Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded
[My interview tonight on The Chalice Show - 9:05 -11:00 EST - will be the last you're going to hear from me on this issue for some time.]
The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office. I call him President because he is President – under our Constitution – unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible. That is the only venue of review currently available under the law.
The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US). Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”.
In parts 1, 2 and 3 of my quo warranto legal brief, I laid the case out for the various processes under the District of Columbia Code available to law enforcement officials as well as private plaintiffs and attorneys. So far, not a single “eligibility advocate” has used the statute – the only national law which uses the word “usurper” in its very text. As they scream usurper at Obama, they patently ignore the only statute empowered to remove him. And yet the “donate” buttons keep getting pushed. And those cases continue to be rightfully dismissed.
People deserve exactly what they settle for.
I am not a carnival barker or circus aficionado. The law I write about is that of legal fact not fanciful fiction based on clumsy metaphorical wordplay meant to confuse. When I write about the law, that writing is grounded in the Constitution, statutes and SCOTUS interpretations as precedent. If the law makes it hard for me to find a path to justice, I do not go about blasting justice away for the sake of getting the result I want.
To commit blasphemy against the Constitution’s separation of powers would be a sin against justice. True enemies of the Constitution care not if they destroy it by installing an ineligible president or if they destroy it by seeing him removed unconstitutionally. If your ultimate intention is to destroy the Constitution, both results are a win for you.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
You can make a stand. That’s what can be done.
United States Attorney Taylor appears to be a straight arrow.
- US Attorney Taylor stood up to Monica Goodling and caused her to be investigated when she improperly tried to bring political influence upon Taylor’s hiring of a certain US Attorney.
- US Attorney Taylor prosecuted Blackwater stating public outrage that Blackwater operatives had illegally fired on Iraqi civilians. After they plead guilty to 14 counts of manslaughter Taylor said, “We are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war…”
- US Attorney Taylor withdrew his US Attorney confirmation bid instead of playing politics when Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton opposed him.
- US Attorney Taylor recently raided the Office of Technology a week after the head of that office was appointed by Obama as Chief Information Officer.
Mr. Kundra has taken a leave of absence while that scandal plays out. When the story first broke on March 12, I noticed some references to US Attorney Taylor having been in charge of the raid. The next day, March 13, I released my open letter to US Attorney Taylor. That evening I could not find anymore references to US Attorney Taylor’s involvement. Was his name scrubbed from Google news searches? The only reference I could find there was the actual Government press release. Notice it’s on US Attorney Taylor’s letterhead.
- US Attorney Taylor’s Press Release concerning the office of Technology Raid
Only one news source covered the press release, and I found it on an obscure search engine. The Imperial Valley News reprinted US Attorney Taylor’s press release.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF AS TO QUO WARRANTO REQUESTS.
While I don’t think AG HOLDER would be representing Obama in a quo warranto, since QW doesn’t challenge any official Government activity, I believe now that AG Holder does, in fact, have a conflict of interest. If Obama is removed then – according to the precedent regarding Mr. Shields and Mr. Galatin in the Senate (see QW legal brief part 2) – the election would be void, Obama would be stricken from official POTUS history and it would be as if he were never president. This would probably also void Obama’s appointments. AG Holder could lose his job. This creates a new conflict of interest issue.
MAKE A STAND.
Unless you make EVERY effort to be heard then you will never know if justice was at your fingertips. How much do you believe in this issue? Back in the 60’s when civil rights were being denied, the people came to Washington… a million man march. The law was changed and history with it. There is power available to you. Stop being so defeated. Stop depending on charlatans. Use your mind. Think for yourself. Don’t believe Leo Donofrio. Do your damn homework. I have provided you with the research materials. Use them.
If you don’t have the support of the people, the Government will not listen. You need to assemble peacefully and be heard. If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t be heard. It’s that simple. Go get the people. Bring them to Washington DC. Be heard.
Those who believe this issue needs to be resolved are being divided and surely will be conquered. You may choose truth or you may choose lies. The comments to each blog post here contain virtually every possible argument you will face. And each has been dissected and destroyed by the full light of the truth written here. You are intellectually armed with knowledge to go forward and be heard.
Don’t be distracted.
ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.
FAREWELL.
I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.
Leo C. Donofrio
03.18.2009
[No comments to this article will be posted. If you'd like to send a private message to me, then use the comment feature. But no comments will be posted to this blog.]
March 18, 2009 at 10:38 PM
hello leo it was nice to speak to you on the chalice program. i talked to you last about the elite one order group running this country. i appreciate you hearing me on this matter as i have been told by all other talk shows that i have a conspiracy theory nut kind of mind. it is to bad that everyone in this country is asleep at the wheel. i to beleive we are doomed and the time to wise up has passed so many of us by. please allow me to follow other endeavors you may pursue as i beleive we feel alot alike about whats going on in this country and so do so many of my freinds across this country. we want our nation back no matter how overwhelming a task it might be. i am 45 and most of my freinds are in this age group. we are ready to make a stand for what we beleive in which is america the beautiful. god bless you leo, your mind is valuable, please stay safe we need more men like you, you are true to your word and that is your most valuable gift from god.
your freind ken parker, should you ever need a contact in my state just ask.
i live in
parker, colorado
March 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
PRIVATE- Great speech by a Senator— http://www.sweetliberty.org/s1.htm
March 19, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Leo,
Thought you might enjoy this.
March 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM
The ‘Holy Grail’ so to speak………self evident as you read……..
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
[Volume 3, Page 563]
Document 2
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73
1833
§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigour, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 3, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, Document 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
The University of Chicago Press
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
April 4, 2009 at 8:39 AM
UNBCUSA
United Natural Born Citizens USA
Contact Information:
unbcusa@aol.com
http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: (4/2/2009)
“Natural Born Citizen” Sues The United States of America for Recognition.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK.– A Del City resident has sued the Federal Government today because they do not seem to know what a Natural Born Citizen is. The case was filed in the US District Court Western District of Oklahoma.
When the controversy arose during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, first over Senator John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was on active duty service and then a variety of issues and undocumented assertions by the Obama Campaign the Del City resident began researching the subject.
“The more I researched the subject and read all the various laws and court cases I began to wonder if I’m really a Citizen”, the man said, “Then I realized that they wanted me to think I was Naturalized, well, my family tree can be traced back to the early settlers of New York City and Georgia and I want my Legacy back” he said to explain why he is pursuing a Federal Civil Rights Violation Claim.
“Ole’ Will Rogers was right, Congress could make a mess of a pig pen. The Constitution tells them in Article I Section I Clause VIII to ‘make Uniform the Laws of Naturalization and now 222 years later they still haven’t done it.”
The civil Rights Action includes an Application for Class Action and if approved every “Natural Born Citizen’ can join in to make the Congress write them back into the Laws and reclaim their Legacy handed down by their Parents, Grand Parents and the Great ones as far back as the family goes.
It is clear that there has not been a Codified Statute of how the United States Defines “Natural Born Citizen” The Historical and common understanding has most generally been considered a Child born of Two (2) Parents who were Citizens themselves. Although the Congress never defined it surely the writers of the Constitution knew what it meant when it was included in Article II Section I Clause V without debate.
So if you are a Natural Born Citizen or want to know more about the Legacy of American Citizenship you can visit http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com or http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/UNBCUSA or email you questions to unbcusa@aol.com
###
[Ed. That District Court has no authority to address your grievance. The case will be dismissed.]
April 8, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Slcraig said:
“The Constitution tells them (Congress) in Article I Section I Clause VIII to ‘make Uniform the Laws of Naturalization and now 222 years later they still haven’t done it.”
First: the citation is not accurate. It’s Article I Section 8 Clause 4.
Second: I am a specialist regarding the subject of “Uniform Laws” and Slcraig is RIGHT – the Uniform Law Commissioners (a national group of lawyers who serve as the drafting arm of the ABA) never drafted such an Act, although it probably is not their job, since they write “model” laws for the states to enact. But, it would have been the PERFECT SUBJECT for them. Instead, they have drafted laws that change public policy drastically, i.e., re-defining death to include cessation of brain activity in order to facilitate harvesting organs (before the heart stops beating, by the way), and terminating the marriage contract based on NOTHING but simply one person’s petition to do so. Hence, their work dis-serves the constitution, while they could instead, SERVE the constitution by drafting such a “uniform” Act regarding nbc.
Just my humble opinion.
May 3, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Dear Leo,
I have been sort of following your efforts and must admit do not fully understand all nomenclatura or precedents to all the cases as referenced. However, I recently learned of another new movement which claims to be the most promising yet for which I want to get your opinion as to its possible success, e.g. the American Grand Jury movement, consisting of independently organized groups in individual states via online access. The information for reference can be found at americangrandjury.org
I challenged one of the organizers, Bob Campbell on the basis of standing on criminal and civil charges as the instrument for removing and reversing a sitting President to which the response was that I am wrong to be negative relative thereto. I don’t pretend to know one or the other is correct, but Dr. Vieira may have said the only option provided in the Constitution is impeachment which would not solve the whole list of problems and intertwined illegal executive orders, policies and other executive appointments since the inauguration.
I look forward to hearing your opinion. Note: I am not affiliated with government or alphabet agencies. I am an independent Christian, not a member of organized religion, and a constitutionalist. My phone number at home in Houston, TX is (281) 973-6863 if you would like to reach me.
Regards,
Robert Butler
[Ed. Mr. Vieira hasn't done an essay on Quo Warranto yet that I am aware of. I'm sure he will weigh in on the topic eventually.]
May 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM
[...] the 14th amendment defines citizenship, not “natural born citizen”ship. And to quote Leo Donofrio: According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot [...]
May 21, 2009 at 4:48 AM
In your article above, second to last paragraph…
“whethe” he was born in Hawaii or not.
whether
Excellent article… you really have a gift for expounding on Constitutional Law in way that common everyday “We the People” can understand.
May 21, 2009 at 5:12 AM
2Ti 3:10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
2Ti 3:11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Isa 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
John Peter Muhlenberg
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps2.cfm?ID=954&issuecode=history
Six months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Muhlenburg preached his farewell sermon from Ecclesiastes 3:1 – “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.”
At the close, Muhlenburg repeated, “There is a time for all things – a time to preach, a time to pray – but there’s also a time to fight, and that time has now come.” With that, he threw off his preacher’s robe and stood before his congregation in the full uniform of a colonel in George Washington’s army.
June 18, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Leo,
I have read all of your articles. Thanks for the education !
I have a question regarding recent issues. In Quo Warranto, specifically the Andrade case, you mentioned that the gov employees had standing.
Then wouldn’t the IG (Walpin) that was recently fired also have almost “automatic standing” if he were to pursue the qualifications of the one that fired him? It appears to me that it is almost a classic case.
Anyway, thanks for all you do.
Best Regards,
Joe
[Ed. yes, I believe he would have standing for both a direct and a collateral attack based on eligibility.]
June 19, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Leo,
Will you, or suggest to someone you know, submit an Amicus in support of the Courts making a determination of the Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’?
SCOTUS 08-10817 USCA 10th 09-6082
[Ed. It's my understanding that amicus briefs are only allowed once Cert has been granted.]
June 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM
To Robert Butler:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm
Edwin Vieira has indicated the if Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen he cannot even be impeached, but arrested.
I do not have the exact quote about “arrested”.
June 24, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Leo;
I know it is asking a lot, but it would be VERY interesting if you, or another attorney with the necessary skills, would contact Mr. Walpin and offer your services in a Quo Warranto filing. Is there some kind of ABA ethical prohibition regarding an attorney offering his/her services in such cases?
I have wondered many times why some of the auto executives and others who have lost their positions directly due to Obama’s, or his appointed minions’, machinations haven’t fought back. Do you think there have been backdoor threats involved?
Gordon
[Ed. Im working on this issue and I need a few weeks. I know Mario is trying to contact Walpin.]
June 26, 2009 at 9:27 AM
[...] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/the-natural-born-citizen-blog-is-now-restricted/ [...]
July 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Leo — excellent, you nailed it on the head, I have been preaching basically the same message with my congressional members from North Dakota, they still don’t get it, but that is becasue #1 they are liberal democrates representing a Red State, don’t ask me why except is it related to the ag industry; and #2 they are smitten by Obama and his agenda and their entrenched lively hood. They can’t seem to understand they are suppose to be the protectors of our Constitution. But I will keep working on them until they see the light or they are replaced the next time they are up for election. I believe god does not like what he sees our christian nation becoming and he may well rain something on us to make a point.
Again thanks for your insight!
Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
313 E Division Street
PO Box 456
Kenmare ND 58746
701-385-4931
402-301-5098
mmcsbuzz@restel.net
July 21, 2009 at 8:04 AM
[...] As Leo Donfrio (Donfrio v. Wells) has said numerous times and in various ways: It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen. In order to be a natural born citizen BOTH parents have to citizens of this country. Team Obama has embraced his father’s nationality. This cannot be side stepped. That means the best case scenario for Obama is he was born with dual citizenship. The Constitution does not allow for our country’s President to hold dual citizenship. [...]
July 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Leo,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2007rulesofthecourt.pdf
I can find no rule barring Motion to Submit Amicus in support of Petition.
[Ed. It doesn't work like that. There's no Rule saying you can't come to oral argument and demand to be heard either, but that doesn't mean you can do just that. You need a Rule that allows you to act. You don't have one. Do what you like, but it won't get anywhere.]
Look, I am a lay person and not all that bright, but I can not sit around and do nothing.
Now I have this terribly constructed case sitting at the 10th Circuit with a Motion to invoke Rule 2.1, suspend the Rules and Hear the Question and a Petition to SCOTUS under Rule 11, Petition before Judgement, asking them to direct the 10th to HEAR the Question.
I realize that the construction of my work does not conform to the technical specifics required but I also see that the Courts have it in their authority to overlook technical deficiencies and proceed on the question and merits.
The fact that the Solicitor General waived their right to file brief in opposition is considered 1st as a show of confidence that the case will not be heard, I understand that, but it also leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Court, lacking opposition to ANY aspect of the Petition.
I understand that asking anyone to join in support of my case subjects them to ridicule for taking such a poorly constructed legal filing seriously, but I believe I have all the elements necessary to make the case although not necessarily in the proper order to be cognizable as such.
I can not help but to believe that at this point of time that an Amicus Brief in support of the Petition with the elements properly arranged and presented might influence the Court to grant the writ, invite the Respondent to submit a brief and direct the 10th Circuit to proceed on the merits.
Of course, I’m an idiot, so what do I know.
July 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Vattel refers to the PARENTS being citizens. There is no reference to MARRIED Parents.
I take it that Obama’s parents Marital Status is irrelevent? Could Obama Snrs Kenyan status have been passed to Barack even if Barack’s parents weren’t in fact married?
Is an unmarried female US Citizen parent sufficient to pass NATURAL Born status?
[Ed. Irrelevant, they were married before he was born. Don't bring this up again. Thank you.]
Current marital status seems to be a grey area, as the Founders would assume that parents were married.
However the principle that no President could owe allegience to another State through Parental influence, or inheritance, would seem to apply.
I think it’s always good to ask “what is its purpose” when considering a legal rule.
September 6, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Please see my website at http://www.divine-way.com for another threat God is warning about through this administration.
I appreciate your information, and I have charges and evidences against Barack Obama that include fraud in creating sss registration. I have a letter I sent to the new DC Attorney, CD Phillips including comment expecting your quo warranto to be approved.
I post links to Communist plans for this nation that are almost complete. The health care reform is a big part. God will surely work this out if we lift Him up and send prayers for President Obama’s repentance while there is time for him and his family. God bless you.
September 24, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Leo,
Would you be inclined to concur with this proposition?;
U.S. Constitution and Vattel’s Law of Nations: The Answer has been there All the Time!
In Campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Politics, socialism on August 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm
It seems that the answer to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President may just have been right under everyone’s noses. Unless repealed in a subsequent Amendment, ratified by the States, the Constitution (1) requires the President of the United States to be a “natural-born citizen”, and (2) defines that requirement.
Many scholars have said that “natural-born” is not defined in the Constitution, but that we must look to the laws that subsequently developed. However, this is a wrong premise. The Constitution actually does define the requirement, by incorporation of the Laws of Nations. Vattel’s Laws of Nations is referenced in the Constitution, and through legalese, the precepts of the Laws of Nations are incorporated into the Constitution.
Greg Goss wrote:
The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
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;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared.
And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel!
It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
[Ed. No. I've been through this before. The capital letters do not mean they are making reference to Vattel, they are making reference laws Vattel wrote about. Vattel didn't compose thelaw of nations, commented upon that body of law. This is not a genuine issue.]