINTON
“A resolution recognizing that John Sidney Mc Cain, III is a natural born citizen.”
Website: GOVTRACK.US
(Type in) S.RES. 511
(click on) FULL TEXT
How very cozy that both OBAMA and CLINTON fast tracked this resolution
for signing in April to allow Mc Cain to be a Candidate. At the time, Obama said that no “LOOPHOLE” (He’s referring to the Constitution) should prevent Mc Cain from Running. The Constitution is a Loophole.
Obviously, Obama and Clinton had much to gain with competing against Mc Cain…EASILY OBVIOUS for me to see why in hind sight…
It’s rumored around the Blogs that the Supreme Court is going to be held to ACCOUNTABILITY after congress counts the votes of the electoral college. Many believe that the SC didn’t have the authority to interfere
with a “stay” of the electoral college, because the electoral college has the
Right to count the votes on the Day they planned, however, the SC is not off the hook.
Your Lawsuit will be referred to, to haunt Obama for the rest of his life.
“Well Done…Good and Faithful Servant!”
Thank You
December 23, 2008 at 4:37 PM
This is the conslusion of atty THEODORE B. OLSON of the law firm of GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, who researched the law pertinent to SRS 511. They concluded that natural born citizen required both parents be US Citizens. Further down is what they had to say about Obama. They ignored his dual citizenship and their statement has nothing to do with the issue. This is taken directly from Thomas site. They were wrong on all counts.
“The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born
Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not
expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which
those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh
v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the
time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655
(1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born”includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator
McCain’s birth, he is a“natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
[Ed. How many lies in one paragraph. Wong Kim Ark does NOT say anything of the sort. And McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Panama - NOT on a military installation. And regardless, they just ignore the State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual as well. We live in a country i of lies. Get used to it. Everything you know is a lie.]
Here is what they said about Obama, they ignored his dual citizenship.
Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before itsstatehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination
in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4,1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We
find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
December 23, 2008 at 5:09 PM
http://www.thecommentary.net/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Fortunately, we need not await the Supreme Court’s pleasure to enforce the whole Citizenship Clause and end drive-by citizenship. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives enforcement power to the Congress. Three bills exercising this authority are pending in the House. The best is H.J. Res. 42, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, to amend the Constitution to deny citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to America. Although an amendment is not necessary, Paul’s resolution is faithful to the Citizenship Clause.
Legislation enforcing the Citizenship Clause must also restore the traditional American rejection of dual citizenship. It should follow these principles:
* Children of U.S. citizens are citizens, wherever born.
* Children of an American and a foreign parent are treated as citizens until their 18th birthday. Then they must choose one citizenship; no dual nationality.
* U.S.-born children of legally resident aliens are not citizens at birth. If their parents naturalize while they are minor dependents they may naturalize with them (assuming no criminal record). Otherwise they pursue naturalization, if at all, as do other immigrants.
* U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not citizens, period.
[Ed. Citizen and "Natural born citizen" are very different things. None of the legislation you refer to discusses nbc.]
December 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Apparently, according to the docket for Philip Berg’s case at the U.S.Supreme Court,the application for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for certiorari has been
“referred to the Court” by Justice Antonin Scalia,
with a conference scheduled for Friday, January 16, 2009.
http://www.americasright.com/
December 23, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Leo, Merry Christmas-best wishes to you and your family !!
December 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM
You know Leo, when Senate resolution 511 was introduced, they added the official opinion of Larry Tribe and Ted Olsen, you can see it here http://prowlland.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/senate-proves-obama-is-ineligible/
They also mentioned there was one other VP Charles Curtis who was born in Kansas before it was a state.
Frankly, I think Ted Olsen and Larry Tribe have the right meaning, because, the Founding Fathers wanted to exclude foreigners, but not children of military who were defending America. “original intent”.
[Ed. McCain derived his "citizen" status from an act of Congress passed a year after he was born. It's not clear he was even a US citizen at the time of his birth, so he certainly is not natural born. If McCain can't see the virtue is making the POTUS available only to people born on US soil to citizen parents then McCain is not doing the country a good service. He harmed the Constitution by not stepping aside. McCain supporters just don't want to swallow that but it's true. Kansas was a territory of the US and so could be considered US soil. McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Panama - clearly not US soil.]
December 23, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Leo,
I know you’re disappointed about the outcome of your SCOTUS case — as are many of us — but I hope you will keep commenting on what is happening not only in other legal cases but on presidential events in general. I find your insights interesting and provacative…You are too bright to sit on the sidelines and watch…Get back in the game and let us know what you are thinking!
Respectfully,
M
December 23, 2008 at 10:56 PM
A New Constitutional Amendment:
Supporting Article II, Section 1
Over the course of the 2008 presidential cycle BasicsProject.org researchers came to the startling conclusion that while the prerequisites for holding the office of President of the United States are set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution there is no mechanism for enforcing or verifying a candidate’s satisfaction of those requirements.
Article II, Section 1 specifically 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.”
Yet, nowhere in the US Constitution is there authorization for a mechanism to assure that Article II, Section 1 is satisfied; there is no constitutional mechanism in place — either in the original document of in any of the amendments — that requires a candidate for the office of President of the United States to file documents proving his eligibility to hold office.
In light of this startling revelation, BasicsProject.org has set in motion an initiative to put into place, through the power of a Constitutional Amendment, a mechanism that would require candidates for the offices of the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States to present an original, first-source, vaulted birth certificate to the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate no later that forty-eight (48) hours after receiving his political party’s nomination.
Further, this Constitutional Amendment would require said candidates to provide all military, scholastic, financial, criminal records in total, along with relevant medical records, to an open source archive to be certified by the Library of Congress and maintained by the National Archive.
This endeavor will not be achieved easily and it will not be done without financial sacrifice for the effort. It will be met with the full resistance of the political establishment, both in the elected class and from those ensconced in inside-the-beltway institutionalism. But true patriots, true Americans, those who care about passing the promise of liberty and freedom — the promise of America — to their children and their children’s children understand that it is our duty to protect the Charters of Freedom — The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and The Bill of Rights — from nefarious forces.
Patriots! A call to arms!
December 23, 2008 at 11:23 PM
anyone ever hear of this?
Missing 13th Amendment
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html
December 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Leo,
Did you file your amicus brief for Berg’s case? I didn’t see it on the docket. Would the amicus brief make it easier for the Court to revisit your argument if it reviews Berg’s case?
I know that his case is weak and you are disgusted with the Court, but the presence of Berg’s case is a reminder in the Government that there are questions. Sometimes repetition gets the job done. I have to tell my husband something three times before it sinks in!
December 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Blogtext will never censor your blog. Blogtext might have been down for a period of time due to traffic. However we will never censor any blog unless it is related to pornography. Blogtext was not designed for a porn housing.
I hope that the natural born citizen continues to spread his information. Its about freedom its about justic, its about getting america back on track and away from the crooks who have been in charge for some time.
[Ed. Thanks for posting this. I never said blogtext was the problem. I believe the site was hit by villains.]
December 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
As I see it there is only one way to attempt to solve this problem, everyone who really cares, WILL write a brief letter to John Roberts, Chief Justice, and remnd him of his CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY and ask him if he is willing to avoid the warnings that we will have informed him of his duty and the fact that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS as well as writing to each and every member of Congress, not just your representative….if our outrage is overwhelming, then they will listen, but if we do not engage our fellow citizens to help, then we will get what they want! Is it any wonder they spend our money like it comes from the fountain of youth???
December 24, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Leo,
What can you tell us about the 13th Amendment to the Constitution?
I was reading a post about the amendment and surprised to see it is still in effect, yet unpublished in the current Constitution.
Here is the link and I wonder if there is a way we can get this placed back in publication?
http://www.thecommentary.net/the-missing-13th-ammendment/
If you really are concerned for the Constitution, this amendment may support your case or not?
Obama accepting honors from Kenya and other countries, along with being a lawyer might be a violation of the thirteenth amendment?
Hopefully you will rejoin the fight and help save our Nation in spite of your treatment by the high (sic) court.
December 24, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.
December 24, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Hi Leo,
Merry Christmas!
Goat
December 24, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the first Congress, a Congress dominated by the Founding Fathers. This act declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”
[Ed. You fail to mention that five years later, in 1795, Congress specifically repealed the words "natural born" form this law.]
This usage suggests that the Founding Fathers used the expression “natural born” so that children born overseas to American citizens would not have to be naturalized. This interpretation was clearly restated by a Cabinet Committee in 1940, which declared that “persons who acquired United States citizenship at birth abroad had never been regarded as naturalized.”
December 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM
They are out of control.SCOTUS believes themselves above the Constitution.The people are viewed as enemies of the State,and a nuisance.We blindly accept the court as lifelong, but Article III of the Constitution says nothing about “lifetime appointments.” It provides that justices (and judges on the lower federal courts) “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”; its purpose is to isolate justices from political pressures.The erosion started with Lincoln and ended with FDR.But not being viligant,and battling the destruction of the Constitution has allowed a new one to replace it along with a new bill of rights as of 1946.Allowing the UN on American soil further pushed us towards serfdom by the traitors telling the sheeple that traties do not override the Constitution.Lately it is the ICC that grabs people from their homeland for prosecution abroad.Since it hasn’t happened here,we are led to believe it doesn’t exist.The USA was split into ten regions decades ago.The world is plit into ten regions as well.We do have a World Constitution and World Criminal Court.and a One World Religion all in place,awaiting the final destruction of global finances and the USA brought down to 3rd world status.The Illuminati is behind in their target date,but are a patient lot.And it looks as if they are going for the finish line in the near future.A NWO is nigh.Lord help us!
December 25, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Hiya!
I was browsing through http://www.theobamafile.com/ website and found a point about NBC-hood highlighted.
It’s the Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) case where the opinion of the SC was grandly stated in exacting detail what is and is not NBC & naturalization citizenship.
Just thought I would bring this up if no one else had.
December 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Private Message
Leo,
I have not been able to keep up with the discussion here but I just did a search and found 305 articles in law review journals that discuss natural born citizen etc, and several discusses presidential eligibility directly or are the main subject, referencing Wong Kim Ark, etc. I’ve been culling through them and can post them for consumption on a web site if you think it’s worthwhile. They are interesting to read. By the way, the book is LAW OF NATIONS (singular on ‘law’).
You’ve started – or have cultivated – quite a ‘movement’ here….
Merry Christmas!
December 25, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Kris on plainsradio also mentioned a very important fact. The 20th amendment prevents judicial intervention during the political appointment, i.e., during the time that the electoral college and Congress have to act. Therefore the appropriate time to act is after January 8th.
See my write-up on my blog
December 25, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I believe that Mr. Donofrio has hit upon something important. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett supports the Vattel interpretation of the phrase “natural born citizen” in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. If these two citations could be included in pending and future cases the chances of success would be improved.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite in the decision dated March 29, 1875, wrote:
“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.” (88 U.S. 162)
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray in a decision dated March 28, 1898, re-affirmed the Minor v. Happersett interpretation:
“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.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.” (169 U.S. 649)
December 25, 2008 at 11:10 PM
The natural-born argument misses the mark for one fundamental reason.
The Constitution proclaims that the President of the “United States” of America must be natural-born. However, on May 31, 1913 the ratified 17th Amendment up-ended the government of the United States, which no longer exists. Formerly, the states appointed their U.S. Senators that represented them in Washington and thereby were an integral part of the national government where the states possessed suffrage.
The 17th Amendment supplanted our former republic, which was the form of government set forth by the Constitution, with a democracy. Now, we have a Federal Government and 50 separate state governments that no longer have a voice in the national government. Therefore, the states united into one cohesive government no longer exists.
The Constitution no where prohibits Barack Obama from becoming President of the Federal Government that now exists.
A republic is a diverse array of constituencies, whereas a democracy imparts a homogeneous constituency. Originally, U.S. Senators, who were appointed and dismissed by their respective state legislatures, represented the states, whereas
the people were represented in the House. Diverse constituencies of several states coupled with the constituency of the people: i.e., a republic. Now that the Senate and House are elected by the same homogeneous constituency – i.e., the
people – we have become a democracy. Therefore, a Federal
Government supplanted the government of the United States.
The solution: Rescind the 17th Amendment and restore the
republic.
December 26, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Its clear that Obama or McCain do not meet the requirement of the Constitution of the States to be Commander and Chief/ President. Unfortunately Our Government employees don’t want to follow the Constitution any more. They rather turn a blind eye then uphold the Oath that they all swore to in upholding the Constitution. As an American I am ashamed. I am sorry to my forefathers who gave their life for the Constitution Of The United States Of America, For Me and Every American. It was the Blue Print of this Nation for over 200 years and now its falling to the ways side just like our Values and our Country.
To many Americans are asleep and have no idea what is happening, But with out their help you will lose your rights that our Forefathers fought for.
December 26, 2008 at 6:04 PM
[b]Ron Paul – Exposed:[/b]
I had the opportunity to speak directly with Ron Paul, earlier today. It is with a heavy heart that I must report this… The conversation was not a good one. I brought up the Constitution, and the ‘natural born’ issue, and then asked him point blank if he (as a congressman) would be willing to submit (or at least support) an objection to the electoral vote certification on Jan 8th. He said, “if I did that I’d be laughed out of congress. No one is going to do that. There is no Constitutional law that actually defines ‘natural born’, so the argument could go on forever with thousands of different interpretations. The consenses is that he is a US citizen, and therefor eligible.” He also said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I understand your concern, but nobody cares. ‘They’ are willing to let Obama take office, knowing full well he may not be qualified. The fact that he supposedly was born in Hawaii is all that matters.” I brought up the Hawaiian practices of registering the birth of children to those who may not have been born in Hawaii (from 1911 to 1972), and he said (again, paraphrasing) “If that can be proven, then we have a case of fraud, which must be looked at, but in all seriousness, it will never get that far.” So… as far as him helping us on anything, he is not willing at this point. Essentially, he is “going with the flow”, with no desire to be a patriot. All of congress is only concerned with “following the herd”. He also said, “Even if it was proven 110% that Obama is ineligible, it wouldn’t make a difference.” Nobody wants to step up, it seems. I was almost in tears as we hung up. I am deeply disturbed about this. It seems our only hope now lies in the outcome of the pending lawsuits… Stephen Pidgeon, and Dr Orly are our best shots. I think after speaking with Congressman Paul, we are barking up the wrong tree, regarding Congressional objections to the electoral vote count. I pray to GOD I’m wrong, and will continue the good fight, none-the-less.
Just wanted to get the word out.
[Ed. Thanks for posting this. I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary. He was the first person I called about my case. I've lost all faith in Ron Paul. Just look at his answers to you. Those are not the words of a patriot. He's basically saying, "Since everybody else is cool with it, then I might as well be cool with it too. " Don't ruffle the feathers of the cult, Ron. Play it safe. They need people to bring their stench public. They like that. You're a good boy, Ron.]
December 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM
berg has two dates in supreme court jan 9 and jan 16 the the 9th is for writ and the 16th is for stay they are in play in that order for a reason it seems .
the harm is done after the votes are counted by the senate and congress if they don’t stop it (election ). now here the case tell him to bring birth certif.(CHECK) IF YOU DON’T by the 16 (CHECKMATE) WE STAY THE VOTES UNTIL YOU DO AND BRING ALL YOUR OTHER SEALED RECORDS AT THE SAMETIME….. TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP…JUST A THOUGHT
December 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Leo,
Please read, @ reply so important to .Match WEAPONs VS WEAPONS. : Observe How ORGANIZED the. DNC: (Dammed Near Communist). Were to Cover-up the “British Alien”. Dirty BrainWashing, of voters AND Courts ;
1). Leo, is the Truth that all of us of the “Resistance By Truth ” are the real WUSSY,S:
A) we are .0001 % Organized Compared to the “Sorros’s” and Corrupt “POWERS that think they Be”. !But we the “RBT” Greatly And Exponently Out Number by Millions the only apparent 4 or 5 thousand people who stradigize this PuBLic BRain Washing.
3). Are We the real WussyS when our Resistance is so short- lived, by only a few Weeks, almost like Spitng in the Wind, vs these Organized Brain Washing Machines.
4). We are the Wussys, vs the Intimidation Of. AntiConstitutionalist which scared away all 50 Secretaries. Of States?
5). Why do we not seek the Impeachment of all 5o Secretaries OF State for voided duties.?
6). Why do we not file 2500 Grass Roots LawSuits in Large Counties in All 50 States vs Election Fraud of DNC @ RNC , 50 .Miillion Angry Americans.: 2500. Pro SE Motions is only .0005 % of those Angry Americans
6). Can the Media Ignor such a large force of legal challenges ?
7). Can obama defend 2500 lawsuits before Jan 20?
8 ) Are we the real Wussys because we do not believe in defending our Constitution as much as much as Obamaites etc, believe in tearing it down?
[Ed. I can't argue with you on this.]
December 27, 2008 at 10:07 PM
If Wong Kim Ark was a citizen because he was born in the United States and lived in the United States except for two short visits to China, would he be considered a “native born” citizen? Apparently he wasn’t formally naturalized. What class of citizenship did he hold?
Do we have (or have ever had) three classes of citizenship?
1 natural born
2 native born
3 naturalized
Is there any legal basis for three classes of citizenship?
[Ed. He would be "native born".]
December 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM
I read an interesting approach to the question of Mr. O’s citizenship with both strong and weak definitions of natural born citizen
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/natural_born_pickle.html
(I noticed a few minor incorrect statements that don’t invalidate the general approach.)
Your case, Leo was the strongest definition, the definition that the framers intended and that was confirmed by the author of the XIV amendment.
Berg is attacking the weakest definition, the federal law that allows one US citizen parent of a child born aboard to transfer natural born citizenship.
The citizenship status granted to United States citizens born to two US parents abroad vary from natural born to naturalized (according to posts I have read). For the weakest definition, couldn’t babies conceived in foreign wars by United States servicemen and foreign women could be considered natural born US citizens at birth?
Why don’t we have consistent legal definitions of citizenship status and the consistent application of the same? This inconsistent approach to citizenship is crazy and confusing. This question goes beyond Mr. O’s eligibility to be President. The definitions of natural born and naturalized and any other classes of citizenship need to to clarified.
Where is the Court? Congress needs to get busy on this too.
[Ed. Where is the court, indeed. They are busy taking your private property in cases like Kelo. I have no respect for SCOTUS. Just another power drunk institution of the cult.]
December 28, 2008 at 1:23 AM
If you count yourself a Christian you should consult Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and reconsider the posting of that image—particularly since, you being an officer of the court, they are in authority over you.
[Ed. Wussy is slang for wimp. They wimped out. I may be an officer of the court but I also have free speech rights (for now at least, don't expect to have them for much longer though). Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the elite politicos of his day. I am doing the same. ]
December 28, 2008 at 11:16 AM
The big question now is why would supreme justice roberts risk his reputation and go down in history as a baffoon, by giving the oath to barry soetoro? My answer now, is that the conferences scheduled for January 9 and 16 will turn into a later “hearing” and thus provide cover for the January 20 swearing in. Leo, you laid the groundwork and planted the seeds for this to be moved forward, congratulations!
December 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM
The following was sent to my Senators and Congressman:
Obama is not a natural born citizen, and therefore is not qualified to be President of the United States of America.
You may ask where my proof is. The proof is readily available from the records and information provided by Obama, he has stated that his Father was a British citizen when he (Obama) was born, and thus Obama was born with British citizenship. This fact of birth disqualifies Obama by the intent and language of the Constitution.
There are over twenty lawsuits in various stages of progression attempting to solve this issue, and without exception they have thus far been held back upon the issue of standing.
The constitution makes it very clear that the responsibility for insuring that this requirement is met, is placed upon the shoulders of the members of Congress (both houses). The constitution instructs that after the electoral vote, Congress must validate the qualifications of the elected persons, if they fail to qualify; they cannot and must not be affirmed or allowed to be sworn in as President or Vice-President.
As a member of Congress, you have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. I expect you to think long and hard about your responsibility in this matter, and when appropriate to stand up to defend the Constitution and the People of this great country.
Gerald K. Pace
December 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Natural Born is a requirement, not a suggestion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymeQ3ZoMuhc
Leo: Would you agree with the statement below? I’m obviously not a legal mind, but would value your opinion.
The military, if Obama is sworn in, will NOT have to obey him, and in fact will have to disregard all orders.
[Ed. This is the issue my law suit tried to stop form coming into play. There is a question, but I can't answer it. By punting, SCOTUS has basically held that one can be born a dual citizen and still be a natural born citizen. They haven't directly stated it, but in not saying anything and having had my cas eand Cort's on their desks in full conference, they've certainly made it appear as if that's the case. They didn't have the stuff to answer these law suits. Think about it. What could a strinct constructionist like Scalia say about "natural born citizen"? How could he accept Obama, a dual national at birth, as a nbc and face his Federalist buddies with a straight face? It's impossible. Same for Roberts. But I'm most dissapointed that Clarence Thomas didn't issue a dissent. I thought he had the right stuff. I was wrong.]
Obama is not, can not, nor ever be considered a “Natural Born” citizen. Hence he would not legally be President.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
The military would have a duty and obligation to remove him from office [with force if neccessary] and restore order and the law.
I wonder how many in the military are aware of the questions concerning BO and his Kenyan & Indonesian background &/or dual citizenship? The DNC, RNC, SCOTUS, POTUS, VPOTUS should just show the American people that the Constitution is still the backbone of our laws and have the ethics to buck up and take care of this situation. This has gone on long enough, and BO should show the voters some ethics also and step down peacefully. If he takes office, wouldn’t this amount to treason on many levels? The people who voted for him may not have done so if he had been vetted properly instead based on “his” word. I’m worried as hell how this known lie to the American people will affect us gravely in the very near future and can easily domino into disaster for us all.
**Fyi..Due to your research, I realized I’m not a Natural Born citizen either. Native born, yes, but I’ll never be Natural Born according to the Constitution. I can handle it just fine. I just wish Mr. Obama or Dunham, or Soetero, or whatever other alias he’s had would drop his ego a notch or two and handle it properly also?
Thank you so much for your time, professional criticism & very well researched opinions. You and Cort are truly Patriots.
My sincere regards.
December 29, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I have not yet found the following case in its entirety, but it looks of interest:
If after marriage the parties reside in the Indian -country, the husband subjecting himself to the Indian laws, it seems to be the general rule that in such case the husband may become an adopted Indian, and, of course, under these circumstances, the children will be Indians, not citizens. (See United States v. Rogers, and cases cited, infra.) If. however, the wife severs her tribal relations and lives with her husband in a civilized community, adopting civilized habits of life, the children of such a marriage should, under the usual rules, be citizens, not Indians.
The case cited is from 1846, and would hold sway, unless superseded, in 1860.
Similarly:
“In the case of United States v. Sanders, 1847, Hemp., 483, 485, the defendant, a Cherokee Indian, was indicted for the murder of a white boy. The evidence fully established a wanton and unprovoked murder. The prisoner, however, contended that the mother of the boy was an Indian woman, and the evidence seemed to support him, although it did not appear whether or not she was an Indian of full blood. The defense was that the offense charged in the indictment was committed by one Indian against another, and that consequently the offense was not punishable by a Federal court, the intercourse act of 1834 providing that ” for offenses between Indians the Indian courts should administer the punishment.” In discussing whether or not the person killed was an Indian, the court said:
“That act does not define an Indian, but uses a general term without embracing or excluding any particular class of persons. On consultation with my brother judge, we concur in laying down this rule as the safest—that the child must follow the condition of the mother. If the mother is an Indian woman her offspring must be considered Indians within the meaning of the proviso alluded to, whether the father be a white man or Indian. And so. on the other hand, (he child of a white woman by an Indian father would, for all the purposes of that act, be deemed of the white race, the condition of the mother, and not the quantum of Indian blood in the veins, determining the condition of the offspring.”
December 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM
OBAMA MUST STEP DOWN ON JANUARY 8, 2009
When the Senate meets on January 8, 2009 to talk about the results of the Electoral College vote, Mr. Obama will have to step down as he does NOT meet the criteria for being POTUS via the Constitution and Court cases throughout the years which say that only a “natural born citizen” can be POTUS. Even Mr. Obama agrees with this because he co-sponsored and signed Senate Resolution 511 which is the following:
SENATE RESOLUTION 511
Whereas the Constitution of the USA states the qualifications of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved,
That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II,Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
_________________________________________
“Born to American citizens (mother and father)”.
This Senate Resolution, unanimously (including Mr. Obama) adopted, declares that “natural born” means having two American citizen parents.
This, therefore, disqualifies Mr. Obama since his father was NOT an American but was a British citizen.
The Senate must apply the same standard to all Presidential Candidates.
December 29, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Why hasn’t the same thing been done for Obama that was done for McCain? See http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html.
From the URL above:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
—
Right there we have language that would tend to indicate that both parents must be citizens.
The bottom line of all this appears to be that the politicians can actually do whatever they want and, in fact, our Constitution offers us no protection at all. None. Zip.
Unless we can affect the political process NOW and stop the certification of the vote January 8, we will have to resort to filing lawsuits by people who refuse to carry out orders from a person they deem to be unqualified constitutionally to hold the office of president.
So, the politicians and the judiciary wants the political process to take its course. OK. We will be patient. But then, oh my, I think it’s going to get very nasty. There are evidently some folks who are not feeling very diplomatic about this situation and there is no telling what some of them might do.
This is depressing. I cannot grasp that no senator or congressperson cares about this issue. I just cannot. I refuse to believe that. I’ve heard that some people may actually fear for their lives and that’s why they’re remaining silent. We need to think about that possibility.
December 29, 2008 at 10:43 PM
And why would a federal judge rule on the *merits* of the case while at the same time ruling that the plaintiff had no standing?
http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1354301&nid=213
September 17, 2008 – 11:55pm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit seeking to remove John McCain from the California ballot because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled late Tuesday that the law at the time of McCain’s birth automatically granted citizenship to offspring of U.S. citizens.
McCain’s parents were both citizens when McCain was born Aug. 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory where his father was stationed with the U.S. Navy.
Alsup said Congress passed a law the following year specifically to “remove any doubt as to persons in Sen. McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone,” thus “retroactively rendering Sen. McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”
[Ed. And here we have an example of a Federal Judge getting the law totally wrong. The law which made McCain a "citizen" did not say he was a "natural born citizen". But more interesting is the fact that the statute the federal Judge referred to wasn't enacted until a year or so AFTER McCain was born... so at the time of his birth the statute didn't exist, so McCain wasn't even a "citizen" at the time of his birth so how the hell could he be a natural born citizen? Does the word "born" mean anything to these people? This is why SCOTUS punted - imagine them trying to write an opinion on this issue and make it stick. I know we've seen their voodoo in Kelo and other cases, but they don't have the power to win this one with words so they just ran away... and in doing so they provided cover for the overlords.]
The Constitution requires that only “natural born” citizens hold the presidency, a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate.
The judge also said the plaintiff, Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party, had no standing to file the lawsuit because he is not a candidate for president.
McCain said last February that the issue was put to rest 44 years ago when Republican Barry Goldwater sought the presidency. Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory.
December 29, 2008 at 11:34 PM
This is a question for Rob S.
How do you know the Justices have a copy of Obama’s “original” birth certificate that was filed by his mother with his passport application in 1962.
Thanks
December 30, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–
1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.
2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.
3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.
4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.
5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.
6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.
7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.
December 31, 2008 at 2:25 AM
What if Hawaii was never legitimally a state?
http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2008/12/state-of-hawaiis-merits-brief-in-ceded-lands-case.html
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
January 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama, not being an Article II “natural born citizen”, fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.
January 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Obama probably was mistaken about his being an English citizen at birth.
[Ed. the marriage doesn't determine British Citizenship, it's the blood of the father.]
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
British Nationality Act, 1948
1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.
Part III
Supplemental.
32. Interpretation.
32.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively ascribed to them, that is to say:—
(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.
*******
Even if we grant that there was a marriage between Obama, Sr. and Dunham, it is on record that he was already married in Kenya. While in Kenya, multiple marriages were still extant, in British law, the children of a second “marriage” were, by legal precedent, not considered legitimate.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9403E2D71230E533A25752C1A9679C94679FD7CF
with the remainder of the article here.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9403E2D71230E533A25752C1A9679C94679FD7CF for example.
“Their mother thereupon applied to the court for their custody, but the court refused the request upon the ground that nothwithstanding their father’s statutory declaration as to their legitimacy, they were really illegitimate, the marriage of their parents being invalid and it being in the interests of the chidren themselves that they should be brought up under the provisions established by their father’s testamentary directions.”
The article goes on to discuss two cases upon which this decision was made, one from a Mormon marriage and the other a Parsee marriage in India.
(For Colorado – note that this article is from January 11, 1886, Wednesday Page 4 – but that if you put a topic into the NY Times search engine, it pulls up old issues. They don’t just dig up whatever is pertinent to the current issues – all old issues are now searchable.)
The research in Polygamy, Bigamy and Human Rights Law (2001), by Samuel Chapman:
http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/PBHRText.pdf is very interesting.
Chapter 4 in that book discusses the legal issues behind an English citizen’s polygamous marriage, including whether a polygamous marriage would have been accepted in the country in which it was performed.
“In the area of Private International Law the courts generally
recognise marriages subject to a “dual domicile” test. This is the
approach favoured by the Law Commission, many writers and most
court decisions. This means that marriages will be recognised if the marriage ceremony was legally capable of forming a marriage where it took place (the lex loci celebrationis) and if the parties to the marriage were free and able to marry according to the law of their domicile (lex domicili).”
“Private International Law” is the express standard of current English law with regard to polygamous marriages
This is all moot, because it post-dates Obama, Sr.’s purported marriage to Dunham, but it is interesting, still.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1973/cukpga_19730018_en_2#pt1-pb2-l1g14
Marriages governed by foreign law or celebrated abroad under English law
(1)Where, apart from this Act, any matter affecting the validity of a marriage would fall to be determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country outside England and Wales, nothing in section 11, 12 or 13(1) above shall—
(a)preclude the determination of that matter as aforesaid; or
(b)require the application to the marriage of the grounds or bar there mentioned except so far as applicable in accordance with those rules.
“In Srinivasan v Srinivasan [1946] P 67 the court recognised the first marriage abroad in order to invalidate the second marriage in England, as otherwise the man would be living with his lawful wife in each country and this would encourage polygamy and not frown on it.”
The author discusses the earlier case of Hyde v. Hyde, mentioned in the NY Times article, in which a Mormon marriage of English citizens (by Brigham Young, himself) was, in essence, deemed no marriage at all because even though neither party had a second spouse, they could have!
Hyde v. Hyde was overturned, but not until 1971.
*******
Whether Barack Obama, Sr., held a marriage ceremony with Stanley Ann Dunham (which is in doubt) or he did not, Barack Obama, Jr., was illegitimate, and as such did not receive English citizenship at birth.
January 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Dear Leo,
So are we all done now? Can’t you go in with a suit delineating all the findings that you have outlined above, including how in Wong Kim Ark, “the Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a ” natural born citizen” and request that they finally make that determination one way or the other?
January 2, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Ed Hale is talking about wanting to hire you. He says he has evidence Barack Obama was born in Kenya. You can hear a repeat later tonight.
We need you back. —- URGENT!
January 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Leo,
Ed Hale on Plains Radio is asking for you to call him.
January 2, 2009 at 9:25 PM
ED Hale had located the BC, BO II born in Kenya. Doc. will be in his hands shortly, copies have been sent to quite a few individuals to make sure it doesn’t disappear. He also obtained divorce docs. of BO Sr. and Stanley Ann
it has been posted on Plains radio. Previously, one of the listeners posted it online at this link http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4IWQVQFE
ED would like Leo to call him, he is going to need an atty. This is going to be the mother of all battles. Everyone wants Leo to fight this fight because he is the best legal mind.
January 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM
PS The docs Ed received re: BO’s health, were fake but Ed didn’t know it, and as soon as it was ascertained that it was fake he took it off the site ,and retracted his statements. He just jumped the gun on that one but not with the divorce docs and not the BC.
The request that you call him is from Ed, not from me.
January 2, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Leo &/or Cort:
Please call Ed, or Steve Pigeon asap. New information has surfaced to support both lawsuits. I think it’s possible that you would at least be interested in this info. It proves you had it right all along. I know you want to be through, but it’s not through without your knowledge of this paperwork. It’s only fair that you and Cort get some credit for your had work, and unending dedication to the true citizens of this great nation. Maybe for the first time in months, we call all sleep and feel like we have our country back from a Usurp. Please Leo. at least look at it.
Tru Regards to a True Patriot who never plays the last card until he knows hand.
January 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Ed from plainsradio.com is trying to get ahold of Leo to help with revealing the truth.
January 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM
plainsradio has obama sr divorce papers. Monday jan 5, supposed to access obama jr birth certificate at port of entry with FOIA. The GLOBE to print major obama article Jan 5th week, National Enquirer printed john edwards story. This ball is rolling!
January 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM
There is nothing within legality that can be done. All that is left is to prepare for the worst.
January 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Probably pissing into the wind, but I’ll give it a shot anyway. If my senators and representatves vote to authorize the installation of BHO as President, who is not constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, would I have the right to sue them for violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution? I know they have certain protections under the Constitution, but I believe the installation of BHO would be a violaion of that oath and a criminal act. Fifty lawsuits against the Congressional members of each state?
You have my email if you choose to answer.
BTW, whether you answer my query or not, I sincerely wish you a happy and prosperous New Year and more than your fair share of royal flushes.
January 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Speaking of Harry Reid, Senate Democrats and Constitutional qualifications, seems there are more immediate issues than Burris, namely BHO himself (WHY NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS?) –
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) — fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.
January 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Leo.
An interesting read that was written back on December 8th. A little tough for me to get through but written by a Harvard Law Attorney and Constitutional lawyer….don’t know much about him but he seems to think this will all have to at least eventually be considered and that litigants will have standing once Obama takes office.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm
Rob
January 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM
CHALLENGE (with answer), CAN ANYONE PROVE THIS WRONG?:–
1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.
2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.
3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.
4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.
5. Since the fact of BHO’s dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.
6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.
7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.
ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE
IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) — fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.
(The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)
January 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Signatures on Soetoro and Obama divorce papers don’t match original signatures of Ann Dunham circa high school days. All writing samples with source links.
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/Annwriting1.htm
January 5, 2009 at 8:55 PM
For what its worth, Joe ix-Pack has written a second letter to America urging voters to tell their congressmen to bring up the “natural born citizen” issue on January 8th (electoral certification).
http://www.JoeSixPack.me
January 6, 2009 at 4:36 AM
A lawyer should look into this:
Obama’s British Nationality Act 1948
January 6, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Leo,
There have been rumors that you are working for Obama, and your whole case was a diversion to keep us off the trail of Obama’s fraud.
You should post new Blog to make the rumors go away.
God Bless You Friend
[ed. That's hilarious. Just how I kept people's attention off of Obama while my case was covered in depth on MSNBC, CNN, FOX and ABC news must be some kind of miracle. Nobody was talking about the British Nationality Act of 1948 until my law suit came along. Suddenly it was a whole new ball game and people were focused on the citizen status Obama (and McCain) "at the time of birth". That was my contribution and it was the most logical and straightforward approach to the Article 2 Section 1 issue. It was hidden in plains site at the bottom of Obama's COLB page at "Fight The Smears". It was the simplicity of that argument which caught fire because it made sense and it still makes sense.
But some people need ratings so they sacrifice the truth for sensationalism and they do it over and over. They put their own needs before the truth. And that's very sad.]
January 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM
This Vietnam Vet says it all; audio link:–
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=691
January 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM
JUST ONE DAY BEFORE CONGRESS VOTES ON ELECTORAL ‘VOTE’ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE DR. ORLY’S LIGHTFOOT CASE!
MESSAGE — NOW RENEWED AS AN ALERT — TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) — fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice (especially for the Democrats) — IN WHAT WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HISTORIC CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR — should seem obvious.
*SPECIAL AUDIO LINK MESSAGE TO JOHN MCCAIN:
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=691
January 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Thinking of you Leo and hope all is ok.
Tex-
January 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Electoral Votes were just counted and announced by Cheney.
I watched it on C-SPAN.
NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact I didn’t hear Cheney even ASK if there were any objections.
This IS the Great Depression!!!!!!!!!
We’re SCREWED!
January 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I see that the SCOTUS has referred the Lightfoot v Bowen case to the Jan. 23 conference. This is the case by the Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate to challenge Obama’s qualifications, questioning both where he was born and whether his non US citizen father disqualifies him. It also raises an issue of Indonesian citizenship.
Here is what is interesting to me.
Leo’s case was denied by Souter, but referred to conference by Thomas. Wrotnowski’s case was denied by Ginsburg, but referred to conference by Scalia. Berg’s case was denied by both Kennedy and Souter, but was referred to conference by Scalia. Lightfoot’s case was denied by Kennedy, but referred to conference by Roberts.
So we know that Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts are at least somewhat favorably disposed to consider the issue of Obama’s citizenship status. So when the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases got to conference, where was Alito, a Justice one would expect to follow the Constitution. One would expect these four Justices at least to consider this a major issue. Was there some technicality in these cases that would give the five “make it up as you go” justices a way to justify voting for Obama were the Court to take one of these cases?
It might be easy to secretly vote in conference to not take a case, but if a case is accepted then a Justice might think twice about flying in the face of the Constitution, so even though we know Ginsberg, Souter and Kennedy have rejected all four of these cases, we do not know that they would have to gall to write a clearly bad opinions. Public pressure comes into play, and you can bet that there would be plenty of friends of the court briefs.
I wonder if the four conservative Justices were just waiting till after Obama is sworn in to accept a case. (Lightfoot would certainly be better than Berg.) Once Obama is sworn in, would not Biden become President were the Court to rule Obama ineligible? Nobody could accuse them of playing politics since a Democrat would still be President.
If the case were accepted, then I imagine it would be in the news hourly, and the public would get an education on “natural born citizen”. Hopefully this would create a situation where the public would be offended by a bad court decision.
I am interested to hear what Leo thinks about why the Court keeps sending cases to conference if the prior cases in conference just get denied. What would be the point if they know they don’t have the votes? Is it possible that the four conservative Justices actually have a plan, or are they just slow learners?
January 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM
I feel like Roddy Piper in the Movie THEY LIVE.
January 9, 2009 at 4:36 AM
[...] Here is a link to the post: Natural Born Citizen [...]
January 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Obama can’t be POTUS.
Since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress, rendering moot both the Berg and Lightfoot cases, Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.
Checkmate! (WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA?)
January 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
January 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM
The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).
While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.
Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.
Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.
January 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM
(OT-sorry)
Weblog Awards 2008:
It’s the PUMA Blogs vs. the OBOT blogs. And PUMAs need your help!!
It takes only a minute. It’s easy!
Vote Here:
http://pumaparty.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6037
Thank you so much!
Have a wonderful day!
January 15, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Check This Out Leo
archive in
1/15/09 Check Mate?
To: Drew68
My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for over 50 years. He was top in his class and clerked for the federal court. When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter, paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper. He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which way…..He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open it when the decision was published……..He was 100% correct. He thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss this case is delusional. He is much more qualified to judge the case then you are.
The Supreme Court had to wait until now for Berg to have standing. There is no precedence for this case. It is a historical decision and they will do everything they can to get it right. The constitution does not establish who vets the candidate. Part of their decision will determine who, or what will be held responsible in the future, if not now. It could destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an intentional fraud. If Obama does not provide the documentation they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.
Here’s another view of this chess game. It explains how the SCOTUS has Obama in Check Mate.
Both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases said the burden lays with the Secretary of State (SoS) not doing their job. There is no law that states that it IS their job. So, the SoS would win the case. In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to VET the candidate. If it wasn’t the SoS of each state, they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold Obama accountable. The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense. You will notice that neither cases were completely released but pending. They can be revisited and opinions may be written on them when a final release is given. Berg’s case, on the other hand, places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC. Berg, however, did not have standing until Congress certified the electoral votes to present his case. He now has standing, as do Keyes and the other California cases.
Writer unknown . . .
http://www.theobamafile.com/obamalatest.htm
LEO COME BACK AND SAY HI WE MISS YOU!!!
January 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM
If the inauguration actually takes place and the SCOTUS give no indication that they are taking any of the Obama cases, I am going to do the following:
I am working with a design sign company to make me a large outdoor banner, 3′x10′ (or larger) that has DAY OF INFAMY with the date of JAN. 20, 2009 below it and between two 2′ high graphics. The graphic on the left will be an upside-down American flag (signal of distress) and the graphic on the right will be of a muscled arm with a hammer and sickle tattoo with a dagger in its hand thrust into the heart of the U.s. Constitution. And yes, there will be blood dripping from our Constitution.
As has been said, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. I live on 5 acres on a road that is heavily traveled by military members on their way to work at Schriever AFB, CO. The military may be our last hope.
Once my banner is up (unless the SCOTUS acts by Jan. 20) I will contact our local media, as well as send a copy of the banner far and wide to encourage others to exercise their 1st Amendment Right loudly and vociferously also!
I’m really angry and no one–NO ONE–is going to intimidate me to shut up and not fight back. I am ready to die to defend the Constitution; I mean that, because life would not be worth living in a world run by the Obamaites. As a Federal employee, I took an oath and swore to “uphold and defend the Constitution”. Even though I am now retired, I never “unswore” that oath and my pension is being funded out of taxpayer monies. So I will keep my oath in whatever way God empowers me to do so.
January 15, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Yankee White
From Wikipedia
For the NCIS episode, see Yankee White (NCIS).
Yankee White is a security clearance given in the United States for personnel working with the President. Obtaining such clearance requires, in part, a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) by the Department of Defense. Contrary to popular lore, the Yankee White clearance given to personnel who work directly with the President is not a classification, but rather a type of background check.
Individuals having Yankee White clearances undergo extensive background investigation. Yankee White cleared personnel are granted access to any information for which they have a need-to-know, regardless of which organization classified it or at what level. The Yankee White clearance includes a requirement for absolute absence of any foreign influence on the individual. This means they must be a citizen of the United States, and not have traveled (save while in government employ and at the instructions of the United States) to countries that are considered to be unfriendly to the United States.[1]
January 15, 2009 at 11:24 PM
The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.
January 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Please,keep heart Mr. Donofio.It is not over.Might I bring an interesting fact to your attention.SCOTUS denied your,and Mr Wrotnowski’s STAY only.Your cases still are alive in SCOTUS.So far as legality,NO law has been broken yet.The EC vote is no breach of law,but required.The Congressional cert is only a certification of the EC vote.Constitutional law WILL be broken on Jan.20,2009.Only then can and will SCOTUS act and be within the law.
January 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM
CHALLENGE TO ANY LAWYER, INCLUDING ANY JUDGE, IN AMERICA (OR ANYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER):
READ (CAREFULLY) THE ANDERSON AMICUS BRIEF — NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — AND STATE A BASIS FOR BHO TO BE SWORN IN AS POTUS ON 1/20/09?
Link at:
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf
or at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145354/posts
January 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.
January 19, 2009 at 10:42 PM
The Constitution, art. I sec. I, proclaims the President must be a “HE”. Again, sec. 6 cites “HIS” when referring to the President. Therefore, it becomes clear that the President must be a “HE”. The Supreme Court has many times said that every word in the Constitution has profound significance, and no word can ever be ignored.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton was not qualified for the Office of President.
John McCain and Barack Obama were both born in jurisdictions outside the United States. Neither of them meet the strict requirement of “natural-born” to qualify for the Office of President.
Result: The three front-runners for President all had questionable qualifications.
January 27, 2009 at 6:02 PM
How come my comment in “WUSSY” is still hung up in moderation?
[Ed. I have almost 200 comments in back log at all times. The newest ones automatically go to the top of the list at this server. But Im slowly getting through all the comments and I apologize for the delay. Sometimes I don't log on for a week or more. I appreciate your patience.]
March 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Leo,
Just a thought. Maybe a better approach would be to judicially fight to get McCain disqualifyied on the Natural Born issue to set judicial precident. Then go after BHO. Maybe McCain’s camp would be open to this, to show his patriotism.
[Ed it's moot as to McCain.]
March 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
[...] protect the Constitution and the Republic. Thanks to my readers for pointing this out. (Also see my apology to SCOTUS for previous inflammatory comments along with removal of noted [...]
March 5, 2009 at 5:17 PM
January 19, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Sal J. Cardinalli said:
As “sexist” as that sounds, I believe you are correct. The 19th Amendment, ratified 8/18/1920, gave women the Constitutional right to VOTE, but did nothing to grant women the right to HOLD POLITICAL OFFICE:
March 5, 2009 at 5:41 PM
@itooktheredpill
Interesting remark. But having the right to be voted for is sometimes called “passive voting right”. Wouldn’t the voting right in general (as per Const. Amendm. XIX) include that passive right? Could such an argument be made?
June 20, 2009 at 8:47 AM
[...] In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’). [...]
June 21, 2009 at 6:54 PM
[...] This is a continuation of the discussion of the June 5, 2009, article titled Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer by Stephen Tonchen. We resume at the end of his section 4: In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’). [...]