Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history.  One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance.  The passage below has been confusing for me as well.  Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief.  I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today.  The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.  Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens.  And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters.  But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

-  he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens.  But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.  So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship.  For example, not all natural born citizens can be President.  Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

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…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…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case.  It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen.  The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said.  But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President.  His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen.  His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court.  Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President.  But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.

I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command.  The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.

SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

I personally don’t care who the President is anymore.  I’ll never care again.  Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this.  It doesn’t matter who the President is.  We’ll still be at war.  We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss.  We do get fooled again.  Everytime.  But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes…  Goodbye Ms. American Pie.


About these ads

99 Responses to “Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.”

  1. Your strategical articles are great but still 2-dimensional (focusing on NOT being “natural born” and/or British at birth).

    What about the adoption angle?

    When Obama’s mom married Lolo Soetoro (in 1966 or 1967), young Barack was adopted and his name was legally changed.

    Indonesia did NOT allow for dual citizenship, therefore ANY prior status would have been negated (British or otherwise).

    Obama’s sister (mom’s 2nd marriage) was born in Indonesia and has a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii (identical to the one posted by Obama).

    There are NO court records (name change back to Barack Obama from Barry Soetoro), NO Embassy records (renouncing his Indonesian citizenship) and NO US mmigration records (to gain ANY type of status in the US).

    Attorneys Phil Berg and Orly Taitz have explored these other angles, why not you?

    [Ed. The SCOTUS case of Perkins v. Elg dealt with a similar situation. A young lady was born in the US to Swedish immigrant parents who were US citizens by naturalization. While a child her parents moved her back abroad where they all assumed their foreign citizenship. At maturity Ms. Elg came back to the US claiming she was a citizen. SCOTUS held that she was more than just a citizen – she was a natural born citizen because her status as nbc came with her birth

    1. on the soil
    2. to parents who were citizens

    her parents could not strip that of her by moving abroad.

    If Obama was nbc at birth, his parents moving him to Indonesia could not change that. If Obam later renounced his US citizenship, perhaps it would be an issue, but there’s no evidence that he did any such thing by himself as an adult. I don’t believe he did that as it would have been stupid – doltish – insane. Obama is a smart guy. This Indonesia thing is not the issue.

    We don’t just attack the man at this blog by throwing the kitchen sink to see what will stick. I will defend anybody when the law is on their side because I’m concerned with the law. I’m not concerned with just getting rid of the man for the hell of it. He deserves the protection of the law as much as anybody else. Those who mention the Indonesia issue while ignoring the SCOTUS case of Perkins v Elg are engaging in selective sight. ]

  2. Leo,
    It is interesting that Gray, while very long winded in his dissertation on Common Law which seems to be superfluous to the matter at hand with relation to US Law (the Constitution), puts in a passage that directly relates to Vattel (and Obama):

    “The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a
    citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country
    which do not attach to the father.
    The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens
    of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country,
    applies to the children of American fathers born without the
    jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose
    jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizens and to subject them
    to duties to it.
    Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the
    father is that of the child, so far as the laws of the country of which
    the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of
    that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may
    acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to
    the father.” Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation,
    Naturalization and Allegiance, (1873) 17, 18; U.S. Foreign Relations,
    1873-74, pp. 1191, 1192.”

    I think that the main reason that Wong was considered a Citizen with regard to the 14A was the comparison to Negro Slaves, whose parents were either born elsewhere or were not Naturalized , but were permanant reisidents, and made citizens by the 14A. Gray could not get around that aspect of the 14A and “Jurisdiction” verses his own ruling about “Jurisdiction” in Elk v. Wilkins 14 years earlier. Wasn’t he also saying that aliens must be residents or have set up residence to be considered “Subject to the Jurisdiction”, just like the US Naturalization Act of 1855 required that American fathers of foreign children must have resided in the US for their children to be considered American citizens. He made a point in his closing to acccentuate the fact that Wong’s parents had set up Residence and business in the US. How does this apply to someone , say on vacation from a foreign country, or a non resident or illegal aliens? Why does this case supposedly give US Citizenship to those cases?

    [Ed. In this last part of your comment you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve been stating all along that WKA could not help Obama since his father was never permanently domiciled here. The single question presented and decided in WKA concerned a child whose parents were permanently domiciled here. The holding stresses that factor. This is why the anchor babies situation is not decided by WKA. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does on this issue in the future.]

  3. Leo,
    In your response to Kal, you said “if Obama was NBC at birth”, didn’t you mean “citizen at birth.”?

    [Ed. I was speaking hypothetically. Forget Obama. I meant that if we assume for the sake of argument that a person – any person – was nbc, a condition which exists or does not exist at birth, then that person can’t be stripped by his parents or the Government of his nbc status. That’s all I was saying. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I believe Obama was nbc. It’s possible a court may one day decide the issue though. And if they decide he was nbc, the Indonesia thing will not strip him of that status since Elg is precedent in that regard.]

  4. Thanks for the lesson – I (unlike far too many) enjoy being educated.

    Just a couple of follow-ups:

    What about his name change?

    Second, you have mentioned that Barry is a “smart guy” and would never do something stupid or foolish?

    Do you mean like run for President when you are INeligible?

    [Ed. He won and now occupies the White house while not being eligibe – so he’s pretty damn smart if you ask me.]

    Exposing yourself (Worldwide) as a COMPLETE FRAUD?

    Not to mention, ALL the details that will come out about your “personal life”?

    Come on, Leo, he IS about as stupid and foolish as anyone that has ever walked the face of the Earth!

    [Ed. I don’t think he’s worried in the least. And he’s certainly not stupid.]

  5. naturalborncitizen Says:

    For those who read the beta version of this article, I updated it with the following:

    – By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

    – But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

    – This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

    Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

  6. MissTickly Says:

    Forgive me if you have covered this. And I am trying to get Hawaii’s Health Department’s statute on verifying NBC status right now with a formal UIIPA request.

    But have you considered that Obama Sr. is not the President’s father…
    [Ed. SNIP! I’m sick of this line of BS. It really makes the entire eligibility movement look like they were weened on cow milk from genetically modified bovine stem cells at Area 51. Don’t raise this issue again at my blog. I’m sorry to lay into you like this… but I’m trying to conduct a rational legal blog here not a gossip column. ]

  7. Mr. Donofrio,

    Great post. Well illustrated and clearly stated…thanks. I still can’t believe what a strange world we live in what with Justice Gray’s opinion bearing such weight and insight as to the matter of citizenship and him being appointed by Chester Arthur. Can you imagine the NBC contention finally being heard before the USSC and Sotomayer rendering her judgement in the matter? That is just plain freaky-deaky.

    “Same as the old boss”.

    -Noz

  8. MissTickly Says:

    Also, for my personal account with Hawaiian officials on Monday, July 27, 2008, that I think led to the release of Monday night’s press statement please go here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2304218/posts

    AND I have since learned it’s more accurate to use the term “SUPPLEMENTARY BIRTH CERTIFICATE”

    ALSO
    This is my formal request for all kinds of fun things. I sent this to Ms. Okubo early this morning:

    Ms. Okubo-

    Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.”

    Please send me an electronic copy of the written criteria, that must be satisfied, by which the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health determines that a person, whose vital records she has statutory authority over, is a natural-born American citizen.

    Please send me an electronic copy of any written communications between the Hawaii Department of Health and Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent Barack Obama concerning Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, certificate of live birth, certification of live birth, and/or supplementary birth certificate or certification of live birth from Jan. 1, 2008 through July 29, 2009.

    Please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s SUPPLEMENTARY BIRTH CERTIFICATE on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARRY SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARRY DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARACK SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARACK DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARRY H. SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARRY H. DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARACK H. SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has BARACK H. DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    If you have no confirmation on any or all of the above, please send me that, too.

    Please consider this request as a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.

  9. thinkwell Says:

    Leo,

    As an engineer I like the way you think – you parse the words of the SCOTUS with the precision of a legalize compiling machine. :)

    Not to be obstinate, but in order to put this “Indonesian” meme to rest could you touch upon your understanding of what acts might constitute a legal renunciation of one’s citizenship?

    Earlier, you stated, “If Obama later renounced his US citizenship, perhaps it would be an issue, but there’s no evidence that he did any such thing by himself as an adult.” Such evidence is precisely the issue!

    Many people claim that much evidence indicates that Obama probably had a foreign passport and that he actively maintained, renewed and used it as an adult. They further claim that his Occidental college records would show that he applied for (and received) student aid as a foreign student. If these allegations could be proven AND indeed Obama never formally reaffirmed his U.S. citizenship within the specified time frame (one year upon turning 18?), would these volitional acts amount to renunciation of citizenship? (Or is this a complete rabbit hole, regardless of any such evidence?)

    [Ed. It’s a distraction and I’d rather pass on this issue. Please bring another question on another issue if you like. I don’t believe Obama waived his US citizenship and I don’t want to waste time on it. The article posted today is more important than any of that. It invloves real case law from SCOTUS and the post clearly denies Obama supporters their storngest argument. Let’ stay on point.]

  10. Leo,

    Brilliant analysis! This certainly nails WKA.

    I am, however, a little puzzled by the last, truncated phrase from WKA, namely ” … is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ ” The nbc birth to “A” citizen implies only one parent-citizen, and of course that cannot be. Is there more in the remainder of that truncated sentence that clarifies this?

    Respectfully,
    Robare

    [Ed. Good question. But when the passage speaks about the alien it uses the singular… so in relation to his hypothetical natural-born child counterpart it also speaks in the singular. It doesn’t say one can be natural-born while having dual nationality at birth – it’s not attempting to settle the issue of dual national parents. Additionally, it’s quoting Mr. Binney as a reference and that’s the way Binney put it in 1853. The passage makes clear that the court is stating Wong Kim Ark is a citizen despite not being natural born.]

  11. Leo,
    When will the conspiracy theorists stop asking question that they don’t know the answer to and concentrate on what is absolutely known? I cannot understand the reluctance.

  12. MissTickly Says:

    You have know idea what I wrote, he deleted the part that dealt with the KNOWN.

    I asked him to correct that.

    “When will the conspiracy theorists stop asking question that they don’t know the answer to and concentrate on what is absolutely known? I cannot understand the reluctance.”

    [Ed. I’m deleting anything to do with allegations Obama Sr. was not the father and she had more in her post, but I have no time for that issue. There are plenty of blogs who will sling that mud. This isn’t one of them. I do apologize to the commenter that she got hit, but I’m very tired of editing the comments with this Marshal slag. It’s not welcome here. From now on I’m not going to snip such comments, I’ll just delete the comments without a ‘heads up which try to discuss that topic.

    I read EVERY comment and moderate every comment. I do print extreme opposing views and things get hot. But not every comment is welcome. This is my blog. I am trying to educate. If I believe the comment is a useless distraction from that education, I reserve the right to delete it. If people want to participate in forums where anything goes… cat fights, spamalot, flame wars… there’s enough of those to go around. This is not that type of blog.]

  13. Mr. Donofrio,

    In light of some of the commentary reflecting the unfortunate agendas and obstinate refusal to recognize substantiated realities, would you be willing to write a form letter for “us” to the AGs that would reflect;

    1. The courts opinion of NBC in various cases, especially in light of your recent epiphany of WKA.

    2. The mandate of the AGs office to explore such matters of potentially ineligible federal office holders. The neccessity of the high court to render a judgment on the ambiguity of the constitutional point of order.

    3. The impact of ignoring the concern relevant to our republican posterity and those in active military service.

    Like you, I have seen the eligibility question devolve to those who need a conspiracy, have qualms about the ideology and race of Mr. Obama, and refuse to subordinate their agendas to a simple question of whether he is compliant with Article II.

    I think many, especially me, would be grateful for a coherent and well reasoned template to send to the various AGs asking for them to explore the matter and if they should find no basis for such to explain why.

    Thanks.

    -1SG Nosworthy

    [Ed. Nope. Don’t believe in form letters or that the people who use them have any power. If you don’t understand the issues well enough to organize your thoughts in a letter then you don’t deserve to be heard. Form letters herd people like cattle. That’s not what I’m into. If people want to write, they should know what they are saying and stand by it. Sorry, Noz.]

  14. A compelling amicus brief filed in regards to Hamdi vs Rumsfield. Authored by Edwin Meese III and John C. Eastman. These are prominent legal scholars. A former US Attorney General with the Dean of a law school wrote this.

    They destroy Wong Kim Ark.

    http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/hamdimeritsbrieffinal.pdf

    [Ed. The following passage from this article is important and accurate:

    Although hard to sustain under the broad language used
    by Justice Gray, the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark is actually
    much more narrow, and the case need not be read so expansively
    as to produce such absurd results. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, e.g., 22 Stat. 58 (1882), Wong Kim Ark’s parents were ineligible for citizenship even if they had
    renounced their Chinese citizenship and subjected themselves
    to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. As
    such, Wong Kim Ark arguably would have been entitled to
    citizenship because, like his parents, he would in fact have
    been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the
    complete, allegiance-obliging sense intended by the phrase.
    Cf. In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 907 (C.C. Cal. 1884)
    (Field, Circuit Justice) (concluding that the American-born
    son of Chinese immigrants, who had taken up permanent
    residence in the United States pursuant to a treaty with China
    that recognized the right of man to change his home and allegiance
    as “inherent and inalienable,” because he, like his
    parents, was at the time of his birth subject to the “exclusive”
    jurisdiction of the United States). Hamdi’s parents, on the other hand, did not suffer from the legal disability that made Wong Kim Ark’s parents ineligible
    for citizenship.

    Wong Kim Ark is a VERY limited holding… The parents must be permanently domiciled here and they probably must have this defect or legal disability for WKA to kick in. But despite this, it was heralded as the cure to Obama’s citizenship. It’s not. ]

    And here is the article written March 30, 2006 at the Hertiage Foundation.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

    Will these scholars argue the same now?

    [Ed. Those are both excellent articles. Thank you for pointing them out. I believe the authors would agree with my analysis as to WKA. And I suggest my readers examine these two articles carefully. I will probably quote from them in my analysis of the 14th amendment “jurisdiction thereof” analysis which is pending.]

  15. MissTickly Says:

    For details on how I forced Obama to authorize Hawaiian Officials to verify that he is a natural-born American Citizen and born in Hawaii, as well as verify now that they have vital recordS (plural) on file, after court cases and lots of $$ couldn’t do it, please visit http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2304218/posts

    …for my personal account.

  16. MissTickly Says:

    I don’t visit this blog often and have NO idea what you are talking about. I made it clear I was speculating. Perhaps you should give people ONE freebie like spiderman.

    [Ed. I’ve responded to you twice now in saying I’m sorry you got hit. I just can’t print that issue. Sorry, but so many people are trying to get that on my blog when I’ve clearly said it’s off limits.]

    I don’t pretend to know a thing about constitutional law, I don’t have time to because I am pretending to know something about Hawaii Vital Record Statute.

    I would like your opinion on both the formal request I made to Ms. Okubo AND my personal story about my communications with Hawaii on Monday afternoon, please.

    [Ed. I read your request. More power to you if she responds, but your mistake is in thinking that anything she can say or provide will change his failure to be a natural born citizen despite whether he was born in Hawaii. I don’t think she will provide a response. Perhaps a form letter will come your way. I appreciate the effort you’ve made though. It’s more than most people will do.]

    Statute is kinda like law, hmmm? I am interested in your thoughts.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2304218/posts

    [Ed. You may be correct in that Fukino is under duress or strong political pressure to make the strange improper statements she has made. The fact remains, nothing she can say and nothing Hawaii may possess will change the fact that Obama was a British citizen at birth.]

  17. thinkwell Says:

    Leo,

    You wrote: I don’t believe Obama waived his US citizenship and I don’t want to waste time on it. The article posted today is more important than any of that. It involves real case law from SCOTUS and the post clearly denies Obama supporters their strongest argument. Let’ stay on point.

    Fair enough. You certainly are the point man with regard to SCOTUS, and that is more than enough. These other angles may have their merits. If so, others may press them to see if they have any legal leverage, but I won’t bring them up again here.

    It seems your research on the nuances of citizenship has you on the verge of yanking the chain on anchor babies (other legal scholars have also come to this conclusion). I have never understood how SCOTUS could have intended that the children of tourists or illegal emergency-room-maternity-ward-day-crossers be given citizenship rights via Constitutional provision. I think this question ties into (or at least may be answered as a result of) your studies. Will you be commenting on this soon (or is it even pertinent)?

    [Ed. I probably will comment on it soon. I just don’t know when. WKA certainly does not stand for birthright citizenship if the parents aren’t permanently domiciled here.]

  18. MissTickly Says:

    Aren’t you wondering at all, why they suddenly opened up?

    I really think I know why: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2304218/posts

    Is it so hard to believe that it might start to unravel because someone asked the right question?

  19. MissTickly Says:

    WOW! I can’t believe you let that one through without ANY comment. Thank you!

  20. Mr. Donofrio,

    I’ll buy that for a dollar. How about we test run our “letters” on your site and you can keep us within reason? I understand your consternation with the accountability of the DOJ, et al; it really is a shame that there is not someway of compelling them to perform their duties according to the rules and regulations that they are supposedly sworn to obey.

    Frustration leads to crazy thoughts, hence the BC folks and thier NWO black helicopters.

    I refuse to go nuts and lose faith in our republic or methods for redress of grievances.

    Secretly, I think you might harbor some optimism, too.

    -Noz

    [Ed. I’d be happy to read anything you want to submit, Noz.]

  21. Mr. Donofrio,

    Last thought and I really must get to work…can I sue, as a private citizen, the DOJ or an AG for failure to perform certain mandated duties?

    -Noz

    [Ed. I don’t know the answer to that offhand. If it i in the form of Writ of Mandamus then perhaps you can.]

  22. Also, isn’t it possible that he is not a United States
    citizen at all through his mother even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified, because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

    [Ed. If he was born in Kenya, that appears to be an issue. I believe he was born in Hawaii. That being said

    WHERE DO WE PUT THE PLAQUE? ]

  23. MissTickly Says:

    I don’t have any interest in whether he is a natural born citizen. I want to know if he was adopted. If he has a SUPPLEMENTARY BC on file he was adopted or he had a sex change….OR he was foreign born. If he was adopted later in life by a US citizen, would that give him equal right to declare he’s a NBC as a biological NBC? I don’t know and don’t care, because I DON’T PRETEND TO KNOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

    I want to know if the man in the white house ran for president with his legal name on the ballot, I want to know if he distanced himself on purpose from the AP photo of his school records in Indonesia because those records are true and correct.

    If that is the case, I am satisfied with proving he is UNELECTABLE due to gross lack of character. Which we ALL know is true.

    I will just be happy if he’s a one-termer.

  24. Leo –

    Your parsing of the words in the decision of WKA shows how almost any USSC decision can be parsed to support any other outcome.

    [Ed. I haven’t parsed them, I’ve quoted them.]

    ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen’ can be just as easily read as: “is as much a citizen AS ANY OTHER natural-born child…”

    [Ed. But that’s not what they said… Had they wanted to say that then they would have said that. They compared the native born child of an alien to the natural-born child of a citizen and decided both were entitled to the same rights of citizenship, but they clearly indicated that only one was natural-born. It’s quite a stretch to read the long majority opinion – so specifically tailored to the issue and to assume that Justice Gray and the entire court simply failed to say that Wong Kim Ark was natural born.

    And you say I’m parsing? Why didn’t they just say:

    “WONG KIM ARK IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

    They could have. But they didn’t. They said the child of the citizen was natural born not Wong Kim Ark.]
    Further, as has been pointed out, the decision points to “the natural-born child of A citizen” so that part of it could show that an NBC need only have ONE citizen parent.

    The fact is that the USSC would use whatever language from whatever cases they wanted to support the decision they feel is right TODAY.

    And, as I have pointed out before, the current court would vote to uphold the decision of Congress that the President is eligible.

    I am still waiting for someone to point to where my assessment of how the Court would vote is wrong…

  25. MissTickly Says:

    I think two worlds have collided here, yours and mine. The thing he’s concealing may have nothing to do with the NBC issue.

    It could still mean issues for the validity of the 2008 election?

  26. MissTickly Says:

    And we can gain very useful information from this agency that works for the people in Hawaii.

    Yes, we can!

    (pun intended)

  27. Great post Leo. Finally WKA falls into place in all this for me – and there it was right in front of our faces.

    It also makes sense to keep the adoption question aside from the NBC issue.

    Sorting through the legal analysis you’ve been providing, I usually need to fall back to the Founders intent as you have explained it. I also seem to have learned that “natural born” citizenship classification applies solely to qualification for POTUS.

    So, it may be a stretch, but your explanation of the Perkins v. Elg decision seems to hint at more than a “re-immigration” issue. It says to me that the SCOTUS may have had presidential eligibility on their minds and the decision reflected the intent of the Founders’ NBC requirement: to remove as much risk of usurpation by foreign interest as possible, without walling off the political opportunities for children of legal immigrants.

    It seems that even though there is risk that a person in Ms. Elg’s situation could return to the US under foreign influence, the SCOTUS was upholding her rights as an NBC, recognizing the risks the Founders had balanced with the NBC, 14yr, and 35yr age requirements for POTUS.

  28. Mr. Donofrio,

    Thanks for the thoughts on Writ of Mandamus. I don’t think it is within reason to sue for their lack of proceeding with QW but rather in their failure to explore the merits of the contention and reply to the citizen with an official opinion as to the issue and the role of the AGs office.

    Thanks, again.

    -Noz

  29. Whistleblower Says:

    In response to claims that Title 8, Section 1401 would make Barack Obama qualified:

    Opinion of CJ Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174

    “If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance.”

    Slightly modified to fit the current topic:

    If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to redefine a provision relating to the qualifications of the executive, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the qualifications for the office of president. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to redefine the qualifications, where the constitution has declared natural born citizen (a provision effecting natural loyalty passed onto the son from a citizen father); such provision is form without substance.

  30. It shall once again be a free nation, governed by the rule of Constitutional Law. Thanks to America’s true, great patriots, who never gave up, who never stopped believing in the Republic. Ones just like you Sir. Exactly like you.
    An entire nation is in your debt.

    G*d Bless You and Your’s, all their days.

    [Ed. I suppose it makes sense to remain positive, but I feel rather certain nothing I write here will ever change a damn thing. The country will not exist as a sovereign nation sooner than any of us can imagine.]

  31. Perhaps you may agree, Ancient Philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Confucius, etc.) state that “Ethics equals Intelligence, Intelligence equals Ethics.”

    “The greater the one, the greater the other.”

    “The lesser the one, the lesser the other.”

    Before you elect Obama/Soetoro to the “Genius Hall of Fame” (and remember, the story is NOT over yet), consider the lessons from those great minds.

  32. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    Have you seen this? Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility

    It presents some valid questions. I haven’t had a chance to check all the laws cited, but the ones I did check were valid.

    Is hiding a birth certificate so important that a legitimate president would risk alienating a large number of his own troops to do so? Why?

    [Ed. The most interesting aspect is the various ways in which one can obtain the COLB – not all require proof of birth in Hawaii. Very relevant.]

  33. Pieter Nosworthy said:

    Can you imagine the NBC contention finally being heard before the USSC and Sotomayer rendering her judgement in the matter? That is just plain freaky-deaky.

    *That* is why the Senate, before voting to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice, *must* honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution, and address the issue of whether or not the President who nominated her is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office and make that nomination.

    That is why members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) have a Constitutional duty to personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

    The State of Hawaii cannot say that members of Congress do not have a “tangible interest” in Obama’s original birth certificate.

    Hawaiian law cannot supersede the “supreme law of the land”… the Constitution. Several portions of the Constitution refer to qualifying the eligibility of the President and Vice-President (for example “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified” in the 20th Amendment). Hawaiian officials cannot say that Hawaiian law prevents members of Congress from performing their sworn Constitutional duty to qualify the President. The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, any thing in the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Once a member of Congress requests to see Obama’s original birth certificate, directly from the State of Hawaii (and not a COLB produced at the Obama Campaign Headquarters, as “FactCheck” did), one of two things will happen:
    1) The State of Hawaii releases it, OR
    2) The State of Hawaii refuses to release it and a legal battle (with “standing” that no one can deny) ensues to ensure that members of Congress are allowed to check the birth certificate.

    Once the birth certificate is obtained, one of two things will happen:
    1) Either the birth certificate information confirms every detail previously released in the COLB, *or*
    2) it doesn’t. (I.E., there is a discrepancy, and the COLB is exposed as fraudulent).

    If the COLB is fraudulent, this is bigger than Watergate!

    If the COLB is accurate, the next step is for Congress to ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”, and whether someone born with foreign citizenship, due to their father’s foreign citizenship, would be considered a “foreigner” by John Jay, and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.

  34. [Ed. ….but I feel rather certain nothing I write here will ever change a damn thing.]

    Not how we see it out here Leo.

    The media has been bypassed and everyday folks are waking up and are in the faces of their politicians.

    When it comes to Constitution, you have the power to cut through the smoke and mirrors, to explain it to regular folks. More minds than ever are open to what you have to say. The tide is turning on the Obama regime. It is tangible and is rooted in a few people like you arming citizens with the truth.

    [Ed. I’m not trying to burst your bubble, but after the run around I got ac SCOTUS and in the lower courts – the double sabotage then their failure to act on my case or Cort’s…I have no faith it makes any difference.]

  35. billvanallen Says:

    SCOTUS uses “Cert” to fend off everything now including NBC status of POTUS/CINC. I BO does in fact “go down”, the moment may be at hand to force SCOTUS to modify cert to the extent of restricting denial of cert to all but NBC plantiffs — corporations, aliens, non-NBC citizens would all be subject to current cert denial rules — only NBCs pleintiff and defendants would be above the cert denial bar — including I suppose prisoners who are NBCs.

  36. I’m sorry, I just did want to clarify: NOTHING would happen to the presidency of Chester A. Arthur. That’s your contention. So what you’re saying is you want to remove a sitting, democratically-elected President because his father was not an American citizen, based in part on an opinion written by a Justice appointed to the Supreme Court by a President whose father was not an American citizen. Hey, good luck with that.

    Ed. If you’ll have a closer look, it’s the Obama supporters who want to rely on Wong Kim Ark. I’m distinguishing. Big difference. Furthermore, if the POTUS is not eligible then the election was a fraud. I’m not trying to overturn the Constitutional election process, both Obama and McCain did that by running even though they were ineligible. I’m hoping this will “return” the election process back to the Constitution. But honestly, I don’t think your man has anything to worry about. Too many peeps got his back.]

    I’m sorry, I was under the impression that the law was a codified system of rules based heavily on precedent. But since reading your blog, I NOW realize it’s a magic wand we wave to get rid of people we don’t like. Man, I hope you do get in front of the Supreme Court. I kind of want to see the Justices faces when you’re asked what the legal repercussions are of declaring Chester A. Arthur ineligible for the Presidency and you explain your reasoning is based on the “No-Take-Backsies” Statute of 1947.

  37. Leo,

    This insight just HIT me re POTUS eligibility requirements.

    Why did our Founders select the number 14 for the years of residency? It seems arbitrary. Why that number? Is there any basis for it? Question: Might they have meant to “require” 14 years after maturity? Arithmetic yields: 21 + 14 = 35. Now THAT is curious! (The latter, of course, being the minimum age requirement for POTUS.)

    Coincidental? Perhaps, but it has piqued my interest, and strongly. I am sure the Founders did NOT mean to include for POTUS any person – who at age 14 went to live overseas, and comes back 21 years later to run for President. It’s illogical and contrary to the intent of nbc to exclude foreign influence.

    Now, I realize you have more than enough on your plate, but might one of my fellow blog-readers have some input? If we do find there IS a specific basis, along the lines noted above, the consequences would be huge. Remember, in 1787 the idea of casual travel – much less living – overseas was the very rare exception, even unthinkable.

    I look forward to any comments from others.

    Respectfully,
    Robare

    [Ed. I do have something coming down the pike on the 14 year resident thing. It’s from a source back at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.]

  38. To post ads or whatever on newspapers is as old an espionage craft as it gets, as in the “Announcement of live birth” in the Honolulu Advertiser. The same with the premeditated COLB. What this really tells you is just how long his “Legend” has been crafted in his grooming for this very agenda. This economic war by the CHICOMS, and The Great 0 is but their Economic Manchurian Candidate. I know, I am an MC, too, the son of former East German Stasi General Markus Wolf. How well I remember my agent handler being amazed at “To teach them well, teach them young,” as he described for me to remember the names of such sleepers. Then he mused, and said, “Well, how do you lure all the moles out?” “Simple,” he said, “When the time comes we’ll just hoist a Barry Soetono up the flagpole & see who salutes.” (The closing-down of spy rings, etc., historically necessary before potential major military conflict.) Now that we’ve got all the “X’s on the dotted line” from Congress, the American People will know who is what, once the balloon goes up. As for the flush of Congress, it will be simple: Just who has partaken of Gary Condit’s “Sexual Embarrassment Disposal Service” these last years, and has been blackmailed, since? Doesn’t this explain to you WHY Congress is trying to bleed our country to death with 1000 small $ cuts?
    JUST IMAGINE, if you would, 9/11 having been in 2008, just before this election – WHAT POWERS The Great 0 would have had! He’d have already sliced & diced our military in the grinder of the “Axis of Evil!” But – Some say that the former CIA Dir and his sons brought the towers down early… Wow, it’s as if the Bushs have done a lot of 0’s work prematurely – preemptively – So no one’s falling for The Great 0’s lies, now… If you wish to know more, http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com

  39. Leo:

    Concerning you reply to Elmo:

    [Ed. I suppose it makes sense to remain positive, but I feel rather certain nothing I write here will ever change a damn thing. The country will not exist as a sovereign nation sooner than any of us can imagine.]

    It certainly is easy to get discouraged when we look at our present circumstances. I need to quote Stephen Pidgeon’s reply to me concerning your work:

    “Hugh:

    We are putting Donofrio’s articles up on DecaLogos this evening. His legal research is invaluable.

    Stephen”

    Your work in the Natural Born Citizen arena has helped others, including myself, in their lawsuits, or their reply to others! Every effort, all the time you have spent in research these topic has not been wasted. We want you to know the we appreciate your efforts!

    Thanks!
    Hugh

    [Ed. Thanks for the kind words. It’s appreciated.]

  40. Well done again, Leo! Great information on Horace Gray’s wording where he compares the two children.

    Of course, after altering my “nbc definition sheet last night, I now have to ADd the comparison portion.

    Oh.

    And I did add a chunk from Chief Justice Fuller.

    Cheers!

  41. Leo,

    I don’t know who else to ask and get results. This is O/T and I apologize. I have been mulling over the Soetoro divorce papers that have been made available. In Stanley Ann’s complaint, she alleges that there is 1 minor child, Maya, and 1 child above 18 still dependent on the parties for divorce. (Obama) She then alleges that she is not seeking support. Hawaii allows court to impose college education costs. This would not be an issue if Obama were not an adopted child. There would be no need to agree to something that could not be imposed. (step-children have no right to court ordered educational support from a step-parent). There was a hearing in this case. I was wondering what you think the chances are of getting a transcript of this hearing. Maybe the issue of Obama’s status as being adopted would be addressed there. Support for him would not have been at issue because she wasn’t asking for it, but there may be something on the record to show the agreement to not seek support for Obama, which may reveal his status of being adopted. The court ultimately did not require support for Maya, but maintained jurisdiction, stating no support required until further order of court. There naturally would be more concern for the minor’s basic needs versus the college education of Obama.

    I hope I have made this confusing issue clear. I think there is evidence that Obama was adopted, and it may be in the transcript. I have no idea how long filed are kept. I have thought that maybe I could be way off base, but I don’t see how because the allegation stated that Obama was still dependent on the parties for educational support. Why even bring that up unless he were entitled to it?

    Thanks for your kind attention.

  42. da verg Says:

    wasn’t 1401 , code 8 passed AFTER Marbury v. Madison and after this WKA case? Therefore doesn’t it take precedence since it is later?

    Many are making this point to legitimize a re-definition of NBC per these codes? please comment.

    [Ed. Doesn’t make any difference as that section of Code does not define natural born citizen in its text. People continue to be confused. The Constitution makes clear – without defining each term – that “natural born citizen” and “citizen” have different effects.]

  43. brygenon Says:

    Leo, to prove that “natural born citizen” does not simply mean citizen by birth, all you need is a single counter-example: one case where a person was declared not to be a natural born citizen and to be a citizen at birth.

    I hope you appreciate that these abstruse legal arguments are just to convince yourself and the people who desperately want to believe that Obama cannot be President. On Jan 20, we watched Chief Justice Roberts (who’s confirmation Senator Obama had voted against) swear in Barack Obama and tell him, “Congratulations Mr. President.”

    SCOTUS is not revisiting Wrotnowski’s case, and the issue is not tearing apart our republic. You are trying to make a federal case of something you could simply have looked up in Black’s Law Dictionary.

    [Ed. When more than one officer openly questions the Commander In Chief’s Constitutional authority, then we do have the beginning of a tear in the fabric of the nation. If you want to deny that, go right ahead. But it’s no joke. But I agree SCOTUS will do nothing. This is going nowhere but the history books.]

  44. Thanks for all of your work, Leo. This entire topic was confusing to me until I read what you’ve been posting in the last months. I’ve finally been able to crystalize it into one thought that I can’t help but coming back to:

    The Framers of the Constitution would NEVER have been down with someone born a British subject (or any other subject) becoming the Commander in Chief of the military.

    The above statement is one that would be argued by only the most ardent supporters of this usurper.

    [Ed. That’s the whole issue right there. You got it.]

  45. To Pieter Nosworthy in response to http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-7625 and http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-7634

    While I firmly believe that a U.S. citizen under the protection of the Constitution clearly has the standing to sue the federal government for dereliction of duty, the government has so drastically twisted the structure of our republic and judicial system that today, instead of the government recognizing the natural law principles of popular sovereignty — that political power is inherent in the people who establish the government; a power and obligation granted to them by God — the federal government today has invented this ridiculous, non-existent power of sovereign judicial immunity. In essence, the government claims that THEY are the true sovereigns of this country and cannot be sued unless they consent to be sued. Absurd as it is, just read how they try to argue that very thing in the Kerchner et al v. Obama case at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-271-272-Defendants-Motion-Brief-to-Dismiss

    What you’re discussing seems to be about the failure of the government to properly answer our petitions for redress of grievances under Amendment I of the Constitution. In 2004, a class action lawsuit was served on the federal government over their failure to properly answer sincere petitions for redress, which you can read about at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/UpdatesNews.htm

    Predictably (although unjustifiably), the courts dismissed the case and the Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari. Such is the sorry state of the U.S. legal system.

    If you’re planning on suing the DOJ, let me forewarn you that it will be extraordinarily difficult. The federal government has an endless supply of ‘money’ (seeing as they have usurped the Constitutional monetary system of precious metals and created Federal Reserve notes: mere promissory notes that they can create at will) and they are not likely to acquiesce to this sort of thing without a big fight. And because most lawyers have been erroneously taught that the supremacy clause of the Constitution gives the federal government ultimate political authority (note that the clause actually gives the Constitution authority, and only those acts of the federal government which are consistent with it are valid), you’ll need to search for the rare type of lawyer who actually understands our Constitutional republic, natural law, common law and American history, and cares enough to do something about it.

    I’m not trying to discourage you from doing this; I’m just pointing out that it’s a major undertaking that will consume a lot of time and effort, so consider it carefully before you go ahead with anything of the sort.

    [Ed. Yeah, like we have any right to petition for a redress of grievances. We are swatted like flies when we try to bring that part of the Constitution up. The Govt Mob won’t allow it. This is another reason why this nation is doomed. Slowly but surely they have taken our standing away to fight as citizens for the Constitution.]

  46. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    Yet another terrific post to educate those of us not schooled in the law. I wanted to provide my take on the sentence from a non-legal point of view. My education is in Philosophy and English, so my take on the sentence comes from the English grammar perspective of deconstructing the sentence which is essentially what you have done from a logic and common sense point of view.

    First it is important to note that the subject of the sentence is his children (the children of the domiciled persons, or resident aliens as the paragraph states). As a result, the portion of the sentence if born in the country, is as much a citizen stands on its own with the subject and does not require the remainder of the sentence for the ruling to be made, the point to hold, and the sentence to be complete. Why is that? It’s because the part of the sentence is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen is a subordinating conjunction. A subordinating conjunction has a dependent clause and an independent clause. And as you suggested in your post subordinating conjunctions compare things. What is critical here from the English grammar perspective is that when conjunctions compare two things as equivalents they are not subordinating conjunctions, they are correlative conjunctions. When correlative conjunctions are used to compare two things as equivalents they do so using word pairs. So…as = equivalent comparison of an independent and dependent clause. There is no so in this sentence, therefore, the comparison between the clauses is not a comparison of equivalence. In the subordinating conjunction in question the independent clause is as much a citizen, the dependent clause is the natural-born child of a citizen. This is the absolute crux of your argument. Because the clause the natural-born child of a citizen is dependent on the sentence having in it the independent clause of as much is a citizen, one could never say that the justices were comparing natural-born child of a citizen and a citizen because the dependent clause does not have to be there for the sentence to remain true. The subordinating conjunction and the subsequent comparison that results is only used to qualify the final portion of the sentence “and by operation of the same principle” (you don’t have this portion of the sentence quoted above). Because the two are being compared as two different types of children the conclusion is that those two different type of children are as a result “by operation of the same principle.” You could deconstruct the sentence and remove the dependent clause and say his child is as much a citizen, but you then could not include is “by operation of the same principle.” You need the dependent clause natural-born child of a citizen to make the final conclusion of the sentence is “by operation of the same principle.”

    If you wanted to say the child is as much a citizen and the natural-born child of a citizen were equivalent, you would have to have the word pair so…as included in the correlative conjunction. The sentence would look something like this so his child is a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen. But that sentence when you read it doesn’t even make sense. The reason it doesn’t make sense is because it completely changes the subordinating conjunction into a correlative conjunction which transforms the sentence into a nonsensical statement.

    The reason it becomes nonsensical is the relationship of the clauses (independent and dependent clauses) of the subordinating conjunction are no longer being used to qualify the final portion of the sentence “by operation of the same principle.” Therefore, the subordinating conjunction is completely changed and no longer represents what the justices were really saying that they were comparing two different types of children citizens and concluding that those two different types of children citizens are “by operation of the same principle.” The meaning of by operation of the same principle is left for you to write about in its legal intent. I don’t have the expertise to decipher what that portion of the sentence means.

    I know this is extremely convoluted when taken from a grammatical perspective, but that is due to the fact that the sentence is rather poorly constructed in part because it quotes from someone else in the middle of the sentence and because the English language is somewhat complicated to begin with. But the points I’ve made here are critical to understanding what is actually being said from a grammatical perspective, and absolutely support your conclusions from a grammatical point of view.

    [Ed. I was going to put it just as you say above, but then I thought my way would be way more confusing… that’s a joke. Thanks for writing this. I thought the law was technical, but you’ve just convinced me that the English language is a mess.]

  47. Leo,

    Dr. John Eastman has some good commentary on the 14th admendment on You Tube. His focus is on the issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. He also discusses the broader meaning of what it means to be a citizen. I find it interesting to note that he says he can’t find any court decision that actually affirms birthright citizenship. This is part of his comments that begins around the 4:00 minute mark of the first video.

    You also might be interested in the Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, September, 2005. Dr. Eastman is one the witnesses who testified before the committee.

    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju23690.000/hju23690_0.HTM

    [Ed. Thank you for the links. I do not see any SCOTUS cases which grant direct birthright citizenship to all persons born here.]

  48. MissTickly Says:

    Maybe not. But I sure would love to see your legal mind pick apart Hawaii Vital Record Statute. And I need help covering my bases. I would love to say I could help you per the NBC issue, I probably can’t, but you could help me.

    There are questions we can ask of the Dept. of Health in Hawaii that they have BY VIRTUE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY alone to answer.

    I think these questions will force Obama’s hand further and we’ll get to the bottom of everything once and for all.

  49. Hey, Leo, long time no write! I was checking your blog for the longest time and you had nothing after the ginsberg article, so now you’re on a tear! Good for you and for us, as “iron sharpens iron”. We need to continue in prayer for the truth to be vindicated and this issue adjudicated in a court of law.

    Here’s a thought to ponder: If the Constitution really has been replaced by a dictatorship, if we have truly experienced a soft coup d’etat with the rule of man usurping the rule of law, we need to know now so we can decide how and where to go from here. If that is the true state of our union, then we find ourselves with no basis for the rule of law. And if that is the case, each person needs to know how to order his life without Constitutional protection. With all that has been happening over decades and with what is going on now, this hypothetical has taken on a somber tone for me. Scary thought, but if this most important Constitutional NBC question continues to be ignored and our Constitution is treated as so much trash, what’s left?

    Personally, I refuse to allow defeat to immobilize me from doing all I can in fighting for the truth to be revealed until and unless the time comes when to continue fighting would be just “kicking against the goads”. To roll over and capitulate is just not in my genes. But the pot is simmering and all you cooks out there know what happens if the simmer is allowed to become a rolling boil. . .

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .

  50. MissTickly:

    I’ve real all your posts both here and FR and you are making some wonderfully thought out attempts to obtain information.

    I’m sure you weren’t aware of the “no-no” issue Leo dinged you for but don’t feel bad – he dinged me for the same thing 6 or 8 months ago. I fully understand your concerr, however as you’re working from a different angle of things – and that’s truly commendable.

    Lest you think some very good legal minds (aside from Leo’s of course) are vacant on the matter, you might do some quick reading on this website (which Google threatened to shut down BTW – but has backed off):

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    If you read the treatise “Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen” I think you’ll see more clearly where Leo is commenting from since until more credible, documentary can be rigorously obtained through cort-ordered discovery the attorneys have to work within that framework.

    Also, the writeup called DOC 34 (in the right hand panel) will give you a fairly quick overview of the action and it’s Constitutional basis. That also explains what Leo harps upon.

    Believe me, everyone not “in the tank” for the Big O would certainly hope for you to drag out ANY additional information – but as you say they parse words exceedingly carefully in HI. I’ll surely be watching your progres on FR … good work!!

    And don’t be put off by Leo’s comments – I think someone spiked his oatmeal with his favorite poker chips :-) He’s a decent enuf guy when he’s not “lawyering away”.

  51. I believe Obama is the perfect example of why our Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution added the natural born citizen clause. This is exactly what they feared a person with other-than-American loyalties could do to our country.

  52. Hi Leo,

    Have you seen Andrew McCArthy’s article at NRO today?

    [Ed. Yes, but his analysis of the 14 year requirement is all wrong. It’s a residence requirement… 14 years “residence”. I don’t believe he’s on point with his analysis as to the 14 year issue and Indonesia.]

    He like you, is not going down the road of a Kenyan birth, however, as a former US Attorney, he has found legitimate concerns to the Indonesian citizenship and you will also be happy to know that he includes in his article the fact that Obama may not even be eligible because of his dual citizenship at birth.

    It’s a great read: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

    Again, glad to have you back. I enjoy learning and your tips for direction to further study has been invaluable to me.

    God Bless, Linda

  53. I have a brain teaser for you Mr. Donofrio…

    Let’s say that Dr. Alan Keyes (Independent Candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election) WON the Election.

    Dr. Keyes satisfies ALL Constitutional requirements – “natural born”, at least 35 yrs. old and resided at least 14 yrs. in the USA.

    Could a case be brought AGAINST his Presidency, by Democratic and/or Republican voters, who state that the only reason that they voted for Dr. Keyes was because they had reservations about McCain’s and/or Obama’s eligibility?

    The voters feel robbed of a chance to choose between eligible candidates.

    Would they have a case, either against Dr. Keyes, Congress, the DNC and/or the RNC?

    Could the Election be declared “null” and “void”?

    [Ed. Not on that basis as stated.]

    P.S.

    Here is a GREAT video by Dr. Keyes….

  54. kittycat Says:

    Hello, Leo:

    It’s great to be reading all of your work again. It is certainly informative. So much we have all taken for granted throughout the years thinking things would always be like they have been. Wrong! Now is a time that is testing us to see what we’re all made out of and to perhaps bring out what is good character like long-suffering, integrity, and seeking the truth to live by it.

    Which brings me to say this, please don’t set your mind on the doom that will happen in its own time, but not yet, because you will see, men and women of character will come out of it and that’s a good thing.

    Kitty

  55. This is from Gray’s Wong decision, Leo.

    Surely you can read its plain meaning:

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    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.

    [Ed. Your comment assumes “natural born subjects” are the same as “natural born citizens”. They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray’s reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would – at best – be deemed basic “citizens” under US law – not natural born citizens.

    You must grasp the understanding that we’re not subjects. And as you will see, the attitude at the time of the adoption of the Constitution makes the repulsion with being a subject clear. I will print for you now exactly what that attitude was straight form the mouth of David Ramsay – David Ramsay (congressman) (1749–1815), an American physician, historian, and Continental Congressman for South Carolina:

    A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF

    ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND

    PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE

    UNITED STATES

    By David Ramsay, 1789

    The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775..

    A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.

    The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

    Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

    (Thanks to Kamira for the research on David Ramsay. This is not the first excellent source she’s brought forward. Nice work.)

    A natural born subject is an entirely different species of citizen than a natural born citizen. They sound the same – just as “native born” sounds like “natural born” but they too are not the same. ]

  56. da verg Says:

    good job Leo,
    ty for response !

  57. Whistleblower Says:

    I found a very good article on standing. It demonstrates how standing has become a tool to deny justice.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

    It may help you readers understand why “standing” has played a crucial role in this cause.

    [ed. Thanks for the link and research.]

  58. “When more than one officer openly questions the Commander In Chief’s Constitutional authority, then we do have the beginning of a tear in the fabric of the nation.”

    Yes. They did that with other Presidents over what some considered illegal wars.

    You’re right. This is different. But, we all know it’s not about the constitution for the birthers.

    For those birthers who are relying on the law that his mother would have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14, nobody screamed when the law was changed in 1986. Oh noes… those born before that date outside the U.S. couldn’t be citizens… but afterward… PRESIDENT! Where was the outrage?

    Leo, most do NOT really consider this a constitutional issue. They’ll say they do, but their actions speak differently.

    When you have the phony grand juries “indicting” the President in 40 minutes in a chatroom, it’s not about the constitution. Correspondence school lawyers who poll readers as to which judges & congressmen should be indicted next?

    We all know… this is NOT about the constitution.

    [Ed. It is for me. Most in the media happily ignore the fact that I brought my law suit before the election against McCain, Obama and Calero – slots A B and C on the NJ ballots and none were eligible. Made me sick. Viva the Constitution. I think friends. More like bye bye Ms. American Pie. It could never happen here, right? Wrong. It’s already happening. Been happening way before I ever heard the name Obama.]

  59. [Ed. Doesn’t make any difference as that section of Code does not define natural born citizen in its text. People continue to be confused. The Constitution makes clear – without defining each term – that “natural born citizen” and “citizen” have different effects.]

    Leo,

    If I could explain it to my son who was in the fifth grade that he was not an NBC and why, with no legal background of my own. Why can’t average Americans or supposedly legal scholars understand such a basic concept?

    [Ed. More of them understand it then let on… it’s being misunderstood on purpose. And that’s a fact. Misunderstanding by design.]

    If it were not important it would not appear in the Constitution, period.

  60. Leo,

    If there’s anything good about this whole (intentional?) fiasco of three unqualified/ineligible Presidential candidates and a totally bogus election, I think here is the good news:

    “We the People” are being awakened and educated in a way that never would have happened had it not been for this fiasco. If this had been a Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton election, “We the People” would have remained asleep at the wheel, unaware of the slow but steady slide into Socialism/Communism and the loss of our Constitutional liberties.

    It took something as bad as this to wake people from their slumber.

    And you have been a wonderful teacher to so many of us. We are truly thankful. We felt your pain when you had an emotional reaction to the travesty of injustices you experienced at all levels of the Judicial system. We missed you when you were silent. And we’re glad that you’re back now, no matter how long or short an amount of time that you’re back.

    I really do think that we are reaching “critical mass”. People who were afraid to question Obama before (due to his supposed popularity and due to fears of being called a “racist”) are now no longer afraid to question him.

    I agree with you that the admitted foreign citizenship at birth is the key issue, and understand you’re doubts about progress at the Supreme Court. But I also know that I have never trusted that COLB that was first posted at Daily Kos (along with the clearly forged “Haye I.B. Aphorgerie”). I think the Obama campaign “doubled down” on this forgery by producing a physcial copy and duping Annenberg Political Fact Check into believing it is real. I don’t trust any document produced at the Obama Campaign Headquarters in Chicago. Let’s see the original from Hawaii!

    It’s only a matter of time before a member of Congress decides to “Trust, but verify” and requests to see the original birth certificate directly from the State of Hawaii. And if the information on that original birth certificate doesn’t match the COLB, it’s “party’s over” for Obama, Pelosi, and anyone else involved in fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., etc., etc..

    And if the information on that original birth certificate does match the COLB, it’s only a matter of time before a member of Congress asks the Supreme Court to clarify the definition of “natural born citizen”. I don’t see how the Supreme Court could ignore such a request.

    Could the court then say that a person born in the U.S. with foreign citizenship (as Obama was) is nevertheless a “natural born citizen”, eligible to be President? Sure, they could. But they would have to directly contradict the clear intention of their first Chief Justice, John Jay, and it would open the door to terrorists being eligible to become President. I don’t think they would do that.

    Anyway, thank you again for all you have done and continue to do. You are making a positive difference, by educating a lot of people, who then go out and educate others.

    Our Constitutional Republic won’t be completely lost without a fight.

  61. The idea of standing as a metaphor for the individual is inherently flawed, as the term “standing” doesn’t incorporate the individual as much as the legal structure which the individual challenges. This allows the judicial branch to rule from an inherently subjective bench. For who is going to rule in favor of that which will bring down the walls as a legal fortress? The only way this can happen is if in the definition of a lawsuit the idea of standing is already incorporated.

    The best course of action would be for a group of birthers who are challenging the natural born status of Obama to file a class action lawsuit against MSNBC for Defamation because in defamation lawsuits “standing” is incorporated in the challenge.

    “Attacks on a person’s professional character or standing;”

    Notice the last word?

    Standing.

    I know you will see beyond this in a minute Leo..

    But please think about it….

  62. Whistleblower Says:

    “Been happening way before I ever heard the name Obama.”

    You’ve got that right, Leo.

    We may have one of the most deadly winters on record; with the potential impact of the swine flu. We may have an illegitimate president. And we may have a court system that is, from the bottom to the top, acting in a manner contrary to the beliefs of those who not only fought for our independence, and then framed our Constitution.

    The voices in the box, or the pictures on the screen, have successfully turned the citizenry into lemmings.

    “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” –Thomas Jefferson

    I think Mr. Jefferson would shed many tears if he viewed our country today.

    Too many of those who are learned in the law are either blinded by partisanship, in fear of rejection/repercussion, or brainwashed by the liberal agenda of law school. (Don’t avoid it friends. In military boot camp, they break you down and build you back up to think like a soldier. In law school they break you down and build you back up to think like a lawyer. They teach you how to think!)

    Why is the legitimacy of Barack Obama so important? –Let’s take a look at history. Let’s look at the longest lasting republic in the history of the world.

    Historian Thomas Quinn describes;
    “The Most Serene Republic of Venice was the world’s longest enduring independent state, far eclipsing all others. The Dutch Republic has existed for 216 years. The United States has endured for 233 years. The much-admired Roman Republic survived 565 years. Most historians agree that Venice was founded in 697and endured for an amazing 1100 years before Napoleon dissolved her government during his First Italian Campaign in 1797, when Venice violated her proclaimed neutrality by permitting the Austrian army he recently defeated to retreat through her sovereign territory.”

    Poor Venice. They decided to be accommodating and ignore the law. Next thing they knew…poof…no more independent republic.

    Wake up people!!

    “Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson

  63. Hey, according to the original Constitution, Obama is only 3/5ths of a citizen. Maybe you could make some hay with that.

    [Ed. Because of the Constitution’s foresight the Constitution can be amended to do the will of people. This is the genius of the document. Amendment make the Constitution alive, not the whim of radical justices. Article 2 Section 1 has not been amended.]

  64. Leo,
    Did you watch the video of Orly Taitz on The Colbert Report? I know you think she should not have gone on the show, but it is interesting to watch. Orly tries to explain that Obama may not be an NBC because his father was not a US citizen. Then Colbert immediately says something to the effect — “Oh no, we would not want to have another Chester Arthur administration.” Not the exact quote, but you get the idea. I was so surprised that he knew about Chester Arthur. Obviously, he knows a lot about this issue if he is bringing up Chester Arthur and he or someone working on his show must have seen your blog. Just thought you would want to know about that. You are definitely getting the word out about the NBC issue. Why all these media people including the hard news people do not want to deal with the issue is beyond me. I always thought the Constitution was sort of important, but that’s just me!

  65. Leo,

    It’s so nice to see you actively educating us once again. I sincerely appreciate your dedication to helping us understand the various legal nuances concerning this issue.

    While I am not putting a whole lot of stock in our political process to correct this injustice, I do trust that the Creator of the Universe knows all, sees all and is true to His word. He cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

    Take heart. The part you are playing is huge…and it is greatly appreciated. You are “doing good”, and I thank you. God bless you, sir.

    (See Galations 6:7-10)

  66. Leo, I just read this? It says that Reagan signed into law something about Natural Born Citizen.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html

    can you decipher this? I know it is misleading but?

    Have not heard this before.

    [Ed. They just lie in the article. The Wall Street Journal flat out lies to you. here is what they wrote:


    Obama was born before 1986 to married parents, and his father was an alien. Thus if it were an overseas birth, his mother would have to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 in order for her child to be a natural-born American. Mrs. Obama was only 18 when Barack was born, so she had not even lived 5 years after age 14.

    This is something of a technicality: Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.

    Reagan signed mo such law making anybody a natural born citizen. There is no legislation which uses that term. They are lying. The Wall Street Journal is simply lying to you.]

  67. Steven C Says:

    Excellent, I believe that this is the problem for a lot of laypersons, they do not understand that, opinions, decisions, and laws are all about the wording. I learned this in my youth having a good friend and neighbor that was an Attorney, and former Judge among other things. I often heard him speak about how all papers submitted to the Courts had to be, for lack of a better word, perfect.

    ps Do not know if you have heard but the web site, Obama File dot Com has been shut down by the owner. I personally will miss it and was wondering if you might know of some way to find it maybe archived on the web

    [Ed. The owner said he ended it because nobody was donating and bandwith was costing him money. I suggest he use WordPress to archive the site. They have never given me any problem (unlike Google who placed warnings on my blog while I was there). Worpress is free and it’s easy to use.]

  68. Leo,

    I’ve seen the Wong Kim Ark argument on many websites from Obama backers. Thanks for clarifying the decision on this blog. The Obama apologists are clever and not at all lacking in argumentation, that is for those of them that don’t immediately reduce their defense to purely ad hominem attacks, but they continually fail to realize that the cases they site like Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg refer to either citizenship, not natural born citizenship, or circumstances which aren’t similiar or relevant to Obama’s.

    It seems at every turn you are bringing the truth to the surface in these cases and the nation has much to learn from what you are doing. This is a refining period, where a vast majority of people concerned over Obama’s eligibility are only starting to understand what is truly the issue. This is a legal question, not at all fringe, but legal. Your contributions are helping in this regard tremendously.

  69. Crazy gets crazier.

    S. Res 511, the one that saved McCain hyde includes, as a matter of “legal analysis”, two lawyers understanding of the NBC.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S30AP8-0040:

    They take the time to define the 14th amendment.

    “If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655-66. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV”

    “EXPRESSLY ENSHRINES THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN BIRTHPLACE AND CITIZENSHIP”

    Why include this when resolution they are discussing 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”

    The topic is Natural Born, so why pollute the testimony with plain citizenship.

    Oddly the lawyer/author mentioned the most, in this record, was Theodore B. Olson but he worked with another prominent scholar. Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe.

    Professor Laurence Tribe. Obama’s professor! Here is a quote:

    “As the decade progressed, the most impressive student I had ever taught was quietly pursuing his own political trajectory. In 1989, I had met Barack Obama and hired him as my research assistant while he was still just a first-year Harvard law student. His stunning combination of analytical brilliance and personal charisma, openness and maturity, vision and pragmatism, was unmistakable from my very first encounter with the future president.”

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2008/11/05_tribe.html

    Goes more to show Obama had an express knowledge of the 14th amendment.

  70. Tony Stark Says:

    I see that some Obama supporters are desperately arguing that trying to remove Obama from office on the basis of his non-NBC status would do more harm to the country than just letting him remain in office. That’s just like saying that a surgeon who managed to join the staff of a major hospital by lying about his training should not be removed because doing so would deprive needy patients of his surgical expertise.

  71. Leo, your insights are greatly appreciated. It’s understandable yet difficult to read your pessimism about the end of our Republic. I need to ask you some impossible questions, if only for your impressions: What do we do? Persevere? Quit? Where do we go? Texas? Montana? Idaho? New Zealand? Europe? What of our money? Isn’t it kaput?
    If Obama is backed by forces so big that we are like kamikaze flies against King Kong, is this the end for a peaceful world?

  72. Thank you Leo.

    This sums it up-
    Obama’s birth debate: It’s about loyalty
    By James Lewis
    American Thinker

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_birth_debate_its_about.html

  73. I did not agree with you before on the issue of importance of the long-form-BC but now after the recent Fukino statement, I think you are right. Even if it is obvious from the second part of her statement (the natural born statement) that Fukino was following orders aimed at the obedient media and the ignorant masses who would not know that she is not qualified to interpret the Constitution, I think they could not push her so far as misrepresenting that he was born in Hawaii, unless some fake or genuine paperwork exists. She knows if she commits fraud that it has serious consequences. Her statement about NB is not fraud as she is unqualified and she could say that that was her opinion.

    I think they will release it fake or genuine, but waiting for the right moment. They feel that the media is still not engaged enough and people are not interested enough. They will release it when it will make the biggest impact, which impact is designed to have the side effect of destroying your very logical arguments as well as all pending lawsuits.

    That said, I still have difficulty dismissing his paternal grandmother’s statement, she had no motivation to lie. Also the Kenyan’s ambassador statement, as well the officially recorded minutes of the Kenya government, fairly clearly stating that BHO (or someone on behalf of BHO) requested a gag-order, and the Kenyan government was glad to accommodate the request. One American reporter was actually spent some days in jail and was thrown out of Kenya as he was asking question at the hospital. Why all this fuss if there is nothing to cover up?

    I know you don’t want to discuss the BC part. But would you comment on the first two paragraph? Thanks.

    [Ed. Hawaii’s willingness to cover him at every turn has always told me they have that base covered. I don’t mind covering the BC. It’s just that the nbc issue needs to be front and center.]

  74. http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf

    Here’s Ted Olson, Bush Attorney, on the legality of McCain’s citizenship. Farcical.

  75. What is darkness? What is evil? Plenty enough to go around in this day and age. And certainly plenty to go around in ages past. You Sir are not tilting at windmills. You Sir are not tinkling in the breeze. You Sir are giving hope. Providing light. Where none exists.

    I say do not let the trifling failings of one man, you. Weigh your heart. For you have uplifted untold many. You are an instrument of the ages. I’ll not chide you for not wearing such a badge. But it exists in all eternity. For you to desevedly wear.

    I can walk tall, I can walk proud. Amid the gloom. For you are keeping ther very idea of America alive. We shall prevail. This madness will end. They cannot take, what we will not surrender. Our hearts and minds.

    Mere words cannot convey my grattitude.

  76. Mrsd, it was not just Bush attorney Olson but more importantly Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe who signed that document.

    Not only was this professor Obama’s teacher he is a close associate of his.
    He helps at the Whitehouse now.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/07/23_tribe.html

    He has written such text as The Invisible Constitution where he “argues that the reach and influence of the written Constitution is not as broad or conclusive as we think. ”

    He is a board member of the American Constitution Society.

    http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3759744771.pdf

    This is an “evolving constitution” group that supported a new book called The Constitution in 2020.

    http://www.constitution2020.org/about

    “a powerful blueprint for implementing a more progressive vision of constitutional law in the years ahead.”

    A former member of the ACS Board of Advisors is Eric Holder.

    “Predicting an Obama victory in the November election, Holder told his audience that the U.S. would soon be ‘run by progressives.’”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33472

    Leo, I am sorry for this tangent. I believe that there will always be more to this story. It used to be that for every door you closed several more will open. Now it appears that every open door won’t close

  77. Whistleblower Says:

    The Framers didn’t think we need a Bill of Rights. The citizens thought otherwise. -So we amended the Constitution.

    The Framers didn’t think it necessary to ensure that women had the right to vote. The citizens thought otherwise. -So we amended the Constitution.

    The Framers didn’t think people of color should be full citizens. The citizens thought otherwise. -So we amended the Constitution.

    The Framers thought the loyalty of the father should be passed down to the son, and found it to be so important that they made it a qualification for only one office; The Office of the President; The Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s Armed Forces. Apparently, the citizens thought otherwise. -So we ignored the Constitution.

    My, how this country has changed. I guess this really is “change we can believe in”.

    America is crying.

    “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” —C.S. Lewis

  78. More from John Eastman.

    The Challenge Facing America

    And from testomony in the HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS in September 2005.
    They were discussing DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP,
    AND THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY.

    http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/109h/23690.pdf

    His testimony starts on page 57 and is followed by his written statement. He again procedes to prove the 14th admendment.

  79. What happened to my comment Leo? You had an answer and now it’s gone. Oh well, I’ll just be a reader only as I have been in the past.

    Thank you for all that you’re doing to keep us informed.

    [Ed. Holy cow. J, something or someone just moved your comment without my knowledge or consent. Seriously, it was move to this link

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/about/

    I don’t know how this happened.

    Here is what you originally wrote and my response:

    I was bantering with someone about the NBC issue and directed them to your blog. Apparently, they had already been here. This is their reply and I’m interested in what you might have to say about this.

    “A major source for Donofrio is Vattel, who wrote about a jus sanguinis approach to citizenship. He overlooks the fact that a much more influential source on the Framers of the Constitution was Blackstone, whose writings on English common law were key in the influence of American common law. His definition of natural born subject was that anybody born on the soil (jus soli) except for invading armies and children of foreign diplomats, were natural born subjects. This was discussed at length in Wong, and it is really an inevitable conclusion from the dicta in this case that if any court were asked to define natural born citizen, they would use the Blackstone definition.

    Even if the Framers had intended Vattel’s definition (which I don’t think they did), the 14th Amendment explicitly defined citizenship for Americans. And again, there is absolutely no current legal scholar who believes that natural born citizenship requires that the child be the son of two American citizens.”

    [Ed. You can start by quoting the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett where they stated unequivocally – six years after the the 14th Amendment was adopted – that the Constitution does NOT anywhere define the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Also, beware of people who say things like “there is no legal scholar anywhere…” it’s fluff and it’s not true.]

  80. Holy Cow indeed. That’s pretty strange. I was wondering what the heck I said to get deleted the one time I decide to post something. If it disappears again, I’ll really be freaked out. Thank you for reposting it.

  81. Harry H Says:

    It would be nice if Obama’s unlawful tenure could be ended cleanly by the courts or Congress, and I urge action on those fronts, but the military option would be the quickest, cleanest, and easiest on the nation. Upper-echelon officers have the means and the most urgent reason to act: they must asssure that armed force is used legally.

    This related quote is from “Clearing the Smoke” on the American Independent Party’s site: ” Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any courts-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. ”

    So take heart, patriot officers, you not only have the obligation to question unlawful authority, you are protected from court-martial for doing so. Go ahead, men/ladies, stand up and speak out for the Constitution you swore to uphold. Then fly Barry back to Indonesia without Secret Service protection.

  82. Leo,

    What circumstances would be in play for a lawyer… [Ed. snipped – Let’s not talk about Obama’s wife on this blog. She’s got nothing to do with whether he’s qualified to be Pres.] …about Michelle Obama.

  83. Leo,
    While I agree that Obama is not a NBC because of his father’s lack of US citizenship status, it appear the argument will be mooted by the recent revelation of his Kenyan birth certificate.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

    I see now immediate evidence that this is anything but authentic.

  84. I see NO immediate evidence that this is anything but authentic.

    (I apologize for the typo)

  85. Maybe we should contact the Russians. They saw his passport in 2005.

    http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke_industry/co-operation/39511

    Maybe they can tell us which birth certificate is REALLY REAL, too.

  86. They say it is unwise to look a gifthorse in the mouth, and I say it is unwise to underplay the Kenyan certified, signed, sealed, dated birth registration. We don’t want to overplay our hand, either, but why on earth should we not play this card for all it’s worth?

    As it now stands naked before the world, uncovered by official confirmation, the Kenyan document is still high-value evidence that an enormous crime may have been committed against this nation–perhaps the biggest crime in our national history.

    Let’s use the wild-card we have been dealt, not play it down.

    [Ed. And what if it’s fake? Then you’ve just pushed a lie. ]

  87. Apart from the gut reaction that the document looks real, I’m further intrigued by the date of issuance – 2/17/64…it fits right in the middle of his mothers two-month divorce/custody proceeding. I’m thinking she ordered it from Kenya and it has been kept for her by someone in Hawaii…perhaps the divorce lawyer she hired.

  88. OK, technical glitch indicates a rewrite. Leo said what if the Kenyan doc is fake, and I say so what? Just don’t overplay it. Make the birth-deniers disprove it.

    On its own, the birth registration is not proof, and we don’t need to claim it as proof to use it. It has evidentiary relevance and surface credibility, so why yield the ground it provides to those who believe, solely on faith (the gullible sheep), that the document is fake?

    [Ed. When you bring evidence, if you are ethical, then you do everything in your power to authenticate that evidence. I don’t see why they didn’t do more or why they are trying to beg Hillary for help in verifying the document. She accepts donations and she should be hiring professionals to do this research – private investigators, etc. So many leads exist in the document. But I don see where any were followed before releasing it.]

  89. Here Leo.

    If Obama can’t be President neither could Reagan , Clinton, Ford, Carter…

    etc. This one is a doozy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/the-constitution-says-oba_b_249730.html

    [Ed. Wow. Now that’s truly a dude who shouldn’t be writing for a living, not in English anyway. The joke is on him. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “or” is. But seriously, folks – it’s good to see the discussion shift.]

  90. Leo:

    I have looked at the question at hand in Wong Kim Ark, and the final ruling. It clearly says that it is a 14th Amendment citizen case. So by definition SCOTUS would not rule as to any natural born citizen status for Wong. And quite possibly they could not rule in such a manner and maintain integrity. The issue bought before SCOTUS was citizen only. They have to deal with the question at hand.

    [Ed. But they did indicate that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born.]

  91. Michael R Says:

    Leo, why does the Wong Kim Ark go through so much discussion of natural born citizen and natural born subject if neither were in question in the case?

  92. ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

    Leo,

    I’m very confused with this statement and your analysis.

    [Ed. The alien child born in the country has as much rights as the natural born child. What’s complicated. The court didn’t say both children were natural born. It only said one was natural born. Both citizens have the same exact rights, just as all 25 year old citizens have the same rights as all 35 year old citizens. But only the 35 year old people can be President. Eligibility to be President is not a RIGHT, it’s a requirement. Your confusing rights with requirements.]

    Because it sounds like they were saying that birth in this country would make you natural born. Meaning both citizens have the same rights including becoming president? Also, the word citizen in the “…of a citizen..” is singular. It would seem that he is also saying that one citizen parent is enough to make one natural born?

    I also have another question for you. If Obama swore and oath as a child in Indonesia to become a citizen would that have shifted his alliagance by making him a citizen of THAT country? Or does he have to sign legal documents to denounce his American citizenship?

    [Ed. He can’t have US citizenship renounced for him as a child. I don’t believe his swearing an oath as a child would kill US citizenship. Please understand that if Obama wasn’t born in the US he is not a US citizen at all. If he was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen but not natural born.]

  93. Michael R Says:

    Leo, I admit I have been a fan of your argument since before the election… until recently when I read (and reread) Wong Kim Ark. How do you reconcile the language that says that natural born subject and natural born citizen are the same, the difference in terminology is a reflection of the different types of government? A natural born subject could be the child of two aliens born under the legiality of the King. Please help me understand.

    [Ed. They are not the same. A subject is a condition made by a monarch. As Ramsay (18th century US statesman) has so eloquently put it, a citizen is equal to any monarch and is not made by a monarch. The difference is so radical that our nation was based on this one difference alone. Natural born subjects have allegiance to the King. Natural born citizens to the Constitution. They are radically different. Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that the alien’s child born in the US, while having the same rights as all other citizens is not natural born.]

  94. “They are not the same. A subject is a condition made by a monarch. As Ramsay (18th century US statesman) has so eloquently put it, a citizen is equal to any monarch and is not made by a monarch.”

    Now Leo, that is an emotional argument and all that but it doesn’t even address Michael R’s point, which is that (despite the fact the citizenship and subject-hood are philosophically very different in very important ways) the legal precedents for determining citizenship (in the U.S.) and subject-hood (in a kingdom) are one and the same.

    [Ed. Not the same citizenship laws between England and the US. We have a Constitution. A natural born subject is made by the King. A natural born citizen is made by having two parents who are citizens and being born on the soil.]

    According to the Wong Kim Ark decision.

    Now if Wong Kim Ark doesn’t say that, please demonstrate that it doesn’t!

    [Ed. The Court in Wong Kim Ark made it very clear – if you know how to read English – that the native born child of an alien ” is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Meaning they both have the same rights as citizens, but the child of the citizen is natural born while the child of the alien is not. Had the court wanted to say the “native born child of an alien is as much a natural born citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” – that’s exactly what the Court would have said.

    But they didn’t. The court was certainly caoable of using the English language, the decision reads like a dissertation. Natural born citizen was discussed. Natural born subject was discussed. It quotes the Rhodes case and states that natural born subjects have allegiance to the King while natural born citizens have allegiance to the US. It discusses allegiance being a determining factor in citizenship. A natural born citizen cannot have allegiance to the King.]

  95. […] can be shown in the Supreme court decision Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born. (source: […]

  96. Slaughterhouse Cases ( Miller ):

    The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    Wong Kim Ark:

    Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

    “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

    This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities. ( Was it? Let’s see… )

    Citizenship Clause author Jacob Howard:

    This ( constitutional citizenship ) will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

    ????

    From the language in Ark, we can only assume that had they known the context of Miller’s comments in Slaughterhouse, they would have decided the case differently.

    It certainly means that it can’t be used as any precedent in court. They clearly revealed that they weren’t aware of the intentions of the amendment’s framers.

  97. Anonymous Says:

    Leo, I cannot contribute intellectually to this pursuit. But, I can contribute to defraying the costs associated with it. Please give me an email address or a PayPal address and I can send a contribution.

    [Ed. Thank you. I do not accept donations or advertising revenue. Just post the link to this blog, that’s all I ask.]

  98. […] the Supreme Court has, in various cases, indicated that the native born son of an alien is not considered to be “natural born” even if […]

  99. borderraven Says:

    LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

    “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.
    Turning to the naturalization laws preceding the act of 1906, being [231 U.S. 9, 23] those under which Luria obtained his certificate, we find that they required, first, that the alien, after coming to this country, should declare on oath, before a court or its clerk, that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereignty; second, that at least two years should elapse between the making of that declaration and his application for admission to citizenship; third, that as a condition to his admission the court should be satisfied, through the testimony of citizens, that he had resided within the United States five years at least, and that during that time he had behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, fourth, that at the time of his admission he should declare on oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign sovereignty. These requirements plainly contemplated that the applicant, if admitted, should be a citizen in fact as well as in name,-that he should assume and bear the obligations and duties of that status as well as enjoy its rights and privileges. In other words, it was contemplated that his admission should be mutually beneficial to the government and himself, the proof in respect of his established residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution being exacted because of what they promised for the future, rather than for what they told of the past.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=231&invol=9#22

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: