The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

grail

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.  But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times.  But that’s exactly what has happened this week.  A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.  They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now.  A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team.  This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.  It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds.  It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884.  The American Law Review was a premier legal journal -  the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

owh

This was not a law school publication.  It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq.  Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association.  His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike.  I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President.  Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins.  This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.  This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers.  But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen.  It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up.  He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people.  This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often.  Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States.  He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

MYTH #4Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Attorney Collins discusses Vattel in great detail.  And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens.  Collins quotes Vattell.

But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattel’s definition.

This is very important.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was not created by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.”  That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”.  The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below.  Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”.  And that body of law -  according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents.  In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION

This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief.  Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil.  In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship.  This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship.  It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.

It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.

You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country.  If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.

This is the main issue and main reason why I have dedicated so much of my time to this situation.  I am no more worried about Obama than I was about Bush or Clinton.  I see all of them as having struck horrific blows against US sovereignty.  But I am seriously worried about who comes next.  Who is being groomed as a Manchurian candidate as we speak?

If Obama is eligible to be President, then the sons of every despicable despot are also eligible.

It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon.  Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation?  The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist.  With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario.  We must protect the protection.

A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.

The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President, but we are losing the PR war.

I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below.  But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court.  Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question.  There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:

View this document on Scribd



About these ads

171 Responses to “The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins”

  1. Just more proof that Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly.

  2. paralegalnm Says:

    Thanks for the great find. Yes, the Law of Nations by Vattel is more a compedium of international law more useful in analyzing cases of Conflicts of Law.

    True again about Chester Arthur. Leo Donofrio and his sister contributed greatly to this topic. As decided by the Elg vs Perkins case, the Norwegian father being naturalized prior to Elg’s birth created a natural born citizen. Subsequent naturalization as a minor when moved back to Norway did not alter that fact. Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen.

    Barack Obama was a dual national at birth, his father being a British colonial Kenyan. Obama was naturalized an Indonesian as a minor and maintained his foreign nationality into the age of majority in order to avoid Selective Service and to be enrolled as a foreign student at Occidental College.

    As recently as 2008, Obama exhibited his allegiance to Kenya and his Luo/Marxist/Muslim roots by supporting Raila Odinga presidential campaign with money and his senator’s status, in direct conflict with U.S. interests in the region.

    One might argue that a ‘naturalized’ citizen is more American than Obama, because that person formally renounced his former nationality during the Oath of Allegiance. Obama has done nothing to exhibit allegiance to the United States except fulfilling 1952 INA 301 residency requirements, and being born with U.S. nationality through the 309 out-of-wedlock provision.

  3. The Collins article is very good and illustrates the depth, intensity, and outright misinformation intentionally put forth by many of the pro-Obama defenders in trying to overturn the U. S. Constitution and the NBC requirement.

    As you know over the last 10 or so years there have been a myriad of attempts to put forth a Constitutional Amendment to overturn A1S1C5 (the NBC wording) and all have failed.

    The present pro-O forces are obfuscating and sending out so many wild, inapplicable arguments (Lynch v Clarke, Chester Arthur “precedent”, etc. that it’s good to see some direct and specific rebuttaly). These efforts fit right in with the recent essays of Mario Apuzzo and both efforts complement the other.

    Good work, all!!

  4. Leo,

    At the voracious pace you have been on of late, you may soon run out of myths to debunk, and may have already done so. I — we — are in awe and in your debt!!

    Robare

  5. MissTickly Says:

    This is such an incredible find I don’t know where to begin.

    First, because my dad was Canadian at birth, I can attest to that feeling of ‘Country.’ Canada is, indeed, very special to me and I’ve always felt it was my country, too, in some way.

    Second, I mentioned the ‘law of nations’ (lowercase) to you on another post because it is a science (not a PHILOSOPHY) and basically argued the same position that you are arguing here and also the same position the article is taking. This article is fantastic in how it plays out this very science much like any other written scientific theory that is tested reveals the logic in a step-by-step method. I am not sure where I went wrong in my argument but you didn’t seem to agree with my logic. I took the position that the science of the law of nations says that in the absence of a written definition in the Constitution, the law of nations falls lastly on things like ‘written work by eminent authors’ and ‘custom.’

    [Ed. I took issue with the idea that as to Presidential eligibility and the nbc clause, neither the "Law of Nations" by Vattell nor the body of law known as the "law of nations" was binding law on the US. That being said, and as I pointed out in today's article, those are evidence of what the framers meant. If you recall, there was a rallying cry at the time we had this discussion where people were trying to say that Vattell's treatise was meant as a codicil to the Constitution. I needed to make it clear this was not true and neither the treatise nor the science of the body of law were binding upon the US as to the domestic issue of POTUS eligibility. As to the issue of how it should be legally determined who is POTUS eligible, as the SCOTUS stated in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the court must look outside the Constitution... and certainly one piece of evidence they would be obliged to consider would be the law of nations and Vattell's treatise... but neither are, by themselves, binding US law. I realize it's a rather technical issue. Apologies if I was less than clear in my response to your enlightened questions.]

    Where your article diverges from my argument would be the ‘custom’ portion. You are pointing out there is NO COMMON LAW for federal law. But our Constitution directs Congress to define citizenship–is that correct?

    [Ed. Not correct. The Constitution only specifically directs Congress to make laws as to naturalization not as to nbc, and I think that's because - in their minds - the framers understood that nbc needed no Congressional definition. It was self evident. A person born in the US to citizen parents is nbc. That was clear to them. It's just not clear to the nation now.]

    That would make it ‘written law.’ But in the absence of any written definition in both the Constitution or by Congress or by SCOTUS, wouldn’t we have to look to Vattell and ‘custom’ if we are to find a Constitutionally recognized definition?

    The Constitution CLEARLY recognizes the law of nations, the SCIENCE of the law of nations is made up of natural law and positive law. It’s clear also, that ‘natural laws’ concerning the definition of ‘natural born citizenship’ are not being recognized and I assume that’s because the Constitution directs Congress to define it–is that correct?

    [Ed. As stated above, this is incorrect.]

    Didn’t you argue the natural law angle in your case to SCOTUS?

    [Ed. No, I never mentioned natural law.]

    It must be a positive law according to the SCOTUS, then. If that is correct, we have a definition that is recognized by the Constitution:

    The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

    Written or unwritten, having TWO parents that are US citizens is the science or logic behind being a natural born citizen in both natural and positive law. We can find it in nature by using the science like Vattell and we can fall on his definition through positive law as well as find it in our own custom.

    According to our custom and this article that exclude Chester, we’ve never known a natural born citizen to not be of two parents that are US citizens at the time of a child’s birth and born on US soil. The father must be a US citizen at birth. Everything says so.

    Should the ‘Craig vs. US.’ case and any future cases be referencing the ‘law of nations’ as a science rather than a body of written work?

    Where am I going wrong on this positive law/custom/common law business, Leo?

  6. Doesn’t information of this magniture — with more to come — invite more than just scholarly analysis and commentary?

    What can be done and how can it be done when so many avenues through our legal system have already been closed?

    [Ed. In my opinion, nothing will come of anything written at this blog. Nothing will come of any of the law suits brought. Nothing will come of the grand Jury presentment issue. Nothing will stop Obama. I have personally felt his power and protection in my experience in the courts. He is here to stay. I publish all of this so that there will be some historical record. But just as my Citizenspook blog is now being controlled by some outside force - I am locked out of my own blog there - I expect that this blog will also be taken over at some point. Eventually, I see the internet being taken down and reborn in a much more censored format. What is happening before our very eyes is nothing short of a coup de tat. And it didn't start with Obama, but it just might end with him. He may be the last President of the US because I don't believe we are going to survive as a sovereign nation for more than 8 years.]

  7. I have been saying this all along. Obama Usurper #1, if that is not mitigated, then what’s next Usurper # 2-3-4 into infinity. Since the day he was born he is not eligible for potus. It is that simple.

  8. Hey, way to go Revolution Undead!
    Looks like BHO would have to throw his parents marriage under the bus and declare himself an illigitimate child, with NBC Status coming from the mother. Oh and those peky 1961 birth anouncements will have to go. LOL
    Regards
    Scott

  9. Leo,

    I am blown away! So what we have as an irrefutable conclusion that in order to be a NBC, the child must definitively follow the condition of the male/father.

    Absolute proof that the mother’s citizenship is irrevelent in determining NBC as her condition always followed that of the father/husband, but more importantly it hammers that ‘stubborn’ fact of unity of allegiance to one sovereignty at the time of birth.

    Excellent, Bravo, Félicitations! Congratulations to you and your team!

    [Ed. Recall, at the time Collins wrote this, every woman married to a US citizen was automatically a US citizen. This was known as derivative citizenship. No application was necessary. If you were an immigrant family, once the father was naturalized... the mother was automatically naturalized. If an immigrant woman married a US citizen male, then she was automatically a US citizen the second they were pronounced man and wife. But if the child was not legit... the mother's citizenship determined the child's citizenship. So when Collins says citizenship follows the father, he knew that the mother was also a US citizen automatically. Just as in Elg, two citizen parents.]

  10. MissTickly Says:

    Also, I realize that the ‘law of nations’ refers to international laws, but it really does seem to refer to laws between states as well. Obviously, the Constitution is a federal document and states have their own individual Constitutions.

    But, if this is the definition of ‘law of nations’ (lowercase but found in Vattell’s LoN), why can’t it be applied to the federal law, too?

    “The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.

    He continues with this:

    “(1) IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES In this treatise it will appear, in what manner States, as such, ought to regulate all their actions. We shall examine the obligations of a people as well towards themselves as towards other nations; and by that means we shall discover the Rights which result from these obligations. For, the right being nothing more than the power of doing what is morally possible, that is to say, what is proper and consistent with duty — it is evident that right is derived from duty, or passive obligation, — the obligation we lie under to act in such or such manner. It is therefore necessary that a Nation should acquire a knowledge of the obligations incumbent on her, in order that she may not only avoid all violation of her duty, but also be able distinctly to ascertain her rights, or what she may lawfully require from other nations.

    4. In what light nations or states are to be considered.

    Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.”

    I don’t know what power the Congress has to punish offences that are international offences, but certainly they have the power to punish federal crimes or crimes against the Constitution.

    And what of all the states that are declaring sovereignty? What effect does this have on the law of nations when you consider this?

    “The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. It is principally for them, and for their ministers, that it ought to be written. All mankind are indeed interested in it; and, in a free country, the study of its maxims is a proper employment for every citizen; but it would be of little consequence to impart the knowledge of it only to private individuals, who are not called to the councils of nations, and who have no influence in directing the public measures. If the conductors of slates, if all those who are employed in public affairs, condescended to apply seriously to the study of a science which ought to be their law, and, as it were, the compass by which to steer their course, what happy effects might we not expect from a good treatise on the law of nations! We every day feel the advantages of a good body of laws in civil society: — the law of nations is, in point of importance, as much superior to the civil law, as the proceedings of nations and sovereigns are more momentous in their consequences than those of private persons.”

    Consider this too:

    “There certainly exists a natural law of nations, since the obligations of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowledge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations or sovereigns. All treatises, therefore, in which the law of nations is blended and confounded with the ordinary law of nature, are incapable of conveying a distinct idea, or a substantial knowledge of the sacred law of nations.”

  11. Leo,
    An interesting point that Mr. Collins makes (I believe) is that a bastard child would assume the nationality of the mother. I think that you have held before that whether bastard or not, the father of the child is the citizen of a nation, and the child would follow that nationality (not trying to be snarky or anything).

    [Ed. I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that I would not entertain any discussion about Obama not being a legitimate child. I continue to not allow such evil gossip. I also do not allow discussions that insist Obama's father was not Obama, Sr. But if you have a reference to my stating that the father of a bastard determines the citizenship, please point it out. I don't recall making that statement.]

    I was also under the impression that the mother’s nationality would be asserted only if the father was dead when the child was born.
    I guess if backed up to a wall that Obama may try to claim that his mother’s marraige to Obama sr. was invalid, or something to that effect (if, of course, he was actually born in Hi.). It is also interesting that the year that this is written, 1884, is the same year Gray wrote the Elk Jurisdiction decision, and this article discusses natural law jurisdiction.

    [Ed. Makes you wonder what changed Gray's mind between 1884 and 1898. Because the two decisions are not compatible.]

  12. Is this the same George D. Collins that was one of the Chief Lawyers for Appellent in Wong Kim Ark?

  13. Leo, George Collins wrote the brief for the Appellants in Wong Kim Ark. You can read his brief here:

    http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/AppellantsBrief.pdf

    The Supreme Court, then, had Collins’ arguments before them when they decided Wong Kim Ark. They rejected his arguments in a 6-2 decision.

    [Ed. They only rejected his position as to who is a citizen, but as to who is a natural born citizen, the court in Wong Kim Ark indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born.

    See my article,

    Justice Horace Gray clearly indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not A Natural Born Citizen]

    The question is, then, what sort of weight do we give to the side that loses, completely, their argument before the Supreme Court?

    [Ed. Hold on a minute. The main issue and the most important thing to grasp about my post today is that at the time this was written, Chester Arthur was President. This article by Collins makes it clear that people didn't know Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

    Furthermore, as stated above, the holding in Wong Kim Ark was only to the specific question of whether Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen... the court held that if your parents were permanently domiciled here and you were born here, then you are a US citizen. They indicated that you were not natural born though. Additionally, Obama's father was never permanently domiciled here so Wong Kim Ark's limited holding doesn't apply to Obama.]

    For example, does it matter that Collins thought that the issue in the case was the definition of natural born citizen? Does it matter that Collins acknowledges in his brief that it was commonly understood at the time that citizenship was given irrespective of parental citizenship? Does it matter that he acknowledges in his brief that British Common Law would make one a natural born citizen of the US and it is only by substituting International law in its place that we get to your preferred view?

    [Ed. The natural born citizen clause was written into the US Constitution. That makes it US law.]

  14. I found the discussions of “bastards” interesting. Does that leave the door wide open for Obama to claim he was a bastard and inherits citizenship soley through the mother?

    [Ed. Obama was not a bastard. I will not entertain this defamation. All attempts to turn this blog into a gossip column will be deleted.]

  15. great- this shows your argument is not something created for obama– but they will just say the Dissent (is term right?) in clark trumps a review. the Dissent in clark and in minor cancel each other out on the federal level-and seems to be nothing else to illuminate further. this review clearly shows the federal reasoning and trumps any state reference to nb.

    the fact that the meaning of “jurisdiction there of” has been limited to the exceptions and twisted to not mean- citizen or subjects of foreign states born within the United States is clearly showed here and I believe extremely important.-

    you wrote”Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

    “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

    Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth.”

    curious-> what happened over the years to the process to become citizen? this review was enlightening.

  16. Since Collins’ arguments were fully briefed before the Supreme Court, they were also fully responded to by the other side. Here, then, is their argument:

    http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Brief.for.the.Appelle.pdf

    They seem to pretty devastatingly destroy the notion that there’s no common law and that we should look to international law to govern the definition of citizenship.

    “It would seem as if the right of citizenship was for each country to determine for itself, and that any nation would guard with jealous interest the right to decide who should be its members. That is to say, it is a matter of local and national law, as distinguished from international law, and the United States would be the last to surrender the privilege of determining, by its own law, who were or were not its citizens.

    [I]t seems somewhat remarkable that the Solicitor-General should take the position that the Government of the United States is to be administered, not in accordance with the laws of the United States, but in accordance with the law of nations, and that the vital question of who compose the great body of their citizens is to be determined, not by the law of the United States, but by the rules of international law.”

    [Ed. As I've stated repeatedly, the law of nations is not binding law or precedent on this nation, especially as to a domestic issue. But as to the nbc issue, it is clearly stated in Minor and Wong that the court must look outside the Constitution for a definition. Both of those cases were decided years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. One of the places they would be obliged to look for guidance would be the law of nations and Vattell because these provide context and have been cited by SCOTUS numerous times. Neither the treatise nor the body of law is binding but they do provide context.

    My point has NEVER been that the courts have determined the issue of who is NBC for purposes of satisfying A2S1C5... my point has always been that the issue is more than RIPE for adjudication. Those who are saying the issue has been determined either way are lying. This is an issue of FIRST IMPRESSION. I have argued that nbc status is not available to OBama, but I have not said that there is a case directly on point as to this issue... those who do say that are lying or are simply ignorant.

    Obviously, there is a dispute. We know that "citizen" is the requirement for Senator and Representative, but for POTUS the listed requirement is natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark's holding pertained to who is a "citizen". Who is a "natural born citizen" for purposes of being POTUS needs to be taken up by SCOTUS. It's clear form the holdings in Minor, Wong Kim Ark and Marbury v. Madison that nowhere in the Constitution is NBC defined and this goes to the 14th Amendment as well.

    If 14th Amendment native born citizenship defined nbc, then SCOTUS in Minor and WKA would have told us that the definition of NBC is found in the Constitution. But they said the opposite. It is not defined in the Constitution. They both said that specifically.]

  17. Joseph Nesbitt Says:

    Question,
    “quo warranto” is this a legitimate vehicle to pursue Obama’s position as president of the U.S.?

    [Ed. Absolutely. Please see my three part series on QW.]

  18. Great research team at UCONN! Thanks for publishing this, Leo. Now, we need a lawsuit referencing these historical documents, which give a clear understanding of the intent and meaning of NBC.

  19. They Call Themselves the ‘UNDEAD REVOLUTION
    New information in from Leo Donofrio has exploded even further the constitutional claims Obama makes to be eligible to be POTUS. It has and will continue to be a fight with the liberal progressives who actually believe that British common law is the co…

  20. They Call Themselves the ‘UNDEAD REVOLUTION’
    Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 25, 2009

    New information in from Leo Donofrio has exploded even further the constitutional claims Obama makes to be eligible to be POTUS. It has and will continue to be a fight with the liberal progressives who actually believe that British common law is the core to our constitution. So with that, the fight to win this ‘Revolution’ goes on and the ‘Constitutional’ team has just scored a major ‘Win’ against her opponent in the battle over ‘Interpreting the US Constitution and the framers intent’.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/they-call-themselves-the-undead-revolution/

  21. Leo,
    Once again, our gratitude.
    In my family, your name stands with the giants of our country: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Reagan, Donofrio. You are a man of Passion, Principle and Patriotism.

    Question: Does the final paragraph of the Collins article provide Obama an out? (“or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of his birth.”)

    Or, in this case, does illegitimate mean father “unknown”. For, his citizenship still follows that of his “known” father – British.

    [Ed. Thank you for the kind words, but there will be no discussion about Obama being a bastard. He wasn't. His parents were married before he was born. End of story.]

  22. Wonderful clarity here in an impeccable source. Only problem is that under Hate Crimes Laws now current or planned, some feminist org may be able to sue you for daring to say that a father’s citizenship weighs an ounce more than a mother’s in the scales of justice. In our feminized society, giving fatherhood precedence will ring like heresy in many delicate ears.

    I thought I was being rather brave for daring to mention fatherly priority in my letter-to-the-letter this morning in relation to Obama’s British status, and now Leo has gone and busted this gender question wide open by citing Collins, who says in his conclusion that ” . . . it is esential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof, . . . .” Brace yourself for “sexist” as well as “racist” epithets.

    Here’s the relevant portion of my letter-to-the-edior today:

    “So far as we know, and we don’t really know, Obama was born in Hawaii, but his father was a British subject/citizen whose allegiance naturally, automatically, indisputably passed to Obama Jr. when Jr. was born. By the way, I understand that in British law it doesn’t (or didn’t then) matter who the mother is–if the father is British, that child belongs to Great Britain, period.

    How can it be that the birth status of a natural born U.S. citizen was governed by British law? It’s a logical impossibility, and that is why we have a Bogus Potus sitting today in our White House.”

    [Ed. The issue is not gender based as you may think. Woman were automatically given US citizen status if married to a US male. And if the child was a bastard the mother's citizenship took precedence over the father's. So technically, what Collins is saying is that the MOTHER'S CITIZENSHIP IS ALWAYS THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE CHILD. That's right. Every woman married to a US citizen male form 1855 to 1922 was automatically a US citizen. So there was no discrimination against women. The woman's citizenship was ALWAYS passed to the child. It is the father who is deprived when the child is a bastard... then the child follows the mother. When the parents are married the child follows both of them as both are citizens.]

  23. If the lawyer Collins was not writing about NBC because of President Arthur, do you have any sense as to why he suddenly decided to write this article? That would be the logical question.

    [Ed. Law review articles are not necessarily written to address political issues, they are intellectual exercises in themselves. The article wasn't solely focused on nbc status, but it did address it. The article discussed citizenship cases which are always a hot topic.]

  24. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    After reading this law review article, I thought to myself finally some definitive legal remarks regarding this issue especially with reference to Vattel and both The Law of Nations as written in his treaty and the law of nations as practiced by foreign sovereigns at the time.

    As a result, remembering that I am attending Congressman Franks town hall today, I thought there might now be a succinct way to broach this very important issue at a town hall meeting.

    I called Congressman Franks’ office again this morning to see if I could get a more definitive answer from his staff as to Franks’ thoughts on this subject. After providing the staff member who answered the phone some background information including citing Minor v. Happersett and quoting Vattels’ definition as well as citing portions of Collins’ The American Law Review article, I was told by the staffer that Congressman Franks had done extensive research on this subject and had concluded that Barack Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. I was “floored.” I explained to the staffer that I was surprised that Congressman Franks could be so convinced of his conclusions to an issue that had never been defined in the Constitution, U.S. statutes nor subsequently by the federal judicial system.

    I asked how I could bring my own research (which is your research Leo and others) to the attention of Congressman Franks and was told I could request a one on one meeting with Congressman Franks through his website. I have initiated that request and await with interest to see if Congressman Franks will grant my request. In the meantime, I will be attending his town hall meeting tonight and will report back here as to what transpires at that event.

    [Ed. Thanks for making an effort. Wow, Congressman Franks must be one hell of a fast and thorough researcher. You should ask his office for his research.]

  25. [...] Obama, Arthur). The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles (re: Obama, Arthur). naturalborncitizen ^ | 8/25/2009 | [...]

  26. Just a little note:

    According to the little blurb about the author, he was in law school when he wrote the article.

    [Ed. It also says he graduated at the head of his class? Furthermore, bac then, law students were typically working as de fact attorneys in apprentice positions after one year of law school. And I really believe one year of law school followed by two years as an apprentice makes a much more skilled attorney.]

    It also states that he was a Californian and a Republican. Republicans (at least on the East Coast) were more open to the ”native born” requirement for citizenship and less interested in patrem.

    [Ed. How do you know this? This seems like an off statement. Please elaborate.]

  27. This was a very interesting article and unfortunately we have today what Collins warned against. We have several groups of aliens in our country who have refused to assimilate. They want to be here but do not want to be real Americans at heart.

    The article does appear to have no connection with Arthur. However, there must have been something going on to spur this investigation. Perhaps they were debating the Chinese citizenship.

    [Ed. Citizenship and immigration are always important hot topics. It's incorrect to state that the article does not "appear" to have any connection to Chester Arthur - the article - in fact - has NO connection to Chester Arthur. His name and office are not mentioned at all in the article. Let's be clear about this: the article doesn't mention Arthur because the public was not aware that Arthur was a British subject at birth.]

    The questions that will be asked are, is this logic still validl in light of how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted since then AND what of the woman of today as it relates to citizenship. I don’t see us reverting back to a time when a woman’s being is not as important as a man’s.

    If woman back then had no legal right, why would Vattel or the law of nations require both parents to be citizens?? Where is this law of nations? Is it tangible or was it principle based on the ideas of the time.

  28. If we can get someone to make a legal challenge. This is the most on point information I have read recently.

  29. So does this mean you will resubmit your case to SCOTUS? Is that even possible?

  30. stand up and fight Says:

    I have stated many times on different blogs that Obamas father was never a citizen of this country.It is no different than if Obamas father was Osama Bin Ladin.It is so simple to see why the words natural born citizen is in the constitution.I think most people can understand why it is important that natural born citizens only be allowed to be president.The problem is there is a huge coverup going on in the press and media to confuse people.For the supreme court justices to avoid hearing this issue is insane.Evertday Obama is allowed to stay in office makes it that much harder to remove him.Obama is making a mockery of our constitution and every president before him.The military should remove him at once he is not qualified to be in the white house.Obama does qualify to be in the big house.

  31. Gary Welsh Says:

    It’s an excellent analysis of the issue, Leo, although I could have done without all the anti-Chinese bigotry in his article. It at least gives us a view of a well-respected legal authority in the period following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

  32. [...Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth...]

    First of all, that’s an incredible find. Kudos to the UConn researchers.

    Leo, could you tell us non-lawyer types the differences in weight between a law review article like this and an actual court ruling? How can we best leverage this new information?

    [Ed. The law review article is not binding law. A case is. But when there is an issue of first impression like the nbc issue - to which SCOTUS in Minor and Wong Kim Ark have it's necessary to looko outside the Constitution to define - then this kind of law review article is probative.

    However, the article is more important than helping to define NBC in that it proves that the public didn't know Chester Arthur was born a British subject. If that issue had been out in the open, then this law review article would have been required to confront it. Obviously, this esteemed law review started by SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes would look completely moronic if they published an article about citizenship which concludes that the father must be a US citizen while the POTUS in the White House at the time of publication was known to have been born of a British father.

    This article destroys the theory that the public was aware Chester Arthur was born British.]

    Looking forward to the further research…

  33. Ladyhawke Says:

    Wow Leo!

    If I read Mr. Collins’ article correctly, according to his analysis, Obama might not be a citizen even if he were born in Hawaii, unless his parents were not married.

    Did I interpret that correctly?

    Once again, thanks for all you do!

    [Ed. That's correct. But according to statute, Obama would be a citizen if he was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't born in Hawaii, he wouldn't be a citizen.]

  34. Exceptional information, fact, and research!! The proof is so weighty that none could/should ignore. So “why” is it being blatantly ignored? The answer to that question is on the very dark side of eternal truths I am afraid!
    I fear that all of this is the culmination of ancient and present prophecies.. No, I am not a religious nut, but given all of the efforts and exposed truths, especially the points and facts of history that you and so many have brought forth there is no other explanation.
    There are dark forces at work. The “elitists” have worked their diabolical plan for many generations and we are witnessing it’s birth.

    All should be sure of the side they stand, because this is a war of principalities (not to be cliche…but there is not another reason I can see)!

    God Bless and we are grateful for all the truths you post…you are doing more than you know! You are documenting these horrific times with fact and logic that will be a historical record!
    Keep up the great work Leo!

  35. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    How ironic is it, or maybe more profound in how interesting is it that God may indeed work in mysterious ways when you consider this. Barack Obama writes a memoir touting the influence of a Father that was completely absent from his life. That Father’s citizenship has made Barack Obama ineligible to hold the office of President. Had his mother not been married to the Father described in Obama’s book, and if Barack Obama was born a bastard then Barack Obama may just have been a natural born citizen under Collins’ definitions proferred in this law review article. The irony is incredible.

  36. Leo,

    This new information that you have out is very interesting. Thanks for putting this out. Can’t wait to see the other.

  37. Hennie Bogan Says:

    Leo,

    Of you many fine pieces, this one may be your best, very well presented.
    Thank you.

  38. Even though the media has repeatedly sold us out, once that report is ready I believe a major press release should be disseminated.

    [Ed. A press release would be waste of time. The media? What media? We have no media. We have a ministry of propaganda.]

  39. So………. to cut to the chase, Obama is a British subject and may apply to become an American Citizen thru naturalization and imagration(INS)
    HOW CAN WE HELP HIM?
    Thanks; UNDEAD REVOLUTION and SIR Leo!

    [Ed. More on Obama's current status to come...]

  40. Jackpot!!!! :)

  41. Response from Virginia Attorney General Mims:

    What are the State’s duties in upholding their oath to protect the Constitution with regard to elections for President?

    There is no “duty” placed upon the States, nor is there any oath given, with regard to “protecting” the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution represents a delegation of the otherwise unlimited powers of the States to form the United States government. See 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Does the state have no duty to stop Kim Jong Il from running for President on Virginia’s ballots?

    The State has no such duty. The State simply accepts the names of the nominees of the political parties as certified by the national party chairs for the purposes of electing electors to vote for the office of President. Remember that the President is not directly elected by the people of the United States – electors are selected who vote for the individual (see explanation below)

    [Ed. Ask him why Roger Calero was remove from the ballots in five states.]

  42. Leo:

    Thanks to you and to UCONN for all the great work! I look forward to reading the finished report.

  43. MissTickly Says:

    [ and certainly one piece of evidence they would be obliged to consider would be the law of nations and Vattell's treatise... but neither are, by themselves, binding US law. I realize it's a rather technical issue. Apologies if I was less than clear in my response to your enlightened questions.]

    I see what you are saying now, thank you. You are saying, sure, if SCOTUS would hear a thorough case and rule on it, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Vattell AND custom AND the science of the law of nations. But until SCOTUS puts it in print we just have a bunch of evidence piling up and nothing to do with it.

  44. MissTickly Says:

    Well, if anyone wants to support my run for president I’m in.

    I am in the exact same position as BHO. My father was not a US citizen at the time of my birth but I was born on US soil to a NBC mother.=)

  45. How can this be happening? Why will no one step up/ Supreme Court? other politicans? I do not understand why this is happeneing. We do need a million American citizens march to the Supreme Court, do they not work for us, through our taxation?

    [Ed. Yup. How does it feel, America? The truth is hard to swallow, but your Government media and courts have sold you out.]

  46. “the court in Wong Kim Ark indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born. See my article…”

    Sorry, Leo, your article makes a hash of the English language.

    [Ed. Look buddy, them are fighting words. If you want to take issue with something I wrote, then take the time to quote the part that you are taking issue with and proceed from there. Here is what I wrote in my article titled

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

    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.



    A clue that Justice Gray didn't "clearly indicate that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen" is the fact that the dissent in the case thought that's exactly what Gray was doing. Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan both read the same majority opinion you're now dissecting and came away thinking that the majority was deciding "natural born citizen." [Ed. Do not use bold print - that is reserved for my comments.] They said:

    “And it is this rule [birth on these shores regardless of parental citizenship], pure and simple, which it is asserted [by the majority] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

    The dissent then goes on to reject that view, saying there was no such rule in the common law before the passage of the 14th amendment.

    But, regardless of the fact that it is in no way obvious that Wong Kim Ark was limited to some new form of citizenship (native but not natural born), the court did more than simply reject what Collins said about citizenship.

    The Court also rejected what Collins said about Lynch v. Clarke. Despite a blistering attack on this case in the government’s brief which borrowed heavily from Collins’ article, the Court cites Lynch v. Clarke approvingly.

    The Court rejected Collins’ view that the British Common Law has nothing to say about citizenship. When the Court writes a 50 page decision quoting at extensive length from British Common Law, you can be assured that the notion that BCL has nothing pertinent to say on the topic is rejected quite soundly.

    Finally the Court rejected completely Collins’ view about the Law of Nations. Adopting, instead, the Blackstone conception of natural born.

    [Ed. Justice Gray's long winded opinion is famous for quoting many things. Most of them are not holdings of the court but simply they provide various viewpoints. I notice that you are only concerned with the view points which support your view. You seem to ignore things like the quote from Justice Swain in the Rhodes case which states that a natural born subject owes allegiance to the king. According British law, Obama is a natural born subject. How interesting.

    Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark restates what was said in Minor, that the definition of "natural born citizen" is NOT contained in the Constitution. Since the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, how can you claim that the definition of natural born citizen is the 14th amendment? Your hero Justice Gray tells you this is not the case.]

  47. MissTickly Says:

    [Ed. Thank you for the kind words, but there will be no discussion about Obama being a bastard. He wasn't. His parents were married before he was born. End of story.]

    I would say the following hasn’t happened, but given the chance that Obama was adopted by Soetoro–it could be that Obama Sr. waived his rights to Barry Obama paving the way to him becoming Barry Soetoro. I don’t think you can have two legal fathers. Would this make any difference? (from the DoH in Hawaii:)

    “For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made:

    * An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the person, and payment of any fees.”

    Now, I would say writing a book called “Dreams of my Father” means he recognized their relationship, but it’s all so muddy when Lolo steps into the picture. You know?

  48. MissTickly Says:

    By the way their are two sources that support the idea that he was adopted: the school records, of course, but also the Soetoro divorce papers that say that Lolo had some obligation to pay for Barry’s education.

    Sorry, I had to digress on this.

  49. I was your fourth comment and now it is gone!
    Hope I didn’t say anything wrong!
    Curious as to why it has been deleted?!

    God Bless!

    [Ed. Please resubmit it --- I have no idea what you are talking about. So many comments today and the delete button is right next to the edit button.]

  50. So I wanted to know what the opposition view was. So I asked a certain professor.Here is what he said.
    Of course I disagree.

    Hi Scott,
    “I do believe that someone born in Hawaii is a natural born citizen. NBC has to do with “natural obligation” or natural right, according to Calvin’s Case, the English decision that is the basis of the phrase. So the question is whether a person, at birth, is subject to, say, a duty not to commit treason, or a duty to submit to the draft. The President was under such duties, as a citizen at birth. I don’t think the status of the parents has anything to do with “natural born” status, except of course if the parents are diplomats or soldiers in hostile occupation, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation/sovereign.”

    Thanks again Leo
    Scott

    [Ed. Everyone has an opinion. Pity he doesn't confront any realistic version of history.]

  51. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    I don’t know if this info has been posted yet; if, ignore and delte this comment.

    James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791)

    “The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation.”

    “But, if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it must surely be highly necessary to those who are appointed, the publick servants and stewards of the commonwealth.”

    “In the United States, a system of republicks, the law of nations acquires an importance still more peculiar and distinguished. In the United States, the law of nations operates upon peculiar relations, and upon those relations with peculiar energy. Well am I justified, on every account, in announcing the dignity and greatness of the subject, upon which I am now to enter.”

    “On all occasions, let us beware of being misled by names. Though the law, which I am now to consider, receives a new appellation; it retains, unimpaired, its qualities and its power. The law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of origin divine.”

    “The opinions of many concerning the law of nations have been very vague and unsatisfactory; and if such have been the opinions, we have little reason to be surprised, that the conduct of nations has too often been diametrically opposite to the law, by which it ought to have been regulated.”

    ” The melancholy truth is, that the law of nations, though founded on the most solid principles of natural obligation, has been but imperfectly viewed in theory, and has been too much disregarded in practice.”

    “The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of nature applied to states and sovereigns. The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of states and sovereigns, obligatory upon them in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as the law of nature is obligatory upon individuals. Universal, indispensable, and unchangeable is the obligation of both.”

    “Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature’s God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all. How vast–how important–how interesting are these truths! They announce to a free people how exalted their rights; but, at the same time, they announce to a free people how solemn their duties are. If a practical knowledge and a just sense of these rights and these duties were diffused among the citizens, and properly impressed upon their hearts and minds; how great, how beneficial, how lasting would be their fruits! But, unfortunately, as there have been and there are, in arbitrary governments, flatterers of princes; so there have been and there are, in free governments, flatterers of the people. One distinction, indeed, is to be taken between them. The latter herd of flatterers persuade the people to make an improper use of the power, which of right they have: the former herd persuade princes to make an improper use of power, which of right they have not. In other respects, both herds are equally pernicious. Both flatter to promote their private interests: both betray the interests of those whom they flatter.”

    James Wilson
    -Signer of the Declaration of Independence
    -Twice elected to the Continental Congress
    -a major influence in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution
    -one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States

    [Ed. Thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it.]

  52. What is to happen with the USA as a not-sovereign nation in 8 years?
    Will it disintegrate into seceded States? Will it be taken over by another country?

    [Ed. Anything goes.]

  53. Leo,

    I briefly wrote of the changes to the citizenship of women thru history in a post in July. It is pretty simple but I think it hits the ‘nail on the head’ so to speak.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/bringing-the-constitution-into-the-21st-century/

  54. What exactly happened to your Citizenspook blog?
    This is very upsetting as was your exoerience on the way to and in the SCt..
    Please respond,,,,

    [Ed. I'm locked out of the blog and they tried to set me up back in January. See

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/liberty-bell-open-chess-and-obama/

    and the follow up

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/my-citizenspook-blog-has-been-hacked/ ]

  55. MissTickly Says:

    Leo, what does the severing of parental tie later in baby/childhood, do to citizenship if natural born citizenship happens at birth? (only as it pertains to the father of course.)

    [Ed. nothing. you are nbc at birth or not. nothing the parents do can change that. now if the child waives his citizenship that's different. ]

  56. Reality Check Says:

    Great information! I doubt any of the courts will act on any of it, they didn’t before….

    [Ed. I agree.]

  57. Leo

    Your doing a great service, would a grandjury be able to investigate
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18929631/Patriots-Heart-v-Soetoro-Petition-for-Grand-Jury

    [Ed. the pure eligibility issue is not a criminal issue. under the DC Code quo warranto is a civil case. as to possible fraud, I think in Arizona due to the affirmation signed by Obama, yes a GJ could look into that as far as perjury.]

  58. Why the conservatives don’t care.

    “Jindal’s parents immigrated to Louisiana from India when his mother was four months pregnant with him.”

    “Conservatives may someday look back and see a providential hand in the Jindal family’s timely arrival in Louisiana. Had Bobby Jindal been born in India, not Baton Rouge, he could never have satisfied the constitutional mandate that “no person except a natural born citizen” can serve in this nation’s highest office.”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20071029/ai_n21099397/

    These clowns so much want Bobby Jindal they hope this story goes away. Maybe a better angle is to destroy the Repulican hopeful’s chances before he even throws in his hat. This research might not remove Obama but it will mess up Jindal.

    I like Jindal but I love my country.

    [Ed. I see it more as they are putting Jindal up to cover for Obama. Nothing will change until people start to realize that the GOP and McCain wanted Obama in office. It's all one party at the top. Break through the matrix people.]

  59. Ladyhawke Says:

    Leo,

    Regarding all your latest posts, I just remembered a personal story.

    My mother was born in Germany and came to the U.S. about 1930, when she was six. She does not remember much but was naturalized as part of the process whereby her parents became citizens.

    My brother has a top level security clearance – I cannot even know the name. As part of that vetting process – which took forever – he had to find and produce all of those records, which was not easy.

    I think it will be easier to educate folks about the seriousness of this situation – NBC status for POTUS – as a national security requirement.

  60. Gary Welsh Says: “It’s an excellent analysis of the issue, Leo, although I could have done without all the anti-Chinese bigotry in his article.”

    What Chinese bigotry? He’s talking about foreigners who come here and ostracize themselves from meshing with anyone but their own. He’s talking about people who leave this country the minute they got what they came here for, proving they had any intention to stay. He’s talking about today’s world where the same foreigners come here and raise their home flags higher than the U.S. Flag. He’s talking about those who fold their hands with their nose in the air while the rest of us put our hands over our hearts to pledge our flag.

    Oops, did I hurt someone else’s feelings by saying the truth? It has nothing to do with race. All people, all over this world are guilty of disloyalty and use other people for their own selfish gains. That’s not to say all do it, either.

    The best way to destroy a nation is to destroy their national spirit.

  61. Tony Stark Says:

    The absurdity of the arguments of Obama supporters knows no bounds. If they really believe that jus soli alone makes one an NBC, then martial artist Bruce Lee, had he not died in 1973, would have been eligible to run for POTUS after he was done with films since he was born in the US to non-US citizen parents. Even though he lived most of his life in Hong Kong, all he would have had to do was return to the US from Hong Kong, live California for 14 years and be older than 35 years of age when he decided to run for the presidency according to the faulty logic of Obama supporters.

    [Ed. Brice Lee RIP. I'm a big fan.]

  62. [...] blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio has posted yet another fascinating opinion regarding not only natural born citizenship myths — you know, [...]

  63. Leo,
    Is Collin’s saying that a child of a non citizen father born on US soil is not a citizen?

    [Ed. That's what Collins is saying as to citizenship. The article is more relevant for the discussion of natural born citizen and the date which pertains to Chester Arthur. The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark held that native born persons of alien parents were citizens IF the child's parents were permanently domiciled in the US... then the child was a citizen.

    It's important to grasp the concept of NBC though - "natural born" only describes a path to citizenship. And as the court in Wong Kim Ark clearly indicated, the native born child of an alien is NOT natural born.]

  64. Thank God the Undead Revolution lives!

  65. Schvenzlerman Says:

    Leo – You believe nothing will come of law suits, but won’t it take just one judge to permit discovery to proceed? If that happens, Obama has a lot of data to provide.

    [Ed. The courts are fixed. I'm convinced there is only one political party - it just mascarades as a two party system.]

  66. Government officials love forms and instruction booklets.
    Here is my suggestion for the new state forms candidate must sign to be placed on ballots for national elections for the position of POTUS

    Step 1.

    Do swear or attest that you have attained the age of 35 years of age prior to the expected date of assuming office?

    Yes- Proceed to step 2 (certified copy of original birth certificate must accompany application)

    No- STOP! You are not Constitutionally eligible for this office at this time.

    Step 2

    Have you resided in the United States for at least the past 14 years as required by the US Constitution to be eligible to assume office if elected?

    Yes- Proceed to step 3 (proof of residency for last 14 years must be submitted with application)

    No- STOP! You are not Constitutionally eligible for this office at this time.

    Step 3

    Were you born as a child of US citizens?

    Yes Proceed to step 4 (The full names and proof of citizenship of mother and father at the time of your birth and must be provided with application)

    No- STOP!
    Unfortunately you are not eligible to ever hold the office of POTUS!

    Step 4 Under the penalty of perjury you are required to sign and date this document using your full legal name and also write out your full given name at birth.

    The preservation of our society cannot be maintained with an usurper in the office, nor should national security state secrets be viewed by such a person.

    I am not sure why the patriots in high places are not acting.

    I am not sure why a deception, even an elaborate one involving co-conspirators such as the media ministry of propaganda could be allowed to stand as precedence.

    However, if it is allowed we are all Dead Men Walking.

  67. Attn.: bho boo

    RE: “What is to happen with the USA as a not-sovereign nation in 8 years?Will it disintegrate into seceded States? Will it be taken over by another country? [Ed. Anything goes.]”

    There are three good possibilities:

    1. An internationally controlled socialist-European type of country most likely under Sharia law with stagnant economy.

    2. A third word country, where the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on – the economy in high inflation or stagflation – political power held by drug-lords.

    3. Overtaken by an Asian country with totalitarian government.

    PS
    Disintegration into seceded states is unlikeley.

  68. Gary Welsh Says: “It’s an excellent analysis of the issue, Leo, although I could have done without all the anti-Chinese bigotry in his article.”

    What anti-Chinese bigotry?

    It is absolutely stupefying that people could have come far enough in understanding these constitutional issues that they would be pondering this very blog but at the same time waving around a limp wrist prating on about anti-Chinese bigotry. That is crap. Just crap. Unbelievable.

    It has become clearer and clearer to me that when one makes these accusations of bigotry, prejudice, etc, that one is actually part of the growing movement to criminalize speech. They are actually saying that the person should be prosecuted. They are saying, wittingly or not, that the person should go to jail.

    Gary Welsh: If the moderator allows perhaps you could tell all of us where the bigotry is found in the words of the esteemed Attorney Collins.

    ps. Kamira: Thank you.

  69. Thanks Leo. I know you are more concerned about what the article says about nbc, but I think Collin’s view on the citizenship of children born on US soil of a non citizen father is important. We have all grown up believing that children of aliens born on US soil are citizens automatically, but this was never what was intended in the 14th amendment. I think this misinterpretation has clouded the meaning of natural born citizen and that is why everyone is so concerned about the birth certificate. I also think that this misinterpretation is one of the reasons why the nbc issue is so controversial. If you really delve into all of this, you get into the whole anchor baby question and that could anger a huge part of the voting electorate.
    In response to Ladyhawke’s comment above, you said that Obama would be a citizen by statute. Which statute is that? Do you mean he would be a citizen according to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment as defined by Wong Kim Ark?
    If this is the case, Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark has had huge repercussions on the direction of our country.

    [Ed. I don't believe Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen, nor do I believe anchor babies are 14th Amendment citizens - as far as Wong Kim Ark is concerned. WKA is very limited. It's certainly limited to children born of parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama's father never was so domiciled here so it's an open question whether Wong Kim Ark applies to Obama. OK, his mother was a US citizen, but Wong Kim Ark discusses "parents"... and the parents are supposed to be permanently domiciled here in the US. Obama's father wasn't.

    I understand that many people will feel and argue that WKA should apply to obama because of his mother's US citizenship - but the fact remains, SCOTUS has never determined this issue.

    Also, WKA by the very wording of its holding is strictly limited to the "single question presented" and that had to do with a child born of Chinese nationals who by treaty were not allowed to naturalize as US citizens. This meant that the child, if not held to be a 14th Amendment citizen, would not be able to naturalize as a US citizen even though he was born here. One could argue that WKA only applied to this very limited group of persons

    - children born of Chinese nationals permanently domiciled in the US

    Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled here, Obama may not be a Constitutional US citizen according to the strict interpretation of Wong Kim Ark.

    BUT PERHAPS I WAS WRONG ABOUT OBAMA BEING A STATUTORY CITIZEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    THANK YOU FOR DRAWING THIS TO MY ATTENTION.

    I think I may have just been bamboozled by the State Department's Foreign Affairs MANUAL which says

    7 FAM 1117 LEGISLATION REGARDING CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

    a. The citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment is essentially restated in Section 201(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (NA) and in Section 301(a) [formerly Section
    301(a)(1)] of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA).

    b. The current section of law that governs the acquisition of citizenship by birth in the
    United States is Section 301 INA, which states:

    Sec. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian or
    other aboriginal tribe, Provided, that the granting of citizenship under this subsection
    shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right to tribal or other property;…
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of
    five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have
    been born in the United States;…

    c. The provisions of Section 201(a) and (b) NA were identical to those of Section
    301(a) and (b) INA. The differences between Section 201(f) NA and Section 301(f) INA are discussed in section 7 FAM 1118 .

    d. All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

    Look at “d.” just above — here it is again

    “d. All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United
    States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States
    illegally at the time of birth.”

    That’s NOT listed in the statute, but the FAM makes it appear as if it is listed in the statute.

    GET THE F-IN HELL OUT OF MY WAY STATE DEPARTMENT!

    This really gets me angry. I’ve been bamboozled. I can admit it. leo got it wrong on this one. If Wong Kim Ark doesn’t make Obama a US citizen then he’s not a US citizen at all.

    I’m kind of blow away right now. Leo needs a cup of tea.

    WTF?

    I thought that section “d.” was part of Section 301 of the INA and I thought it made all those anchor babies US citizens by statue in that I assumed Congress had decided to take the Wong Kim Ark holding and stretch it to cover the children of all persons born here from non-domiciled alien visitors (here for vacation or temporary reasons) all the way to the children of illegals. And damn it, doesn’t it read that way?

    This is mindblowing.

    The gloves are coming off now people. Forget NBC, it appears to me that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, we have no legal precedent making him a US citizen. Stay tuned.]

  70. Notary Sojac Says:

    So the bottom line (literally) of this article is that assuming Obama was born in Hawaii (of which there’s no validated evidence to the contrary), if his parents were married, he’s not an NBC; but if they were not married, then he is.

    [Ed. Nice try, but you got it all wrong. If the parents were not married, then he would be a US citizen at birth through the mother, but not natural born. Big difference.]

    [Ed. UPDATED RESPONSE : My bad on that one. Collins did say that. The first line says "citizenship" but later it refers to nbc. This, of course, makes sense because if the child is not legit then the country of the father has no legal effect upon him and he owes no legal allegiance to his father's nation. A dual citizen owes allegiance to both nations. Here's what the State department says about it:

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.]

    Have you considered how, well, silly that sounds on its face?

    Considering that in either case, he’s exactly the same person, is this not absurd splitting of legal hairs?

    [Ed. It's a matter of international law. That's a really cool argument, technicality, splitting of hairs. I understand it. You don't like the way it plays out so just claim the law is stupid and that means - voila! the law doesn't even exist. Go break some technical stupid law, get arrested and explain to the judge that the law is stupid and technical and silly. That's the ticket - it's the silly defense. I must have been out of class the day they taught that one in law school.]

    One would think reading these comments that the fate of our country and our way of life hinges on the marital status of the
    President’s parents, because according to this article, that’s exactly what it boils down to–whether Obama’s parents were married or not when he was born. Although you categoricaly reject the notion, if, hypothetically, Obama’s parents were not married, would you be satisfied that he was an NBC? What, then, would you have gained? All things considered, do you really think that an article by a late-1800′s law student based on a late-1800′s notions of patrimony is compelling justification to unseat the President of the United States?

  71. Joss Brown Says:

    Leo, “Kamira” and everyone else. I may have done so before, but I’d like to thank you again for your outstanding work, research and education. Most valuable. It’s a very unpleasant and profoundly disturbing feeling, knowing the POTUS is in all probability ineligible. The truth hurts, and knowledge too, I guess. Still, I’m really looking forward to the articles to come.

  72. Fantastic,Fantastic,Fantastic…. I love this site.

  73. Bigotry – The Chinese were so foreign to Western/Protestant Americans that they were discriminated against. Their appearance, language, cooking . . . religion . . . Add to this the poverty of those who came to America, and it is only human nature we are observing.

    The changes in treatment of Chinese came in key case law, including Wong Kim Ark. Ark recognized the common law concept of ‘domicile.’ The parents were Chinese-born, but legal residents of the U.S. They had no intention of returning to China, and Chinese law denied their U.S. born child Chinese nationality. Vattell was of no help here.

    Therefore, J. Gray had to deal with the concepts of ‘domicile’ and ‘aparthied’ [Ed. WTF?] The answer was clear. A lawful habitant in domicile under the jurisdiction of a state gave birth to a U.S. citizen. From this case came some of the tenets of the 14th Amendment, written shorty after.

    [Ed. Are you insane? Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.]

  74. “Wendell”, not “Wendel”.

  75. Joss Brown Says:

    Leo wrote:

    The gloves are coming off now people. Forget NBC, it appears to me that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, we have no legal precedent making him a US citizen. Stay tuned.

    WHAT — THE — … !??

    This is getting weirder by the minute!

  76. “If you want to take issue with something I wrote, then take the time to quote the part that you are taking issue with and proceed from there.”

    Here’s what I’m taking issue with:

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

    It’s not clear at all that he said that, as two learned justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, thought that Gray was saying exactly the opposite.

    George Collins, in his brief to the Supreme Court also thinks that’s what the Court is ruling on. He writes, a sentence after saying the lower court called Wong a “citizen by birth”: “The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”

    [Ed. You're still dodging the actual words written by the court. But at least this gives me the chance to keep highlighting the actual words used by Justice Gray and the majority.

    {TIME OUT: Dear readers. Notice the tactic. I've quoted a passage from the case of Wong Kim Ark. The passage clearly indicates that the native born child of an alien is NOT natural born. The reader, Greg refuses to acknowledge the language of the case. Instead, he would have you believe that the court simply FORGOT to use the words "natural born" where they meant it. And they say we're delusional?}

    Back to Greg, you seem to imply that Gray was some sort of idiot in that he couldn't figure out how to write "natural born citizen" in to the holding. Here's what Gray said:

    “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as 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.

    That's not what they said.

    Let me write that again.

    That's not what they said. The law is based on what they actually said not what you wish they would have said.

    I don't think Gray was an imbecile. Had he intended the passage to mean what you say it means, he would have written it that way. He had the other Justices there to correct him if he got it wrong. But Gray and the majority made it clear that the alien's child was not natural born by saying exactly that. Exactly.]

    As for my ignoring Gray’s quotes that purportedly disagree with my argument. First, I acknowledge that Britain’s laws consider Obama a subject. However, that has as little to do with our Constitution as the price of tea in China. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes our Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land, trumping federal law and certainly trumping British law. Maybe if we’d signed a treaty with Britain that said that British subjects could not also become citizens? Nope, Supremacy clause says that the Constitution trumps treaties, too!

    [Ed. The State Department doesn't agree with you. Here is what the State Department says about Dual nationality:

    The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.

    As for the Supremacy Clause, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), upheld the USA obligation to comply with international law.]

    Collins argued, in this article, and before the Supreme Court (and he was also an amicus before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wong Kim Ark) that this sort of dual nationality should be avoided at all costs. The court was clearly not swayed by that concern.

    [Ed. Once again, the court was dealing with citizenship - not the path to citizenship aka being natural born. The court, as I've stated above, indicated that Wong Kim Ark was
    not natural born. That's what the case says to anyone who can read proper English.]

    Second, I don’t believe that the 14th Amendment made Obama eligible. I believe, like Gray, that the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of the law as it existed – that those who were born here were citizens, regardless of parental citizenship.

    [Ed. No, that's not what the case said. The case was clearly discussing the 14th Amendment's application, hence the need to discuss "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.]

    You’ll note that in both Minor and in Wong, the judges say that the Constitution doesn’t define the term “natural born” and we must look beyond it. Both decisions go immediately to the common law of Britain, which became the common law of this country. Neither go to the Law of Nations.

    [Ed. You don't understand what you are talking about. The US did not adopt the common law of England. That's patently absurd. The court in WKA was interpreting the 14th Amendment. There were two rules they discussed, the common law rule (jus soli) and the law of nations rule (jus sanguinis)... the question was what the Congress intended as national US law. They were trying to figure out if Congress - in drafting the 14th Amendment - intend it to work like the common law rule or like the law of nations rule - or like some sort of hybrid. Their decision, which is limited to "the single question presented" only pertains to persons whose parents were permanently domiciled here.

    Obama's father never was.

    Furthermore, WKA may in fact be limited in its holding to the children of Chinese immigrants since there was no possible way for those children to become naturalized. Obama, if he was not held to be a citizen at birth, could have naturalized.

    SCOTUS has not gone any further than the holding in Wong Kim Ark. It's not exactly clear what will happen as the issue is further litigated.

    The common law, however, was not held to be the law of the US. That's a legal absuridty that even Scalia recently said was not true. He said the common law is dead.]

  77. MissTickly Says:

    [I’m kind of blow away right now. Leo needs a cup of tea.

    WTF?

    I thought that section “d.” was part of Section 301 of the INA and I thought it made all those anchor babies US citizens by statue in that I assumed Congress had decided to take the Wong Kim Ark holding and stretch it to cover the children of all persons born here from non-domiciled alien visitors (here for vacation or temporary reasons) all the way to the children of illegals. And damn it, doesn’t it read that way?

    This is mindblowing.

    The gloves are coming off now people. Forget NBC, it appears to me that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, we have no legal precedent making him a US citizen. Stay tuned.]

    First: Did you just refer to yourself in the third person?
    Second: I am on the ‘effin edge of my seat!

  78. Why all the fuss?

    The FAM which is written and distributed by the State dept. although it does not address NBC specifically …

    It highlights that US citizenship is obtained in only two ways…

    “At birth” and through naturalization…

    [Ed. At birth by the Constitution, at birth by statute as well and by naturalization... natural born citizens need none of the above though. Their citizenship, as was stated in Minor - is unquestionable.]

    “At birth” citizenship is governed and defined by two ancient laws jus soli (Mainly contained in the 14th ammendment of the constitution if born subject to the jurisdiction… ) and through jus sanguinis which states that this type of “at birth” citizenship is governed and thus defines the person’s citizenship through the citizenship status of one or both parents.

    If one parent holds foreign citizenship current US law recognizes the child as a dual citizen “at birth” .

    Prior to the 1980s and 1990s US law did NOT recognize dual citizenship and this was only constitutionally challenged in court cases from well after the time Barack wa born …

    [Ed. Not true. Dual nationality has been recognized but the Government says it has always caused problems.]

    Since NBC is a status that one is born with (Since US “at birth” citizenship can only be obtained at the time of birth and he was defined as having British subject status which creates an instaneous “at birth” subject allegience at the time of his birth and IF he was born in Hawaii he would have a competing instananeous US “at birth” citizenship allegience … ) and Barack having a parent that passed on British/foreign subject status “at birth” irrevocably eliminates any possibilty that Barack could ever be a NBC .

    The legal question is whose subject or citizen is Barack “at birth” since he may not be a natural subject/ citizen of either ?

    This legal question is defined in both nations legislation thus is not according to any natural law that can be recognized by either nation.

    The answer is both nations have legal claims of subject/ citizen allegience and yet must recognize the other’s legal claim (If he was born in Hawaii, and if not, he is clearly only a British subject because the laws in force at the time defined Barack’s American mother as too young to pass on US jus sanguinis type citizenship if she was married to a foreign citizen. ) according to international law.

  79. Notary Sojac Says:

    >>[Ed. Nice try, but you got it all wrong. If the parents were not married, then he would be a US citizen at birth through the mother, but not natural born. Big difference.]

    I don’t think so. The last paragraph of the article very specifically refers to conditions to be a “native or natural born citizen”; i.e., father a citizen, or if illegitimate, mother a citizen at birth. Certainly the author wouldn’t have been so imprecise on such an important point.

    [Ed. My bad on that one. Collins did say that. The first line says "citizenship" but later it refers to nbc. This, of course, makes sense because if the child is not legit then the country of the father has no legal effect upon him and he owes no legal allegiance to his father's nation. A dual citizen owes allegiance to both nations. Here's what the State department says about it:

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.]

  80. I thank you for pointing me to this article, even though its author’s arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court.

    [Ed. Not as to who is a natural born citizen. As to that issue, the Supreme Court agreed with Collins and the law of nations by indicating Wong Kim Ark was not natural born.]

    His original 1884 article may have been motivated by the 9th Circuit decision of In re Look Ting Sing. That decision was written by Justice Field, riding circuit. Field was on the Supreme Court when Wong Kim Ark was argued, but retired before the opinion was written. It was on Look Ting Sing that Wong Kim Ark was judged a citizen by the lower court.

    If Justice Field hadn’t retired in December of 1897, he might have written the opinion in WKA. Maybe it would have been a shorter opinion.

    George Collins did his argument again in the pages of the American Law Review in 1895: 29 Am. L. R. 385. Two scholars responded to his arguments in the next year. 30 Am. L. R. 241 and 535.

  81. “Vattel”, not “Vattell”.

  82. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo and everyone,

    I just wanted to provide you all with an update from last night’s town hall with Congressman Franks. I am afraid I don’t have good news, but I am confident that Leo will not be surprised by it. First, on a positive note, the town hall lasted 4 hours and had over 500 people in attendance. There were many people there who asked intelligent questions and truly seemed concerned about the country. More importantly, there were many high school kids there asking concise and intelligent questions. I took a very positive feel away from the meeting in seeing our youth actively engaged. This crowd could best be characterized as extremely conservative and full of libertarian thought.

    Now for the bad news. While I was still standing in line waiting to ask my question, a gal broached the subject of Obama’s NBC status. She began with the birth certificate and immediately began getting booed. Of course she also started talking about him swearing in as a Senator on a Koran and said enough things to completely wipe out her credibility. She then went on to say it didn’t matter where he was born because of the citizenship of his father and was loudly booed again. So this conservative, libertarian crowd wanted nothing to do with any eligibility issue. Again, she was a terrible spokesperson for the issue because she was emotional rather than authoratative on the subject matter and she talked about things that had absolutely nothing to do with the citizenship issue.

    In response to her question, Congressman Franks chose to focus on the place of Obama’s birth and stated that as someone who is a strict constitutionalist this was an important issue to him and that his team did extensive research as to the birthplace of Obama and concluded he was definitely born in Hawaii; therefore, Congressman Franks explained Obama was definitely a natural born citizen. Truly amazing. This man knows the Constitution and yet he is willing to sacrifice one of its most important provisions. Finally, he said that it wasn’t worth focusing on this issue because Obama had been elected and he joked about if Obama was removed Pelosi would be President. I got the impression Congressman Franks knows exactly what is going on, and like all of the others does not have the courage to protect the Constitution.

    [Ed. They've won. The Constitution is dead. You know it and I know it. Futhermore, I know it so much that I'm getting ready to close up shop here. That's why I've been so busy lately. I want to get it all on the record. Publish the undead revolution stuff, do my report on Obama's current British status and then I feel that my work is done.

    I'm not into beating a dead horse. I'm going to live my life to its fullest and move on. I've done all I can do. The people get what they want and they certainly dont want the law. The people get what they settle for. They don't respect the protections of the framers and one day in the not so distant future the framers will be vindicated in that their worst fears will have been realized as this nation is dismantled and all sovereignty and liberty are taken away forever. And I mean, forever. The Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the coming world government and in my opinion the coming one world religion. For that is the end game.]

  83. [Ed. Are you insane? Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.]

    Ooops. Elg v Perkins was prior to the 14th Amendment . . . going from memory.

    [ed. Your memory is way off . Elg v Perkins was 1939.]

    1952 INA 301 merely mirrored 8 USC 1401.

    Apartheid in WKA’s case was a situation requiring sorting out conflict of laws. China denied Chinese nationality and the U.S. denied citizenship as well. Apartheid merely means a stateless condition.

    Legal habitants domiciled under U.S. jurisdiction gave birth to U.S. native born citizens. The Chinese and Native Americans were left out for a while, weren’t they?

    Obama, Sr. was residing in the U.S. on a student Visa. This made him a legal ‘alien’ under nationality law. He was not an immigrant. Children born to him were under British Nationality Act jurisdiction.

    [Ed. But he wasn't permanently domiciled here so WKA shouldn't apply.]

  84. I dont see BO fitting in here.

    INA: ACT 301 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

    Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

    http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4

    [Ed. I now agree. Stay tuned...]

  85. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    I concur, Wong Kim Arc does not apply to Obama: but perhaps some other Naturalization act does…and if it does, the question is then whether Congress’ powers to establish uniform naturalization laws, empowers them to obviat the conditions required in the 14th Amendment for citizenship…it would seem that their power does not, but that the condition “under the jurisdiction thereof” contrains Congress’ authority to declare persons born of aliens in the USA, who could naturalize but don’t, to only declare them naturalized at birth by statute but not native citizens at birth…

    [Ed. NO. Obama has never been naturalized.]

  86. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    However, I point out that as a student at HI University, Obama Sr. would have to have a student visa, and that normally does that not confer a certain residency? If he remained in the USA from 1959-1964, then he had some sort of residency, one would think, and thus, was in some way under the jurisdiction of the USA? This needs to be examined more closely to determine whether his son is native born, a 14th Amendment citizen, or merely naturalized by statute at birth…

    [Ed. The holding of Wong Kim Ark concerns persons "permanently domiciled" here. Obama Sr. was not. He was never permanently domiciled here and never intended to be a US citizen. If SCOTUS wants to take WKA further or constrict it in the future, they might do that, but let's not pretend that case goes any further than what has been stated.]

  87. Leo,

    Is there a way I can get in touch with curi0us0nefromthe60s? I too am a constituent of Trent Franks. I sure would like to lend my support and even attend his meeting with Franks if curi0us so desires.

    I assume that curi0us lives in Phoenix since he indicated that he would attend Franks’ town hall meeting — the same one I attended last night.

  88. Leo,
    Just the way the section d of 7 FAM 1117 is written sounds fishy to me. It does not read like it was written by someone with a legal background. When was this edition of FAM published?

  89. Just have to say Leo,
    I love this site!!! Reading the comments and your responses … so
    invigorating!
    It is thrilling to see the passion and truth!

    Keep up the great work! God has surely blessed you! Thank him! :)

  90. Notary Sojac Says:

    >>[Ed. My bad on that one. Collins did say that. The first line says "citizenship" but later it refers to nbc. This, of course, makes sense because if the child is not legit then the country of the father has no legal effect upon him and he owes no legal allegiance to his father's nation. A dual citizen owes allegiance to both nations. Here's what the State department says about it: ]

    So if I’m reading correctly, then, your argument is that somehow the marital status of a new-born baby’s parents has some practical effect on the allegiance of that new-born baby to one or the other’s nation? And that if the parents aren’t married, the allegiance magically shifts from the father’s nation to the mother’s, notwithstanding whether they happen to raise the child together as if they were married? And that status as a natural born citizen hinges on that?

    [Ed. There's nothing magical about it. It's a recognized tenet of law for centuries. Cut the snarky crap and discuss the law or go somewhere else. As my readers know, I do not tolerate the Jon Stewart/Colbert/Bill Maher crap here at this blog. There's nothing funny about any of this. You have a legal point to make - then you make it. Leave the snarky magical BS at the other blogs. You've been warned.]

    Back to my original question, hypothetically, IF Obama’s parents were not married – [Ed. snip. This is not a gossip column. Obama's parents were married before he was born. I will not tolerate any defamation such as this. Not will I tolerate any Frank Marshall BS.]

  91. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo you wrote:

    [Ed. They've won. The Constitution is dead. You know it and I know it. Futhermore, I know it so much that I'm getting ready to close up shop here. That's why I've been so busy lately. I want to get it all on the record. Publish the undead revolution stuff, do my report on Obama's current British status and then I feel that my work is done.

    I'm not into beating a dead horse. I'm going to live my life to its fullest and move on. I've done all I can do. The people get what they want and they certainly dont want the law. The people get what they settle for. They don't respect the protections of the framers and one day in the not so distant future the framers will be vindicated in that their worst fears will have been realized as this nation is dismantled and all sovereignty and liberty are taken away forever. And I mean, forever. The Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the coming world government and in my opinion the coming one world religion. For that is the end game.]

    I couldn’t agree with you more and that is exactly what I felt at last night’s town hall meeting. Here you had all of these well meaning citizens, and they still didn’t get it. They don’t understand how critical upholding the constitution is to everything we have in this world (at least most of them don’t). To keep this short, I ended up using my time at the mic to discuss Article 1, Section 8 and the enumerated powers granted to the Congress which do not include the power to legislate a national healthcare system. But before I got to that point, I looked at the audience and said to them this:

    Regardless of your political party or ideology there is nothing more important to everyone in this room, then protecting and defending and ensuring the Constitution of the United States is upheld. For through the course of human history, we have seen that when governments usurp powers and grow out of control, the result has always been the creation of despots and dictators. There is only one item in all the world that protects every person in this room’s liberties and freedoms against tyranical rule and that is your United States Constitution.

    As I said those words, I knew that I believed them, but I also knew that the Constitution that I cling to no longer exists. I do not look forward to the future. But like you Leo, I use my blog to record my thoughts regarding this historical time in our nation. I don’t know what I’ll be doing in the future, I don’t even know if I’ll be guaranteed the freedom to continue to speak my mind, but I know for certain that I am going to try to be heard, and I’m going to try to keep clinging to my Constitution in the hopes that it will be restored.

  92. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    NeilBJ,

    You can reach me at my blog: http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com

    Post a comment on any of my blog posts, and I’ll get your email address and email you back, so you will have my email address.

  93. Stephanie Says:

    Maestro,
    In my search for information on the sources the Founders used I came by this “Citizenship Sovereignty” The University of Michigan http://www.amazon.com/reader/1425518680?_encoding=UTF8&token=5o76HbrLUhihRPIHyJi0mLNToxQmISaK2eXjXbEjyBo%3D&ref_=sib_ab_av_pg&page=137#reader
    pg.31 “The most popular and the most elegant writer on the law of nations is Vattel, whose method has been greatly admired…he has been cited, for the last half century, more freely than anyone of the public jurist…”

  94. Collins uses the Chinese, at that time, as an “example”. He’s saying that any denomination that comes to this country, segregates themselves from the common population, practicing only their foreign customs and basically not really being in tune with the country as a whole, is not fit to be in a position of running the body politic.

    Nowhere does he claim that those emigrating here should be discriminated against where they never have the chance to adapt to their new surroundings. If they want to work, learn our laws and our customs with a positive attitude and feel just as much pride in being American as we do, there’s no problem with that. Their children should grow up with the fundamental virtues of being good Americans, not good hyphenated-Americans. He’s saying there’s a big problem with those who come here and don’t like what they see, teach their children that we suck, educating them in foreign ways as being superior to ours, and to rise up with the intention to change who we are.

    That’s why the first generation can never be President or Vice-President. They aren’t 100% American born and bred. If they choose to make this country their home by becoming naturalized citizens, their children will feel their parents attachment to the country and attach to it as well, hopefully. Even Washington recognized that wasn’t a guarantee of fidelity, but it was as good a rule as we were going to get to try and preserve the republic.

    This is evidenced in the historical letters we’ve read of the Framers themselves and how excited they were when they saw the nation starting to feel an identity “truly American”. This showed them that the people were beginning to not look back at England and move forward with their own identity and laws that would preserve and cultivate that goal.

    But old habits die hard. While the new nation was just beginning to form, making laws of their own, some people were still spouting whatever came out of Great Britain’s mouth. This was known as the “common law”, but it still wasn’t the law practiced in this country and we can prove that. It belonged to Great Britain, the country we were trying to get away from. Guys like David Ramsay and Justice Story try to clarify the differences in their writings, but as you can see, we had Supreme Court Justices who outright decided that the “common law” of Great Britain applied here and that’s what is insane. Are we Great Britain in disguise or are we a sovereign country who fought a Revolution to be recognized as the USA?

    When it comes down to it, the people arguing in favor of the “common law” are arguing that this is Great Britain.

    Thanks, Leo! Awesome job!!!

    [Ed. No, thank you, Kamira and all of you at Dead Revolution. You validate in some small way that this blog has meant something. I know it's not going to change history, but at least history will be recorded. You've nailed down all of the great weight of authority which proves exactly what the Framers intended. All the other side can point to is a false reading of Wong Kim Ark, written by a Justice who was appointed by a usurper. And even he couldn't get away with saying WKA was nbc, he was forced - albeit in a deceptive manner - to admit WKA was not natural born. Justice Horace Gray - who only a few years before in the Elk case stated:

    " The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

    How do you square that with Wong Kim Ark where the the person in question was unquestionably a Chinese Subject at birth?

    The guy just did an about face. One must consider that Chester Arthur's British birth came to his attention. Or is it just a coincidence that a Chester appointee just happens to write the opinion in WKA which - to an uneducated reader - appears to sanitize Chester's eligibility. What an F-in joke this whole thing is. And the most tripped out part is that, try as he might to make it seem otherwise, Justice Gray still can't help but state that WKA is not natural born. Such a tangled web of deceit. Our President has been a citizen of how many countries? Sheet man, we don't even know. We're not allowed to know. And these freaks try to tell us he's a natural born citizen. He's naturally afraid to release any records about himself. We know that. He's naturally afraid to release his passport records. We know that. He's about as natural born as Kubrick's Hal computer.

    Freaking gnats all over the web lying through their teeth for dear leader. Truth is a disease to them. They despise it.]

  95. @ Leo

    [Ed. The courts are fixed. I'm convinced there is only one political party - it just mascarades as a two party system.]

    That sounds like you believe in the New World Order too then…Do you?

  96. Kamira said

    “The best way to destroy a nation is to destroy their national spirit.”

    Deuteronomy 17:15 condemns foreign born kings ruling in Israel since they have the wrong spirit.

    The Republic is entrapped with a man who has a wrong spirit. The framers were attempting to protect the nation’s spirit with the natural born Citizen clause.

  97. There has to be something we can do, to get the Supreme Court to define the Natural Born Citizen requirement. What is it? Do we need millions of citizens to go there? That woyld be alot of Citizens STANDING !!! They can not ignore us all.

    [Ed. You are nothing but a peasant to them - the new royalty. The federal beast is a new type of royalty.]

  98. Notary Sojac Says:

    Leo, I’m NOT trying to be funny or snarky, and my hypothetical was just that, NOT an intent at defamation. I think it’s a legitimate point, that has significant bearing on the lack of any successful effort to pursue the issue in court thus far. For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate (as would Obama, likely, since he’s already stated both publicly) that Obama was born in Hawaii, USA, and that his father was a British citizen at his birth. Then, by your own analysis–consistent with the conclusion of the linked article here–whether he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be President would hinge purely on the marital status of his parents, would you not agree? That being the case, it seems highly unlikely that any court in the land would touch a case the theory of which is that the President is ineligible because his parents happened to be married, but would be eligible if they were not; especially given that such conclusion is not based on any explicit U.S. law, but rather unspecified “international law”. Just in terms of standing, trying to show that some justiciable harm results from the President’s parents being married at the time of his birth seems like it would be quite a reach, to say the least.

    [Ed. The issue is who his parents were and what right those parents have to bestow their nationality upon him. If he has a legit father then he owes allegiance to that father's nation according to Obama himself. Obama's state department says that a dual citizen owes allegiance to both nations. That's the Government's position. That's what the Government says, that when in the UK, the UK has more rights to that person than the US. How the hell is that a natural born US citizen?]

  99. Agreed – this site is very enlightening (even the dissenters). Notary Sojac – looks like you have been reading the Saul Alynski “chronicles”. Just because you want to dismiss a “fact” doesn’t negate it as a fact.

  100. FaithKeeper Says:

    Hope this may be help to researcher… Wheaton’s are my Are my ancestors..
    the following is taken from my notes on Hon. Henry Wheaton

    Henry Wheaton, Esq. (27 Nov 1785-11 Mar 1848)
    U. S. Minister to Berlin Distinguised Writer of International Law..

    After graduation at Brown in 1802, Henry studied law under Nathaniel Searle, was admitted to the bar in 1805, and in that year continued his studies in Poictiers and London.
    On his return to this country he practised law in Providence till he removed in 1812 to New York, where he edited in 1812-’15 the ” National Advocate,” the organ of the administration party. In this paper he published notable articles on the question of neutral rights in connection with the then existing war with England.
    *On 26 October, 1814, he became division judge-advocate of the army, and from 1815 till 1819 he was a justice of the marine court of New York city.
    **From 1816 till 1827 he was reporter for the United States supreme court in Washington, D. C., and published “Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States” (12 vols., New York, 1826-’7). This was termed by a German re viewer “the golden book of American law.” William B. Lawrence says: “The reputation which Mr. Wheaten acquired as a reporter was unrivalled, he did not confine himself to a mere summary of the able arguments by which the cases were elucidated; but there is scarcely a proposition on any of the diversified subjects to which the jurisdiction of the court extends, that might give rise to serious doubts in the profession, that is not explained not merely by a citation of the authorities adduced by counsel, but copious rules present the views which the publicists and civilians have taken of the question.”
    **He was elected a member of the convention to form a new constitution for New York in 1821, was a member of the assembly in 1823, and in 1825 was associated with John Duer and Benjamin F. Butler in a commission to revise the statute law of New York. He also took part in important cases, and was the sole associate of Daniel Webster in that which settled the limits of the state and Federal legislation in reference to bankruptcy and insolvency.
    **In 1827 he was appointed charge d’affaires in Denmark, being the first diplomatist that was sent to that country from the United States. He served till 1835, displaying skill in the settlement of the Sound dues that were imposed by Denmark on the vessels of all countries, and obtained modifications of the quarantine regulations. He acquired reputation by his researches in the Scandinavian language and literature, and was elected a member of the Scandinavian and Icelandic societies.
    **In 1835 he was appointed resident minister to the court of Prussia., and he was promoted to minister-plenipotentiary in 1837. He soon received full power to conclude a treaty with the Zollverein, which object he pursued for the ensuing six years.
    **On 25 March, 1844, he signed a treaty with Germany, for which he received high commendation from President Tyler and John C. Calhoun, the secretary of state. This was rejected by the United States senate, but served as the basis for subsequent treaties.
    ** In 1846 he was requested by President Polk to resign his post, but, on his return to the United States in 1847, he was honored by public dinners in New York and Philadelphia, and immediately chosen lecturer on international law at Harvard, which office he was prevented by illness from accepting.
    **He was made a corresponding member of the French institute in 1843, and a member of the Royal academy of Berlin in 1846. Harvard gave him the degree of A. M. in 1825, and he received that of LL.D. from Brown in 1819, from Hamilton in 1843, and from Harvard in 1845. He delivered many addresses before literary societies, among which were those before the New York historical society on the ” Science of Public or International Law” (New York, 1820), and at the opening of the New York athenaeum, afterward the Society library (1824).
    **His most important work is ” Elements of International Law ” (Philadelphia, 1836 ; 2 vols., London, 1836 ; 3d ed., Philadelphia, 1845: French translation, Leipsic and Paris, 1848). This book was at once acknowledged as a standard authority. At the instance of Anson Burlingame, minister to China., it was translated into Chinese and published at the expense of the imperial government (4 vols., Pekin, 1865). It was also translated into Japanese. The 6th edition, with the last corrections of the author, was published by William Beach Lawrence, with a biographical no-rice (Boston, 1855). The 8th edition, by Richard H. Dana, Jr., was published with notes (Boston, 1866). The use of Mr. Lawrence’s notes in the previous editions resulted in a protracted legal controversy, concerning which see DANA, RICHARD HENRY, vol. ii., page 71. William B. Lawrence’s ” Commentaire sur les elements du droit international et sur l’histoire des progres du droits des gens de Wheaten” was published (4 vols., Leipsic, 1868-’80).
    **Mr. Wheaton’s other publications are ” Considerations on the Establishment of a Uniform System of Bankrupt Laws throughout the United States ” (Washington, 1815) ;
    **”A Digest of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States from its Establishment in 1789 to 1820″ (1820-’9); “Life of William Pinkney,” which was also published in Sparks’s “American Biography ” (1826) ;
    **”History of the Northmen, or Danes and Normans, from the Earliest Times to the Conquest of England by William of Normandy,” which Washington Irving said “evinced throughout the enthusiasm of an antiquarian, the liberality of a scholar, and the enlightened toleration of a citizen of the world” (London, 1831; French translation by Paul Guillot, Paris, 1844);
    **” Histoire du progres des gens en Europe depuis la paix de Westphalie jusqu’au congres de Vienne, avec un precis historique du droit des gens europeens avant la paix de Westphalie” (Leipsic, 1841), written in unsuccessful competition for a prize offered by the French institute and translated into English by William Beach Lawrence as “A History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of Washington” (New York, 1845); and
    **”An Enquiry into the Validity of the British Claim to a Right of Visitation and Search of American Vessels suspected to be engaged in the Slave-Trade” (Philadelphia and London, 1842; 2d ed., 1858).
    **Mr. Wheaten translated the “Code of Napoleon,” but the manuscript was destroyed by fire, and he also contributed numerous political, historical, and literary articles to the “North American Review” and other periodicals. A discourse, “The Value of a Man,” was published on his death by the Reverend Edward B. Hall (Providence, 1848).

    [Ed. Please explain the relevance.]

  101. {TIME OUT: Dear readers. Notice the tactic. I’ve quoted a passage from the case of Wong Kim Ark. The passage clearly indicates that the native born child of an alien is NOT natural born. The reader, Greg refuses to acknowledge the language of the case. Instead, he would have you believe that the court simply FORGOT to use the words “natural born” where they meant it. And they say we’re delusional?}

    Leo:

    I have run into this issue on another blog. I am not trying to be insulting, but I am stating fact. People are clearly misreading and bowing down to the false constitutional altar of Wong Kim Ark. They are assuming that the word “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are the one and the same. This is great error by the very words of the Constitution. Consider the qualifications for Representatives and Senators versus President. It is like they can’t read English. You give them case law to support the proper position concerning natural born Citizen and they argue you down. Part of their issue is there reliance on English Common Law. I think I am correct on this last point.

    This is certainly intellectually dishonest. I was listening to Dennis Miller’s talk show yesterday. While speaking with a guest he asserted that Liberals do not have much curiosity. I thought it was a point well made.

    [Ed. Exactly. They continue to assume that nbc is some different form of citizenship. BS all the way. None of these cases was decidding who can be POTUS. A2 S1 C5 nbc clause is simply making reference to a description of a path to citizenship. WKA does not decide the issue of who can POTUS, it only discusses who is a citizen. It discusses who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. That is a path to citizenship. As the court in Minor said, an nbc is unquestionably a citizen, before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment. An nbc needs no amendment, statue or confirmation at all - is is slef evident that he is a citizen of the US and hence his citizenship is natural born. In Wong Kim Ark the Court indicated that the native born child of an alien is not natural born. Those who deny it still don't know what the meaning of is is.]

  102. [Ed. They've won. The Constitution is dead. You know it and I know it. Futhermore, I know it so much that I'm getting ready to close up shop here. That's why I've been so busy lately. I want to get it all on the record. Publish the undead revolution stuff, do my report on Obama's current British status and then I feel that my work is done.

    I'm not into beating a dead horse. I'm going to live my life to its fullest and move on. I've done all I can do. The people get what they want and they certainly dont want the law. The people get what they settle for. They don't respect the protections of the framers and one day in the not so distant future the framers will be vindicated in that their worst fears will have been realized as this nation is dismantled and all sovereignty and liberty are taken away forever. And I mean, forever. The Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the coming world government and in my opinion the coming one world religion. For that is the end game.]

    Amen to the above statement you made Leo.
    You are right on with your sentiments!

  103. Ronna Wikert Says:

    Leo
    I have but one question: Why won’t the Supreme Court hear any case brought on this matter when so many have spent so much much time and gone to so much trouble as you have, to uncover the fraud and conspiracy of Obama’s being wrongly placed in our white house as an unqualified candidate?

    [Ed. Because it's all rigged. There is only the illusion of a multiple party system. At the top, their is only the federal cosa nostra. They have no souls. They sold them.]

  104. RJJohnson Says:

    Regarding the letter from Virginia Attorney General Mims, perhaps Mr. Mims should read the US Constitution.

    Mims said – “There is no “duty” placed upon the States, nor is there any oath given, with regard to “protecting” the federal Constitution.”

    Article VI Clause 3

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    The executive officers of the states are bound by oath to support the US Constitution.

    In response to “Does the state have no duty to stop Kim Jong Il from running for President on Virginia’s ballots?” Mims says “The State has no such duty. The State simply accepts the names of the nominees of the political parties as certified by the national party chairs for the purposes of electing electors to vote for the office of President.

    Mims is completely wrong. He should resign.

    [Ed. Yes.]

  105. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:
    “In response to her question, Congressman Franks chose to focus on the place of Obama’s birth and stated that as someone who is a strict constitutionalist this was an important issue to him and that his team did extensive research as to the birthplace of Obama and concluded he was definitely born in Hawaii; therefore, Congressman Franks explained Obama was definitely a natural born citizen.”

    I wonder if the Freedom of Information Act would allow you to see the congressman’s research.

    Can’t oust Obama? Then oust Franks.

  106. RTM Says:

    August 26, 2009 at 11:14 am
    Why all the fuss?

    The FAM which is written and distributed by the State dept. although it does not address NBC specifically …

    It highlights that US citizenship is obtained in only two ways…

    “At birth” (Edited by RTM – I meant to write to “OR” not ” and” ) through naturalization…

    [Ed. At birth by the Constitution, at birth by statute as well and by naturalization... natural born citizens need none of the above though. Their citizenship, as was stated in Minor - is unquestionable.]

    { RTM’s reply :

    I understand that “at birth citizenship is governed by both jus soli and jus sanguinis and this is what defines a person born on US soil subject to the jurisdiction and with both parents as US citizens as NBC because their US citizenship cannot be questioned as to “at birth” allegience because they have no other citizenship ties to any other nation (Although there are some nations that go back to grandparents to lay citizenship allegience claims on their non-native born citizens.) !

    I think you misunderstood my point … Since a NBC is born a citizen it goes w/o saying that a NBC is obviously not a naturalized citizen but can only be an “at birth” citizen “at birth” , thus nothing he does afterwards can make him one and as long as he doesn’t lose his US citizenship through an expatriating act will never be considered a s anything else…. So I was only referring to born citizens since unless it can be shown Barry is a naturalized citizen…. The point is moot in relation to a naturalized citizen. AND any refernence to anyone with any form of derivitive citizenship is taking my point way off course in the sense NBC is not going to be a person born off US soil and can only be construed as someone w/o jus sanguinis type citizenship from a foreign country or they automatically have allegience to the other country at the same time they have allegience to the US.

    Agreed as far as NBCs but the point is that jus soli and jus sanguinis are mentioned hand in hand in the FAM being the legally defining prerequisites by which “at birth” citizenship is obtained and defined “at birth” . Since a NBC is a born citizen it stands to reason that jus soli and jus sanguinis, which defines derivitive “at birth” citizenship, must both be involved when one becomes a dual citizen and so both must come into play when deciding who is a NBC “at birth” since that is the only way and the only time it can be obtained.

    We now recognize dual citizenship and did so after several SC cases prohibited embassies, etc. from expatriating US citizens when they simply excercized their citizenship rights from the other countries to which a parent or parents were citizens in things which included obatining foreign passports, servig in the military , serving as a public official, etc.

    Thus my comment about dual citizenship being illegal….

    Hence the expanded language in our citizenship laws that state that many activities that were once considered an automatic expatriating act are now considered on a case by case basis.}

    “At birth” citizenship is governed and defined by two ancient laws jus soli (Mainly contained in the 14th ammendment of the constitution if born subject to the jurisdiction… ) and through jus sanguinis which states that this type of “at birth” citizenship is governed and thus defines the person’s citizenship through the citizenship status of one or both parents.

    If one parent holds foreign citizenship current US law recognizes the child as a dual citizen “at birth” .

    Prior to the 1980s and 1990s US law did NOT recognize dual citizenship and this was only constitutionally challenged in court cases from well after the time Barack wa born …

    [Ed. Not true. Dual nationality has been recognized but the Government says it has always caused problems.]

    { RTM reply :I have read elsewhere on a legal site that deals exclusively in answering questions concerning dual citizenship that the Bancroft (?) treaties ( IN which the treaty w/ Sweden(?) is cited in US V Elg (?) ) where a series of treaties were entered into to specifically to make dual citizenship illegal and not recognized by the US. Thus that is the reason it has always caused legal problems in the form of defined expatriating acts that prior to the 1980s or so were covered by treaties and this is why treaties were made with other nations to make it illegal because dual citizenship creates all sorts of diplomatic and legal conundrums for the US to deal with if a US citizen in drafted in another nation’s army, etc. while visiting the land of their parentage. }

    Since NBC is a status that one is born with (Since US “at birth” citizenship can only be obtained at the time of birth and he was defined as having British subject status which creates an instaneous “at birth” subject allegience at the time of his birth and IF he was born in Hawaii he would have a competing instananeous US “at birth” citizenship allegience … ) and Barack having a parent that passed on British/foreign subject status “at birth” irrevocably eliminates any possibilty that Barack could ever be a NBC .

    The legal question is whose subject or citizen is Barack “at birth” since he may not be a natural subject/ citizen of either ?

    This legal question is defined in both nations legislation thus is not according to any natural law that can be recognized by either nation.

    The answer is both nations have legal claims of subject/ citizen allegience and yet must recognize the other’s legal claim (If he was born in Hawaii, and if not, he is clearly only a British subject because the laws in force at the time defined Barack’s American mother as too young to pass on US jus sanguinis type citizenship if she was married to a foreign citizen. ) according to international law.

  107. Leo,
    When I said that item d. of the FAM section sounds fishy – I mean do lawyers use expressions like “even if” when writing law? It just sounds very amateurish to me as if some people were sitting around a computer and said, “Yea, and add even if their parents were in the US illegally.”

    [Ed. There's more than that... I will have something on this soon. If I don't pass out from exhaustion first.]

  108. I am curious about case law regarding privacy of public officials.
    With all that is being revealed about the history of citizenship and birthrights, there must be reams of precedence in this area of law also.

    I was thinking that there is so little that one could stipulate about the Obama case.

    We cannot even stipulate he ever became a US citizen at all, much less ever had a nbc status.

    His mothers citizenship status may also have changed, we do not know.

    Only his fathers status seems clear enough to stipulate-British subject.

    Everything to prove anything is locked up or sealed away because it is private and protected.

    Surely the Supreme court has already provided the key with precedence, somewhere regarding the public’s right to know relevant information for public service?

    Our country is possibly without a president since January 2009, we don’t know, and are prevented from even finding out.

    [Ed. yeah, but if you tell anyone outside this blog that, they will try to get you to take medication.]

  109. All of what is happening is foreordained in God’s sovereign plan. He knows the beginning from the end. We are in a spiritual battle here folks. Pray for His mercy and ask for His power. He hears the prayers of the faithful. We must not give in to despair now, but fight with the weapons of truth and justice, using our Constitution as our weapon to fight to the death if need be. Citizens unite.

  110. Somewhat OT. I’ve often wondered if the framers anticipated the presently eroded boundary between the legislatures and the courts. Lawyers practice as officers of the court; are elementally part of the judicial branch and yet in the legislature hold the purse strings of the judiciary with the FRCP to guard the door. In today’s congress, members of the judicial branch dominate the elected legislature, political parties and legislative process. At some point in our constitutional decline, it begs the question: Have we devolved from a nation of law to a tyranny of lawyers unemployable by other means?

    [Ed. Good point.]

  111. Ronald Whaley Says:

    All this says is that Chester Author broke the law the same as Obama not that Obama is legally holding the office of the President. You are making a case for why Obama should be brought to justice not allowed to keep the office he now holds illegally.

  112. Arnold Schwartzenegger could run for President as a pro bono deed before retiring from politics. His doing so could bring the whole issue of natural born citizen to the forefront and force the media to write about the very concept once and for all. I’m tired of the media’s continuing and intentional catagorization of those serious about this issue and dismissable birthers. Unfortunately, the people who continue to argue the birthplace and miss the bigger picture do irreparable damage to the cause.

  113. truthbetold11 Says:

    Wow! Obama is saying knock it off to much research about this important issue

  114. I apologize for tossing around citations of law . . . There are some cases just prior to the 14th that are pertinent, just can’t find them right now.

    Here is more recent law that I Shepardized, Rogers v Bellei, that actually contributes to the conversation.

    “The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance . . . .” In a famous case MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723 -736 (1952). He noted that “[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” id., at 733; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” id., at 736; and that “[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,” ibid. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)”

    I recommend looking at 8 USC 1101, Definitions. It describes the difference between an alien and immigrant. 8 USC 1409(c) and its mirror statute in 1952 INA 309 allowed the young Dunham to confer U.S. citizenship upon Obama, Jr. if one stipulates that a [Ed. snipped - no discussion defaming Obama as not being a legitimate child - below the belt]
    Natural Law has a definition, . . . laws that defy definition because they come from a higher source . . . Nature, or God. A man’s right to self-defense is natural law. A test of a violation of natural law is a law that confers status to one undeserving, so much so that it is an offense to the sensibilities of a reasonable person.

    I am slipping on shooting from the hip on the Obama issue. I’ve been going full tilt lately with a paper on the Healthcare issue I started in 2003.

  115. Leo, (long time lurker, first time poster)
    I am reminded of a college political science course I took in the late 1970′s, where the professor stated America is “no longer a Republic, but a Bureaucratic Nation State.” I remember being utterly puzzled and dismayed at the statement then. Now it appears to have been rather honest, if not prophetic. I’m not sure what America is now, but it appears we may indeed be on a rapid descent into chaos.

    [Ed. That professor was prophetic. ]

  116. My faith has been restored knowing that law students are actively involved in assisting and making history to have Obama removed.

  117. Leo, where do you plan to go? Which country? Really, I need suggestions!

  118. I love Willem’s comment. All of these lawyers in the judiciary and the legislative branch need to get out into the real world and make a buck like everyone else. If they did this and had to live by the laws they wrote, this country might have stuck closer to its roots.

  119. I live in nat country. I know nothing about the Law but I do know about nats.

    So below I am trying to be a nat. One nat can’t get much done but if enough nats get on one thing then that thing will get out of those nats way.

    So every day I write and I email and I fax because that is what a nat does. A nat is just not smart enough to say I can’t.

    I even work on them at the State level as that is were we are being sold out. The States have standing. Heck, I think we do if enough of us would in fact stand together like a bunch of nats!

    Dear Rep. Yates,

    I appreciate your office’s reply to my fax. I have read your bio and know of your service to our country. I also write my congress people often. I have it all on my WebPages at: http://www.dixhistory.com/obama.htm and here http://www.dixhistory.com/ofile/ofile.htm so will not repeat it here.

    I was in hopes that Rep. Yates would write and introduce a State Bill that requires an officer of the State of GA such as our GA SOS to require a person be vetted by that office before being placed on our GA ballot. It seems that some terms should be included in that a Natural-Born Citizen as required by Article. II. section I. clause V. of the US Constitution to be president should be included.

    It is not defined in the US Constitution what a Natural-Born Citizen is. My own thoughts and research of the source records show it to me to be a person born of two citizen parents of the United States on American soil at the time of that Childs birth. It is a natural path to citizenship that requires no law and is above question as it is what God makes you and not what man says you are.

    My greatest disappointment was when I asked our GA, SOS Mrs. Handel if she had made sure that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen as required by our US Constitution. This was before Obama had beaten Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Handel replied the courts said she didn’t have to it wasn’t her job.

    I replied to her that she had taken an oath to our US Constitution but that didn’t seem to matter.

    Mr. Yates, I am a strong believer in State Rights and think it proper and right that a person of your statue should write and introduce such a Bill for our Great State of Georgia. Sir, I am in hopes you will do so.

    Sincerely yours,

    Tex and Linda Dix
    305 Avalee Dr.
    Brooks, GA 30205
    Spalding County
    http://dixhistory.com
    ====================================
    Rep. Yates for the record below is the text of the fax I sent to your office today and your reply below that.

    Natural Born Citizen is not a right but a path to it and can ONLY be obtained naturally, by NO act of Law. By Blood and Birthplace.. as God has chosen for your birth. Of the Blood and of the Soil equals Natural-Born Citizen.
    Obama, McCain, SCOTUS and our entire Congress have chosen to set a legal precedent. What this means is, Obama’s birth with one United States Citizen and one none us citizen father born a British Subject born on American soil is now POTUS.

    The Courts and Congress having failed to enact the safe guards built into our legal system therefore have set A legal precedent.

    Example, Raul Castro or any foreigner can impregnate a US citizen let us say on a US military base in Guantanamo or say in New York City. As long as she is a US Citizen and gives birth to that child on American soil while she is a US citizen that child can then become a Natural Born Citizen and is eligible to be President of the United States. That people is what Obama is and has done.

    Because a legal precedent was set by Obama. Because the, Electors, Congress, and SCOTUS failed to act in their role of checks and balances built into our US Constitution. Thus allowing a process of usurpation to take place and set legal precedent.

    Because our courts have hamstrung said US citizens by saying they have no legal standing in this matter. Because to be the United States President is not a right but a path to meet certain conditions to be president of the United States.

    Obama is now said to be the POTUS, I don’t care who says he is, let me be clear he is not my president and never will be. “End of Story”

    Tex O. Dix

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Roberts, Delane
    To: texdix@live.com
    Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:56 PM
    Subject: legal precedent

    Dear Tex and Linda Dix:

    This has reference to your fax dated August 25 concerning Obama’s citizenship.

    I appreciate your message and assure you that I am as concerned as you about the actions of our irresponsible Congress.

    I cannot believe that the country that I have supported for all of my 87 years including over 3 in which I fought at the front lines in WWII has turned on me in the manner that Obama and his Democrat Congress has.

    I am beginning to believe like the late humorist Will Rogers who said “The only criminal class we have in this country is Congress.”

    I write my Congressman and two U.S. Senators on a regular basis about this problem. It is not that I don’t think that they will vote right; but they should on a daily basis use their campaign accounts if necessary to educate the public about the danger that we are in.

    There is no doubt in my mind, that Obama wants this country to fail.

    Sincerely,

    Rep. John Yates
    District 73
    =============================================

    [Ed. Respect your efforts.]

  120. RE: “What is to happen with the USA as a not-sovereign nation in 8 years? Will it disintegrate into seceded States? Will it be taken over by another country? [Ed. Anything goes.]”

    Most likely it will become a socialist-European type of country controlled by unelected highly paid bureocrats. The EU is the model of the US administration. For example, naturalization of industries, socialized health care are all in place in Europe.

    Listen to this video and you will have it from a man who lived in the Soviet Union and finds strong parallels between the SU and the EU. http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/07/european-union-new-soviet-union.html#links

  121. Here is pertinent British law on Obama if born in Hawaii.

    British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

    Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

    (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

    (b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

    If born in Kenya, the void ab initio marriage is essential and not an insult. Imagine how many children are born today out of wedlock. Thus, in 1961, the out of wedlock provision applied to confer U.S. nationality.

    The Obama conception was not a pretty picture. It is possible Sr. married Dunham only to avoid arrest, or loss of his Harvard scholarship. These things happen, even today. I counseled a girl with two divorces and four children . . . she was first impregnated at age 15 and the family allowed her to marry a 27 year old to avoid him being jailed. He dumped her when she turned 18.

    This is not a ‘below the belt’ attack . . . only an analysis of Family Law pertinent to nationality law.

  122. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    In response to onfire,

    I am still actively pursuing a one on one meeting with Congressman Franks although in speaking with his office I get the impression that his research has nothing to do with Obama’s father’s citizenship and is based solely on Obama’s place of birth. Regardless, I wish to sit down and chat with Congressman Franks and show him the importance of Obama’s father’s citizenship and how that citizenship was passed to Obama at birth and how that affects Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship status.

  123. Leo, this may be far out, but worth asking about. Before you bow out, would you consider writing an amicus brief to support either Mario or Orly’s case? You have done such a tremendous amount of research, and others have added theirs also on your blog, that it would be a real shame to not capture all the research in a brief. Would the UCONN team be able to help with it?

    I, as others no doubt, would love to be able to participate in the presenting of an amicus brief by helping contribute to whatever expenses are involved in preparing and submitting the brief. Judge Carter on Orly’s case sounds like he is willing to hear the case on its merits; I don’t know what the judge situation is on Mario’s case. Either way, I think any brief you would write in support of one or both of the cases would be powerful.

    If you are going off the scene, Leo, why not do it with a bang and get an amicus brief in a court’s record?

    [Ed. There's no chance of that happening.]

  124. John Nevettie Says:

    Leo, I respect your detailed painstaking factual review of point by point issues explaining the constitution how Obama is not eligible to be POTUS hence him not meeting the NBC requirements. I think you are a very very LEGAL smart man, HOWEVER:

    Didn’t I read several times you stated you gave up the fight and were going back to playing cards wishing Obama good luck? I understood when you raised concerns about your safety when trying to file actions with the US Supreme Court so why does your commentary continue? Are you doing this to (indirectly) give pointers to lets say Phil Berg on how to ammend his pleadings to aslo include your arguments which you have said the British Subject should be the focus.

    I know it’s easy for me to say you have no idea perhaps your place you in history with this matter but have you seriously considered partnering with current litigation or are you only just going to keep talking about it after y. Imagine if any of the founding fathers sat this one out…

    [Ed. I found that I still had a ton of things to say and leave on the record for history. I am almost done with that burden.]

  125. [Ed. They've won. The Constitution is dead. You know it and I know it. Furthermore, I know it so much that I'm getting ready to close up shop here. That's why I've been so busy lately. I want to get it all on the record. Publish the undead revolution stuff, do my report on Obama's current British status and then I feel that my work is done.

    I'm not into beating a dead horse. I'm going to live my life to its fullest and move on. I've done all I can do. The people get what they want and they certainly dont want the law. The people get what they settle for. They don't respect the protections of the framers and one day in the not so distant future the framers will be vindicated in that their worst fears will have been realized as this nation is dismantled and all sovereignty and liberty are taken away forever. And I mean, forever. The Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the coming world government and in my opinion the coming one world religion. For that is the end game.]

    If you bail on this effort (your effort) now without taking another shot at it in the courts (or helping another to do so), you will have only helped to cement in place, by recording these historical and legal discoveries at your blog, the precedent being set by Obama.

    Perhaps you have already reasoned this?

    You are not finished. You have not done all that you can do.

    Imagine Washington and the Continental Army being defeated at the Battle of Long Island on August 27, 1776 (anniversary today). Later that fall they were driven completely from NY by the British. Do you think Washington did not feel defeated? Certainly, he must have.

    I believe this is where you are now. (+ a little freaked out)

    BUT…he kept going, and later that winter the Continental Army got a boost to their morale when Washington led them to victory in a raid on a Hessian camp in Trenton, NJ (hmmm…NJ). Through this victory, Washington was able to keep his ragtag army together.

    Leo, I believe that you, with the help of the good and decent Americans posting to this blog, will find a legal remedy to this Constitutional crisis.

    [Ed. I will not hunt clients down. I would not bring a law suit just to be annoying or for any PR purpose. I have no law suit to bring. I have no clients. But I do have a little more to say and perhaps it's the most important part of this sad situation. Stay tuned for just a little while more.

    BUt after this blog goes dark again - it is my intention to light this world up with achievement in the arts, sports and games... I believe I am starting to glow. I do not enjoy the law, but I do enjoy making art (music/film)... playing tournament golf and poker and chess... I believe my skills in these areas are about to undergo a quickening. I love superhero comic books and films... I'm just going to buy a cape and start kicking ass on these fronts. The hearts and minds of the people will come to me at some point and then all of this here at this blog will make sense.

    Hey. I know it sounds crazy, but I'm a dreamer and it's the best plan available since the courts ARE rigged.

    I love my country. I love the rich diversity of all nations and I do not want to see the power of government united in one seat of power. I myself am a follower of Jesus Christ, but I believe all religions (other than satanism) worship the same God and that he loves all the same despite the path they take to grace him.

    I am afraid of World Government.
    I am opposed to it.

    I am opposed to the establishment of a World Religion and a world leader.

    If that is your goal, I am your enemy and perhaps your counselor before the Lord.

    Those who know what that means ought to consider the retention - pro bono - of my services.

    the fire of Hell's inferno await those who do not.

    Yes, I am letting my secret identity out of the bag... those who have ears to hear, let them hear. I am your humble advocate.]

  126. John Nevettie Says:

    Leo,

    I find your extremely ongoing deep understanding of the constitution a fascinating amazing read. I think you are a very very smart LEGAL mind in how Obama is not a NBC. Having said that, didn’t I read on several occasions you gave up the fight were going back to playing cards wishing Obama good luck? I understood your safety concerns when trying to file the pleadings you prepared with the SCOTUS.

    However, with all due respect, why does your commentary continue when you quit? Are you doing this to (indirectly) let’s say try to influence (current litigation) via Phil Berg for him to amend his pleadings to include your British Subject arguments?

    I know it’s easy for me to say, but have your considered your place in history with this matter? Have you considered partnering with someone to passionately protect the constitution with all the vigor of your soul?

    Just imagine if one of our founding fathers decided to sit this one out and talk from the side lines … Your preaching to the choir here.

    John

    [Ed. I will not hunt clients down. I would not bring a law suit just to be annoying or for any PR purpose. I have no law suit to bring. I have no clients. But I do have a little more to say and perhaps it's the most important part of this sad situation. Stay tuned for just a little while more.

    BUt after this blog goes dark again - it is my intention to light this world up with achievement in the arts, sports and games... I believe I am starting to glow. I do not enjoy the law, but I do enjoy making art (music/film)... playing tournament golf and poker and chess... I believe my skills in these areas are about to undergo a quickening. I love superhero comic books and films... I'm just going to buy a cape and start kicking ass on these fronts. The hearts and minds of the people will come to me at some point and then all of this here at this blog will make sense.

    Hey. I know it sounds crazy, but I'm a dreamer and it's the best plan available since the courts ARE rigged.

    I love my country. I love the rich diversity of all nations and I do not want to see the power of government united in one seat of power. I myself am a follower of Jesus Christ, but I believe all religions (other than satanism) worship the same God and that he loves all the same despite the path they take to grace him.

    I am afraid of World Government.
    I am opposed to it.

    I am opposed to the establishment of a World Religion and a world leader.

    If that is your goal, I am your enemy and perhaps your counselor before the Lord.

    Those who know what that means ought to consider the retention - pro bono - of my services.

    the fire of Hell's inferno await those who do not.

    Yes, I am letting my secret identity out of the bag... those who have ears to hear, let them hear. I am your humble advocate.]

  127. Joss Brown Says:

    A person called Paul Andrew Mitchell posted a response concerning your remark that there is no common law in the US:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7115

    Maybe it should be pointed out (as Scalia said) that federal courts never applied common law, and that there is no common law on the federal level. As I see it, the sources that he quotes do not say that common law may be applied on the federal level. They only say it can be applied on the state level, if it hasn’t been codified or if it isn’t displaced by statutes.

    So, to be honest, I don’t really get his argument—especially in the context of NBC. (Or am I missing something?)

  128. Leo,

    In regards to State Dept 7 FAM 1119 PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

    b. The birth certificate must:
    (1) Show the applicant’s full name, and date and place of birth;
    (2) Have a filing date within 1 year of the birth; and
    (3) Bear the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.

    I know the BC is not the issue, NBC is. But how can they get away with saying “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate” is official when it doesn’t have the signature and raised seal? (no need to answer, I know why) http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    One other thing that bothers me is all this just seems so sloppy. There are powerful people behind this with almost unlimited resources. So why even mention the Kenyan father, why not lie and make him American from the begining, why even open the question? I could make up a better cover story. Kids with cheap PCs are making fake BCs, how hard would it be for Obama’s handlers to make a decent fake? Why even bother with a BC smokescreen when you could have just picked someone clean, with all the right papers and records. Sloppy. If they wanted him to stay in office for eight years it should have been airtight. The only reason I can think of is because they dont want it to be airtight, they want him removed from office at some time. It would cause total chaos and tear the country apart and I think thats their goal. As Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. This is one way the government used the Katrina crisis- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot3MH9ypyhI

    This is Change, America. We are so screwed.
    Barack Hussein Obama refuses to salute US flag

  129. Wait. Are you actually saying that in order to be a citizen, you have to be born on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. citizens?

    [Ed. no, that's not what I'm saying. In order for your citizenship to make you eligible to be POTUS, your citizenship must have been derived from being "natural born". All Senators, Representatives and Presidents must be citizens of the US.

    To be a US citizen you do not have to be born on the US soil to two citizen parents. But in order for your citizenship to be described as "natural born" you do need that.

    Only the POTUS must derive his citizenship from being "natural born".

    The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark has indicated that the native born child of an alien is a US Citizen and has all the rights of every other citizen. But the Supreme Court in that case made it clear that the alien's child, while being a US citizen is not "natural born"

    To be POTUS one must be natural born so as not to be a dual national of more than one country. The US Government and SCOTUS have made it clear that dual nationals owe allegiance to more than one master. This is not allowed for the President to owe allegiance to more than one master. Since the requirement is set at birth, it's the status of the candidate at birth, rather than at the time of the election which makes the difference. Although it appears Obama is also currently under the domain of the United Kingdom.

    At the time of his birth, Obama was (if we stipulate that WKA applies to him) a US citizen as well as a British citizen. He was a dual citizen and he owed allegiance to the Queen as well as the US. Therefore, although he was a US citizen at birth, he was not natural born.]

    So, all those folks who have ancestors, mainly men from what I can figure, who came here generations ago, who were not naturalized, then their offspring were not citizens.

    then, the offpring of their offspring could not be citizens.

    And so on.

    I’d say a large percentage of the population of the U.S. are not citizens according to your method.

    And, how would one go about proving they are a citizen at birth? How many generations should one go back? Do we have to find that particular ancestor who was naturalized? Or should the lot of them become naturalized now, just to be sure.

    If no record of naturalization, all offspring are now considered illegal?

    Is this The Holy Grail?

    Also, in looking at Collins reputation (as I’m sure you’ve researched), I don’t think his opinion will count for much. Do you?

    Another rabbit hole.

    But, you got the folks all revved up. So, another spin at this.

  130. Not to beat a dead horse there Leo, but two recent videos are very telling. Don’t know if you allow links but they are a great form of “entertainment”:

    1) McCain worshiping Obama, see:

    and upon orders of the Pentaton:

    2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxwb58XfZA

    amazing that in the 2nd video 70 some recruits were being sworn in at the ceremony…

    Folks here and elsewhere will enjoy many more “moments” in the months to come. The change will not “stop” and will increase in velocity.

    Keep in mind we have finely trained our armed forces in urban warefare, civilian population control and the officers and generals as civilian “administrators”. Their proclivity to follow orders will come in useful domestically should anything arise as a bar to the continuation of this “change”.

    That is what the people voted for, like it or not.

    The Big Boo

  131. HighlanderJuan Says:

    Leo,

    I am concerned about one of your comments:

    [Ed. In my opinion, nothing will come of anything written at this blog. Nothing will come of any of the law suits brought. Nothing will come of the grand Jury presentment issue. Nothing will stop Obama. I have personally felt his power and protection in my experience in the courts. He is here to stay. I publish all of this so that there will be some historical record. But just as my Citizenspook blog is now being controlled by some outside force - I am locked out of my own blog there - I expect that this blog will also be taken over at some point. Eventually, I see the internet being taken down and reborn in a much more censored format. What is happening before our very eyes is nothing short of a coup de tat. And it didn't start with Obama, but it just might end with him. He may be the last President of the US because I don't believe we are going to survive as a sovereign nation for more than 8 years.]

    Our own individual and ongoing frustration about this legal malfeasance also bears out your dire set of circumstances. The total lack of responsiveness by our elected officials to all of us also bears out your blackest comments above. This is not the American government we are dealing with – it has already been taken over by the Marxists, and we are now under totalitarian government control. They’ve won the battle. Maybe not the war… but surely the latest battle.

    It is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) that the freedom loving American patriots may have one of three choices:

    1. View the American Revolution as not having ever ended, and to rise up once again in open rebellion (maybe tax rebellion) to take back our Founder’s republican government.

    2. Join the criminal underground, as all freedom loving patriotic Americans have now become criminals in the eyes of our new totalitarian state.

    3. Give up on America and leave America for some other almost free nation (TBD).

    This would appear to be the time for serious intelligent contemplation, secret meetings, and quiet conspiracy of our own.

  132. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    Its a fact that Barack Hussein Obama Snr, took 2 women as his wives before he came to America. My question is, what was the status of this marriages: they were at least common law marriages; and then, did the Hague convention to which the USA and the United Kingdom were signatories require the USA to recognize these marriages? This impacts consideration of the citizenship of Obama…you need to consider or at least answer this in any argument you advance regarding his citizenship and the statutory consequences of these marriages…

    [Ed. It is a FACT? How do you prove this so called fact? What proof do you have? This is the only time I will respond to this. If Obama ever attempts to prove he was not a legitimate child, but rather a bastard due to his parents marriage being some kind of legal fiction - then and only then will it become necessary to address this issue. As far as I can tell, Obama's mother and father were legally married when he was born. Their official divorce papers do not mention anything about bigamy. I see no proof that Obama Sr. was married before he married Stanley Ann Dunham. As far as I am aware OBama himself has never made any such assertion.

    Things read online provide no proof whatsoever and are not legally verifiable. Whether his father was married in some tribal ceremony appears to me to be just as much the matter of folklore as Bigfoot or the alleged Kenyan BC. If it's true, how can you prove it?

    Readers be warned this is my one and only response to this line of defamation. It is not relevant to visit this issue unless and until Barack OBama at some point raises it as a defense to his POTUS eligibility. End of story.]

  133. [Ed. I see it more as they are putting Jindal up to cover for Obama. Nothing will change until people start to realize that the GOP and McCain wanted Obama in office. It's all one party at the top. Break through the matrix people.]

    Powerful words Leo, this has been hard to accept for me. While I have come to this reality in the past few years, nothing proved it more than the last campaign. As an older adult, I have guilt in my heart in regard to my grandchildren. We did not fight enough. We called them crazy and went on about our lives.. For too many years we did not do enough. I recall as a child my wonderful grandfather telling me all the time. “You watch the government, once they get to Washington both parties are the same”.

    [Ed. Your grandpa knew the score.]

  134. stand up and fight Says:

    LEO.

    You are hard to figure out.You say you love this country yet you refuse to continue to fight for it.Why?You have so little faith in truthWhy?You post all these facts yet refuse to act on them why?You became a lawyer why?You should of been a teacher you would of been a great one.Would you let some other lawyer do what is needed and just be their adviser?

    [Ed. Everything I know about this I put in this blog. The more you beat the same horse the less it seems you had something important to say but just have a desire to have your voice heard day in and day out. I haveno such desire. I've said almost everything I have to say. I don't have any clients and to shop for clients is unethical. So what shall I do? Repeat myself? No.]

  135. one last comment untill the promised “unvieling”…

    The question before the people is shall a novel interpretation of the Constitution trump the majority’s electoral will.

    (novel as in “fresh….originial and of a kind not seen before” Princeton.edu. As this would be the first on point determination by SCOTUS on the issue).

    The answer, politically of course, is no.

    But rather than close the shop, why not put all the work into a really good read, actually several….one perhaps a law reveiw article and subject it to peer review…and the 2nd a book (look to Regnery to publish it.) Keeping it from being inflamatory but precise as you have tried to keep this blog.

    By duly recording the findings here and weaving together the full story of NBC, national security, and the Chief Executive (including the Chester A affair) and having it published there will continue to be, in some small way, a “path” to understanding over a longer period of time.

    A bit more work would be needed to fill in the whys and wherefores….and to be sure the essence of the legal analysis will be subject to vehement liberal attack, but a book will survive as a good record.

    A blog wil never rise to the level of respectability that full bodied scholarly scribing does.

    My best regards

    The Big Boo

    [Ed. This blog will remain here... free and available. Im sorry that's not good enough for you.]

  136. i'mnaturalborntoo Says:

    I am totally addicted to this blog and all of the excellent research and comments, but it makes me so sad to see what is going on and I’m ashamed that I was so unaware of what BO was doing beforehand. I want to have hope that Congress will do something to address BO’s eligib lilty, but it doesn’t look good. Do any of y’all think that it is possible that the Republicans are just biding their time until the mid-term elections, when hopefully they will gain more power, and then act on this?

    [Ed. The GOP wanted Obama... it's the same party at the top. THere's no two party system. It's all one cosa nostra. Although that's kind of an insult to the mafia. At least they didn't pretend to be on the side of law.]

  137. Highlander Juan: I see (option) 1 as our only hope. Our leaders have failed us in these matters of truth as found in our laws. Our Constitution has been acted upon as dead, but we know otherwise. The intent of the enemy is submission– whatever the face of that enemy, whatever its end goal–and true Americans will not hand it over or stand idly by without a fight. The greater fear is not of the enemy but of God’s wrath. To whom will we bow the knee? Our God is a jealous God. Remember, this is a spiritual battle, no matter what face it wears.

  138. I am not an American citizen, but I understand the importance of America to the world and I commend you for the time you have taken to educate Americans and all of us on this important issue. Although not a lawyer, I am convinced that President Obama is not a “natural born U.S. citizen” as written in Article 2 of the Constitution of the U.S.; however, I have to hope and be optimistic that it is a wrong that could still be made right. I also believe that many of his present actions especially the composition of his chief advisers and Czars, could cause many Americans to rally against his presidency.

    I believe that the Constitution is still lacking in some respect because it should have included the Leader of the House along with the Vice President as persons who should be “natural born citizens” since, if the V.P. were ever required to take on the Presidency, the House Leader would become the Vice President with a possibility of becoming President, which should require that the Leader of the House should always be, also, a natural born citizen.

    On the issue of “natural born citizen, does not the 2008 Article 511 re Senator McCain that was co-sponsored by Senator Obama, which ruled that Senator was eligible to become President, also establish that birth to two U.S. citizens is the requirement for natural born citizen of the U.S.?

    [Ed. It does - see my previous aricle on that issue

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/why-do-both-obamas-state-department-and-the-senate-require-two-us-citizen-parents-for-those-born-abroad-to-attain-natural-born-citizen-status/]

  139. Leo said:
    “I myself am a follower of Jesus Christ, but I believe all religions (other than satanism) worship the same God and that he loves all the same despite the path they take to grace him.

    I am afraid of World Government.
    I am opposed to it.

    I am opposed to the establishment of a World Religion and a world leader.”

    Leo, did you know that a one world religion goes right along with a one world gov’t? Something to think about.

  140. [I am afraid of World Government.
    I am opposed to it.

    I am opposed to the establishment of a World Religion and a world leader.

    If that is your goal, I am your enemy and perhaps your counselor before the Lord.

    Those who know what that means ought to consider the retention - pro bono - of my services.

    the fire of Hell's inferno await those who do not.

    Yes, I am letting my secret identity out of the bag... those who have ears to hear, let them hear. I am your humble advocate.]

    ——————————————————————–

    Well said Leo…
    I will have chills for weeks!
    God Bless you and keep you safe and strong!

  141. “But the Supreme Court in that case made it clear that the alien’s child, while being a US citizen is not “natural born””

    It can’t have made it all that clear since even the dissent thought they WERE saying he was natural born.

    For your edification, you might check out “Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898″ by Bernadette Meyler, 15 Georgetown Immigration L J 519 (2000). It’s a response to Professors Schuck and Smith’s argument in “Citizenship without consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity.2″ (1985).

    In it, she also identifies the key thinkers for the jus sanguinis proposition you prefer. In addition to George Collins, there was Alexander Porter Morse, who wrote a treatise on citizenship in 1881.

    Morse also wrote a very short article in 1904 reflecting on the eligibility for the office of President (66 Alb. L. J. 99) which explicitly makes the distinction that you think Wong Kim Ark made. (I can provide copies of Morse’s and Meyler’s articles.)

    [Ed. Feel free to provide links to the articles. As you can see from all of the articles written, the issue of who is eligible to be POTUS demands judicial review --- right now. We can argue all day about it, but the fact remains - this is a serious issue and our Judicial Branch ought to do its job and adjudicate it instead of spinelessly allowing the stench of ineligibility to tear at the nation. I recognize your side has a point. I don't agree with it. But I can see why you would. At the same time, when they use statements which indicate the native born child of an alien is as much a citizen as the natural - born child of a citizen - you have to take a step back too and say, "They have a point."

    And that's my point. You have a point. We have a point. The judiciary and media are acting as if we have no point. Ridiculing us when the two cases which are most on point, Minor and Wong Kim Ark provide us with some heavy artillery for our point.

    Post whatever articles you like.]

  142. Hi Leo,

    Years ago I thought Alex Jones was a crazy tin-foil hat nutjob. But as the days go by, I’m starting to look for some Reynolds Wrap for myself.

    Please dont post this unless you think its worth watching. Your blog is clean and to the point and I dont want to clutter it with garbage. But if you get a chance watch these. And thank you for everything.

    He has a new movie coming out in October
    Trailer – Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama

    This film was released earlier this year:
    The Obama Deception HQ Full length version (2 hours)

  143. Leo, intrepid UConn scholars, and other interested parties:

    As you all know by now, spurred by Leo’s lawsuit last year, we have made an enormous amount of progress in uncovering the original meaning of the A1S1C5 term “natural born citizen.”

    In my opinion, the arguments lodged in the 1884 law review article by George Collins will be found very persuasive by SCOTUS.

    Inquiring minds should also find significant the recent publication by The Harvard Press of early 1780′s diplomatic correspondence penned by John Adams (i.e., while the U.S. was still governed by the Articles of Confederation), in which he uses the exact term — “natural born citizen” — in a way which shows that he, at least, was not laboring under any confusion about what the term meant.

    This, plus other early (pre-U.S. Constitution) uses of the term, such as by John Jay in his famous letter to Washington, together with Ben Franklin’s and other founding fathers’ distinct fondness for and encyclopedic knowledge of Vattel’s seminal work on the Law of Nations, seem to foreclose the possibility that the term had no defined meaning during the 1787-1789 time period, as most modern practitioners seem to be saying.

    The research and thought required to make this kind of progress was great. However, the result is invaluable. We have literally ripped open far more than a century’s worth of intentional obfuscation on this very issue.

    In the minds of many, this was not supposed to happen. Consider that in the normal course, true clarity in determining the meaning of Constitutional language in cases of first impression, if it can be gotten at all, is normally not at hand until a final opinion is handed down by SCOTUS. Also typically, during the years or months prior to receiving an important Constitutional Law decision by SCOTUS, the ‘fog of war’ that arises during the course of active litigation between opposing parties, each of which is typically represented by a sizeable contingent of highly-qualified and well-respected advocates, prevents the general public from developing anything close to confidence in terms of predicting the ultimate outcome of the dispute.

    IMHO, things are different in this case. Although Leo does not seem to think this will happen, I believe that between now and the Democratic National Convention in 2012, Barack Obama will be forced to develop and present a positive case for why he is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Based on the proven existence of adverse concepts of law (centered on Vattel’s work, but also found elsewhere), and on the impressive volume of high-quality adverse legal analysis that has been performed so recently on this point, I do not envy the job Mr. Obama’s lawyers will have before them.

    The fact that so much progress has been made in establishing the veracity of a legal conclusion (NBC=one born in the U.S. to a U.S. Citizen Mother and a U.S. Citizen Father) that, on the face of it, at least, is clearly adverse to Mr. Obama’s interests (he being born to a U.S. Citizen Mother and a U.K,/Kenyan Citizen Father) has placed Mr. Obama at the bottom of a very deep hole. This before he has even had a chance to lodge his first legitimate argument toward a different legal conclusion regarding his alleged POTUS qualifications!

    As I said before, this is essentially the absolute reverse of what normally takes place in a legitimate, high-stakes legal dispute.

    So who is to blame for this situation? Why, Mr. Obama himself, of course. He had his opportunity to obtain a favorable SCOTUS opinion well before being nominated as a candidate for POTUS. He declined to take advantage of that opportunity.

    I frankly wonder exactly how much sympathy he shall be due at this late date. To my mind, reasonable individuals can and should disagree about whether he can now be heard to say: “The deck is stacked against me! This isn’t fair!”

    [Ed. This was an eloquent commentary. Thank you for writing it. Regardless, I hate to bring you down - but Obama isn't ever gonna have to face the music on this issue. It's going away... and it will never be heard in a court of law and it will not prevent him from being POTUS for 8 years. The things we discuss here will never be anything more than the but of a joke. The power at the top is a cosa nostra and they look out for each other.]

  144. GaryG @ 7:46

    re: That is what the people voted for, like it or not.

    This is NOT what the people voted for. They voted for a fiction that was partly created by the Obama team and mostly created and expanded by the MSM. Had more truth been allowed about Obama, the people (except for a few maniacs) would NOT have voted for him.

    Even to this day, in any conversation I have on any topic – terroist friends, marxist influences, Chicago thuggery, eligibility, etc. etc. – by far the most common retort is that what I say must not be true, or at least over exagerated, because otherwise the MSM or somebody else important would have pointed it out.

    This leads these people to believe that Obama is just another pendulum swing in the evergoing party/ideology politics and NOT the game changer we know him to be.

    THAT is the core problem here.

  145. I have run into this issue on another blog. I am not trying to be insulting, but I am stating fact. People are clearly misreading and bowing down to the false constitutional altar of Wong Kim Ark.

    Was the dissent in Wong Kim Ark also misreading the case and bowing down to the false constitutional altar?

    [Ed. Wow. The majority opinion fires your position and now you want people to believe the dissent is controlling? That's interesting.]

    They are assuming that the word “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are the one and the same. This is great error by the very words of the Constitution.

    No. We’re considering “native born” and “natural born” to be one and the same. Citizen is a category that has two sub-categories – naturalized and natural-born.

    [Ed. But you have a problem... a very big problem and that's why you're all hot and bothered trying to distract people from the majority holding wherein it was clearly indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born. You just can't deal... I understand why. Because it's in your face and it messes with your whole argument. But that's exactly what Justice Gray and the majority said. The two children are equal citizens but only one is natural born. But you know that. I don't have to tell you.]

    As far as I can tell, it wasn’t until 1904 that anyone considered there to be some distinction between native- and natural-born citizens. (Alexander Morse – 66 Albany Law Journal 99 “Eligibility for the Office of President.”)

    [Ed. OK, now I'm gonna have to tell you to take a hike. That's a sick joke, man. How dare you spread lies like this. The insinuation you make is that the citizenship of the parents - jus sanguinis - was never mentioned as being a separate factor than place of birth - jus soli. No man. You don't get to lie to my readers. Take it somewhere else. Snip - ]

  146. [...] scholars have argued that the citizenship of a child follows the citizenship of the father, but as Leo Donofrio pointed out the other day on his blog, earlier in our history a Mother’s citizenship could result from “derivative citizenship” [...]

  147. Carlyle says:

    “This is NOT what the people voted for”

    I guess you’re going to throw out the late Mr. Buckley’s phone book preference for democracy….sad how fast so called conservatives will turn on popular sentiment and democracy, something in common with liberals I believe.

    Yes the “People” did know who they were voting for…you can pretend otherwise, but given the disaster of Bush and the clear change offered it wasn’t a fair contest. Obama was clear, “I am a citizen of the world”, the interest in diverse ethnicity, a complete “cultural” change from the normal “presidental” persona. And there was no secret of the avowed liberal policies. Please don’t tell me you were snookered, that you couldn’t tell?

    This is what is so hard for many here to swallow, the nation has changed in nationalities, culture and desires. There has been a fundamental shift. You can’t have the policies (Republican and Democrat) for the last 50 years without such a radical change.

    If after all that was generally understood by people was not “good enough” for a democratic election, then may I suppose you support amendments to the Constitution to suppress such democracy in the future?

    I may not like the result any more than you, but a blind man can see the changes that have brought it about and its no use whinning that it shouldn’t have been that way.

    I’ll repeat my challenge of some time ago…what are the practical political strategies and actions that can be taken with a reasonable chance of results.

    A good book encapsulaing the resarch is one. Stiffening state ballot vetting requirements another. Setting up local action at party county central committees and getting state legislators involved and active. Leo’s research provides a nice argument to gather interest, but any politician you want involved is going to ask two things 1) what’s in it for me? 2) Will it work? (how practical is it that I do this).

    My regards,

    The Big Boo

  148. HighlanderJuan Says:

    KayDee Says:
    August 27, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Highlander Juan: I see (option) 1 as our only hope. Our leaders have failed us in these matters of truth as found in our laws. Our Constitution has been acted upon as dead, but we know otherwise. The intent of the enemy is submission– whatever the face of that enemy, whatever its end goal–and true Americans will not hand it over or stand idly by without a fight. The greater fear is not of the enemy but of God’s wrath. To whom will we bow the knee? Our God is a jealous God. Remember, this is a spiritual battle, no matter what face it wears.

    ================

    I agree with your choice, as do many others. I believe the American Revolution never ended, and that this test we are enduring right now will contribute to our national maturity.

    Make no mistake – we are actually at war with our own lawless federal government, and in this war there are no rules and there are no holds barred. This war is for our very survival as a lawful nation and free republic. But we will win this war from within, as we have won wars from without.

    We are, after all, Americans.

  149. My brother-in-law, who resides in an island in the Caribbean, has a spouse who is a citizen of the same island; however, she wanted to be with her mother, who lived in New York, at the birth of her first child. This was facilitated and their son was born in New York and he has a U.S. birth certificate, which I have seen. He is considered to be a U.S. citizen by the U.S. Embassy in the Caribbean country where his birth certificate has been renewed.

    Since his birth in the U.S., he has spent 12 years in the Caribbean island. Am I to believe that he is as much a natural born U.S. citizen as a child born to two American parents? The child, by the law of nations is a natural born citizen of the country of his parents. Can he also be a natural born citizen of the U.S. at the same time. This would be ludicrous, regardless of any decision about natural born citizen in any U.S. Court, in my view. This suggests that the natural born status is a “fact of birth” and not a decision rendered by a Court, I think. The Court can rule on the issue of eligibility to be POTUS.

    I think there are more reasons than just Article 2 of the Constitution for demanding a resolution to this matter regarding the current President. There are elements relating to blackmail, should a foreign nation be able to obtain information through espionage, or otherwise. I also believe that the politicians of Britain, France, Germany, Canada and other nations have familiarity with Constitutions, and would have opinions, and concerns, about the eligibility of the U.S. President, and rightly so; because it could affect the status of any agreements between the countries and the U.S., should he be eventually labeled inelligble to serve as President, which I believe is much different than being elected to the Presidency .

  150. Leo:

    NOTE: Kamira & Publius and Your suberb team at UConn have done it!!!!

    I just read the post by Publius today at 10:45 a.m. which Leo stated to be “eloquent” and gawd is it ever!!! Via no less than such sources as: The Harvard Press, diplomatic letters penned by John Adams, Ben Franklin, John Jay and others, re NBC … it doesn’t get any better than this. I eagerly look forward to the specifics.

    Ladies & Gentlemen at Univ. of Conneticut you — following the inspiration, leadership plus early & ongoing work of Leo Donofrio — may well have saved The Nation. We are in your eternal debt.

    Most respectfully,
    Robare

    [Ed. I don't know man... we got the truth locked down, but the nation prefers to be lied to.]

  151. Dave R. in Tucson, AZ Says:

    Leo, your matter of fact dismissal of canceling the usurper’s so-called presidency (my words), upsets and saddens me completely. I want to have some hope and change of my own. That is where the exposition of this hideous evil is the result of constant righteous work. If we all keep it up long enough, something will happen. For me, this issue is 24/7/365. I know I’m not alone. Something WILL come of this matter because it is a growing, festering blight on our country that will never heal on its’ own.

    “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”

  152. I disagree with you on whether Obama will have to face the music on this issue. Why? Because as has been mentioned we are in the middle of a Cloward-Piven crisis strategy. I predict that at the appropriate time the true rulers are going to out Obama on this issue in order to generate a crisis which will allow them to begin their end game.

  153. Leo:

    Publius has a “minor” typo in their opening sentence, for it is A2S1C5 not Article 1.

    Given the phenomenal work their Might Team has performed, far be it from me to fault them for this minor “thinko” (a phrase coined by a former boss of mine) since we, here, all know what it was suppose to be.

    Respectfully,
    Robare

  154. Some personal observations I’ve made that may throw some light on the issue.
    I agree that Vattel did not “invent” `Law of Nations’. Sir Henry Sumner Maine wrote in “Ancient Law” that the “Law common to all Nations” (the jus gentium), the predecessor to modern Law of Nations can be traced to the 12 Decimerval Tables which predate the Roman Empire.
    Much confusion seems to surround the purpose and intent of the 14th. Amendment. The case law history following it’s ratification in the late 19th. century reveals that it’s original purpose was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1863 which provided a privileged ipso-facto (after-market) citizenship on the “federal” level for the recently freed slaves, who, because of the Dred Scott decision, could not be admitted to citizenship in any of the several States, where all citizenship was found at that time. It also provided this federal “subject” citizen with “statutory” privileges and immunities (civil rights now called human rights) which were to be the exact equal to the Creator derived “natural” common-law rights which applied to the pre-14th. Amendment “State” citizen. The courts have consistantly held that the 14th. Amendment did not apply to the pre-14th. Amendment “State” citizen. Their rights were still protected by “State” law as they were before this amendment’s ratification.
    With the exception of Louisiana, to the best of my knowledge, all of the State governments exersized the common-law. The general government, being formed by the States to, among other things, represent them collectively when dealing with foreign sovereigns, was vested with an “international-law” (Law of Nations) jurisdiction. While it is correct to assert that “there is no `federal’ common-law”, some courts have held that the common-law could be remanded to the federal courts from a State court.
    The Dred Scott case (a Writ of Error) is a learned treatise on citizenship, decided consistant with the legal definition of “nation” as stated by John Jay in the 2nd. Federalist paper. The court identifies the body politic who established the institutions of government, for themselves and their posterity alone, and in whom alone the sovereignty of the nation resides.
    In response to the dissenters, who based their dissent on Law of Nations, the majority opinion stated: “IN THIS COUNTRY THERE IS NO LAW OF NATIONS COMMING BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, OR INTERFERING WITH THEIR RELATIONS WITH EACH OTHER”. A wall of separation barred the “international law” authority exersized by the federal government from interfering in the internal domestic affairs of the States. The 14th. Amendment now imposes this federal “international law” authority upon the common-law States, forcing the State governments to submit and violate their State constitutions.
    There are two separate citizenships (see: Slaughterhouse cases), the de-jure sovereign common-law State citizenship, and the ipso-facto (after the fact) subject citizenship created by the 14th. Amendment (an exception made to the Law of the Land) on the federal level to “accomodate a class of persons who heretofor could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws”, but were now being adopted in. Obama is a 14th. Amend. citizen, dependant entirely thereupon, who could not have been a citizen AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED (there was no 14th. Amend. at this time), which also disqualifies him from the office of the Presidency.

  155. [...] And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles… [...]

  156. [...] And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles… [...]

  157. What are you, a Royalist? Says:

    Whether or not foreign law says someone is a subject of a foreign power at birth has no effect on the question of whether or not they are a citizen of the United States and what kind of citizen they are.

    [Ed. I agree. Furthermore, all citizens are equal and have exactly the same rights. The words "natural born" relate to a description of a circumstance of attaining citizenship. Naturalization describes a path to citizenship. Being eligible to be President is not a citizen's rights issue, it's a national security measure.]

    We are a sovereign nation and we fought not one but two wars with Great Britain to assert our sovereignty.

    [Ed. All the more reason why it's absurd that a British Subject could be Commander in Chief.]

    The War of 1812 was predicated in part by our rejection of Britain’s insistence that American-born children of British subjects were British subjects… the British claimed the right to impress Americans at sea into service on this basis and we rejected that claim. Roundly.

    [Ed. That's not the same issue. In this case, Obama Sr. was not a US citizenship, as to Obama Jr. his own State department agrees that he owed allegiance to both the US and the UK. That's the Obama administration policy as to dual citizenship. Go tell it to the State Department.]

    You point out that under the (correct) interpretation of the law, that anyone born on American soil is an American citizen, that the son of a foreign despot would be eligible for presidency. You’re correct. However, there’s a vast difference between “eligiible” and “entitled to”. He’d still have to win the election. A great number of despicable people born here in America to American parents are also eligible for the presidency. Our assurance that they won’t get it is that the citizenship requirement is not the only way to bar someone from the highest office.

    [Ed. Only if we know they are the offspring of despots. The Manchurian candidate scenario becomes much more possible.]

    I’d point out that under your interpretation, the power to select America’s president belongs entirely to foreign nations. How? If we use their laws and their definitions of who is or isn’t a subject of their states to determine who is or isn’t a natural born citizen of these United States, then all your enterprising despot has to do is start declaring American people he doesn’t want to be elected to be his subjects. Does that seem farcical or far-fetched?

    [Ed. That dog won't hunt. Jus Sanguinis is recognized for centuries as being a legitimate and legal manner of passing citizenship from the parent to the child. The US recognizes it as well in that our citizens who have children abroad pass on US citizenship. If Kim Jong Il made all members of the BUsh family to be citizens of North Korea so that Jeb Bush could never be POTUS, that would not be citizenship by Jus Sanguinis or Jus Soli... it would be a farce. A father passing on his nationnality to his son is the most natural thing in the world. What you are speaking of a farce.]

    No more so than the idea that Kim-Jong Il would send a pregnant consort here to have a child, have that child raised as a citizen of America, spend over three decades prepping that child for the presidency, and then win.

    [Ed. He might win of the people didn't know who he was. If we're not able to find out what passports Obama has held and and we can't find out the details of what countries he was a citizen of... his college records, his long form BC... then why should we be able to know that about anyone else. Seems with Obama's precedent for being so secretive, the Manchurian Candidate scenario is closer than ever.]

    No more farcical than the idea that something similar happened with Barack H. Obama II, though some people seem to think that exactly this happened.

    [Ed. Time will tell.]

    America is a sovereign nation. No other nation’s laws have any say in our citizenship.

    [Ed, According to Obama's own State Department you are wrong. See my article of today for quotes.]

    Our laws are quite clear on the matter, making only the single distinction between those who are born and those who are naturalized and treating both equally except with regards to the very highest offices. Barack Obama is a citizen by birth of the United States, and eminently eligible for the office he holds.

    You can apologize to the corpse of King George III if you disagree.

    [Ed. I'm sure the corpse of King George would be thrilled that a person born a British Subject is now President of the USA. The corpse of George Washington is not happy.]

  158. Leo,

    Your reply to “What are you a Royalist?” was, in my view, far too gentle. His assertions seem completely contrary to all you have written. Whatsmore, I fear your detailed rebuttals to him just may give “sound-bites” others could use against your very clear postings all these months.

    You now have the legal basis to crush the opposition; now is not the time to show them any quarter, IMHO.

    Robare

    [Ed. I'm very pleased with my answers to him. I would be proud to see those answers spread around the web. When a person asks a question in a civil manner, and refrains from personal insults, and is not flat out lying to my readers - they are welcome to present opposing views and I will respond in kind. That's debate. It's healthy.]

  159. When I was a little girl of about 10, I asked my father, born of Spanish immigrants if he was an American or s Spaniard. He told me he was an American, just like me but that he could never run for president because his father was not an American. Leo,children were taught in school the difference between “natural born” and “native born” during the 1950′s. I swear it. It is strange that this was a “given” at some past time. It has somehow become obscured through the years. I had not recalled it until I read this blog.

    “They’ve won. The Constitution is dead. You know it and I know it. ..” Dear God, they have won. Thank you Leo, for taking the “slings and arrows” for the sake of truth. You have “fought the good fight.” In due time, a truly righteous judge will make a final judgement and you, Leo, will hear, “Well done my faithful servant.”

    Thank you, Leo.
    From “one who has ears to hear and eyes to see”

  160. Hey Leo and anyone else who wants to comment at

    http://forums.military.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=5370059612001&r=9350072232001#9350072232001

    I made a couple of posts to try and set the military people straight, but I don’t know, they still seem stuck on the birth certificate issue..

    See page 4 in detail, but the whole thread is confusing.

    Hopefully, I made the correct arguments!

    Tom Dee

  161. Here’s what I replied to Dave_M at military.com when he tried to promote the SC Cases of

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    Posted Tue 01 September 2009 05:31 PM Hide Post
    quote:
    Natural Born Citizen

    Posted Wed 02 September 2009 09:52 AM

    Dave_M said

    quote:
    [q]Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States[/q]

    The pertinent facts here are “She had parents who were citizens, even by naturalization,” Which is what gave her NBC status. SHE could be president, but her parents could not. Obama’s father was not a citizen, not even a NATURALIZED CITIZEN. He was a BRITISH CITIZEN. OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even having been born in Hawaii or on the capitol steps with a million witnesses. His mother was also NOT OLD ENOUGH to pass citizenship on to him.

    You are confusing, co-mingling & interchanging the definitions of citizen, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen…

    Read the posts thoroughly at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    I don’t know what else to say except forget the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, IT’S A SMOKESCREEN for the real issue, HIS FATHERS CITIZENSHIP!

    Did I say it correctly Leo???

    Tom Dee

    [Ed. If born in Hawaii, his mother's age doesn't matter. That's only relevant if born abroad.]

  162. Leo…

    Have you seen this?

    [Ed. Of course I've seen it. It's a NY state case which was soundly criticized by George Collins in the American Law Review back in 1884. It's been addressed on this blog. As a NY state case it has absolutely no authority on the issue as to POTUS eligibility which is a federal issue. It has no precedent of authority even in NY because it simply talks in dicta about a federalissue.

    In the SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, the US Supreme Court indicated that the native born child of an alien was not "natural born" even though he was as much a citizen as the native born child of a citizen. See the article below "Mr Obama and Mr. Arthur Meet Mr. Collins".]

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

    Primary Sources – Presidential Eligibility and “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Lynch v. Clarke (N.Y. 1844). (expressly stating that person born in US to non-citizen parents is eligible for Presidency)

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

    Summary of Case:
    “The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She returned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States.” [NYLO at 236].
    Excerpt:
    “5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States ….[I]t follows, in the absences of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. … If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws … it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.

    “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”

    The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.” [NYLO at 246-47; italics in original].

    Something is wrong here? Is this just opinion?

    Help me out here Leo!

    Tom Dee

  163. Here’s what Wiki has to say… OMG no wonder this country is going down the tubes…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

    [Ed. Propaganda.]

  164. paralegalnm Says:

    1) I would dispense with citing the State Department on accurate interpretation of nationality law . . . it is how they apply it, until challenged.

    [Ed. No. This is important. Obama is head of the State Department. It's important to keep that in mind. If that page changes, I want people to know how it read as of right now. His own State department states dual allegiance is owed to foreign powers.]

    2) For an understanding of U.S. law and dual nationality, read the case law listed and briefed at this site: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

    3) Of all of the cases in dualcit/cases, I would recommend Rogers v Bellei. The judge comments brilliantly on the conflicts inherent to dual citizenship, which can be applied directly to the Natural Born Citizen clause. I Shepardized Bellei, and it is current and followed law.

    4) Leo is right about natural allegiance flowing from the father. A discussion on Natural Law and the Bill of Rights would be instructive. Example: The Obamacare legislation is not only unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, but deprives a citizen of a doctor’s services outside of the ‘plan.’ The latter is a deprivation of life and liberty, and in effect a Bill of Attainder because it essentially sentences the citizen to an early death.

    [Ed. On point 4, look forward to the Undead Revolution report, coming soon.]

  165. paralegalnm Says:

    Re: UCONN, Undead Revolution

    Is there any way to get a draft of the UCONN student analysis of the Natural Born Citizen issue prior to mass publication?

    Since prior to the election, I have been pro-actively pursuing research and timely communication with congress on this issue. My blog has been used for research by journalists at major news services, although it took them months to ‘get it’ fully.

    I have read recent law review articles, and the reasoning and liberal slant is distressing if not outright inaccurate. My favorite example is from a UNM Law Review article challenging the 2nd Amendment because that was part of history of the Wild, Wild West . . . not Natural Law rights of Self-Defense (which Sotomayor refused to answer).

    Pryor and Herlihy’s articles, from Yale and Kent State respectively, are disturbing enough to cause serious anticipation of another politically correct article from anywhere but Hillsdale College.

    [Ed. You won't have long to wait for the report. Coming in a few days... and they will probably provide a contact link as well. If they want to get in touch, when they read your comment they will get back to me. A few more days won't make a difference.

    Nice work on getting the info out as well.]

  166. “[Ed. Recall, at the time Collins wrote this, every woman married to a US citizen was automatically a US citizen. This was known as derivative citizenship. No application was necessary. If you were an immigrant family, once the father was naturalized... the mother was automatically naturalized. If an immigrant woman married a US citizen male, then she was automatically a US citizen the second they were pronounced man and wife. But if the child was not legit... the mother's citizenship determined the child's citizenship. So when Collins says citizenship follows the father, he knew that the mother was also a US citizen automatically. Just as in Elg, two citizen parents.]”

    Just a thought in 1961 if BHO’s citizenship was conferred to him from the mother so would his his last name. It would be Duham not Obama.

  167. The law of nations was an established body of law? Not hardly. It was a vague idea of what constituted natural unwritten laws, which Vattel (and others) attempted to write down. The problem of course was that there was little significant agreement on what those natural unwritten laws were.

    Vattel, for example, claimed that “the law of nations” demanded the state to select and regulate a national religion. In fact he said it was one of the most important duties of the state. The framers of our Constitution disagreed, and specifically forbade Congress from doing exactly that.

    Anyone who’s actually read Vattel knows his treatise bears little resemblance to our Constitution. He opposed the common law system, which we in fact DO use, and opposed the right to bear arms, among other major differences.

    [Ed. we DONT use the common law system. even scalia recently said the common law is dead.]

  168. paralegalnm Says:

    The founders recognized the contribution English common law made to the constitution. Undoubtedly, we have laws who’s roots go back further. French and Roman law comes to mind, as well as the Bible.

    Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ recognized that conflicts of law exist due to the capricious nature of man. The cure for this was an examination of Natural Law. While everyone will readily stipulate that the U.S. Constitution is our Supreme Law, the concept of Natural Law is incorporated into the constitution . . . particularly, as a republic, our inalienable God-given individual rights.

    Natural law is essential to understanding the Natural Born Citizen term of art as used in Article II. It does not mean that Obama had to be naturally conceived, or born without an epidural or C-section. It means that his citizenship arrived by nature through his father, i.e., British Subject and Kenyan national.

    It was only since the 1920′s that Stanley Ann Dunham’s U.S. citizenship contributed, by statute. The bible admonishes us ‘not to be unevenly yoked’ in marriage. This supports the derivative citizenship of a woman to the man she marries. This dual citizenship nonesense only complicates things and causes conflicts of law . . . conflicts which Vattel understood to be eliminated the closer we adopted Natural Law principles.

  169. [...] antagonists would do well to first familiarize themselves with Donofio’s argument before going off half-cocked. No less than the liberal bible Factcheck.org has, for example, twice [...]

  170. To Be An American Has Nothing To Do With Race . . . It Has To Do With Being A Person Cloaked In Liberty ~ Free From Monarchy, Free Of Repression, Free Forever…

    While we wait on word from Hawaii so we can put an end to the fake rabbit aka birth certificate, let’s revisit a previous article by Leo Donofrio and what is probably the MOST important historical legal finding on US Citizenship & Natural Bor…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: