OBAMA Indicates Not All “Native Born” Are Eligible To Be President.

Unlike the more sensational conspiracy theory regarding Obama’s birth certificate and place of birth (I believe he was born in Hawaii… but I certainly do not believe he’s provided any legal document which passes forensic scrutiny which proves so), I am recognized for the legal argument that Obama is not eligible to be President because he was a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution lists the requirements for 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The key phrase here is “born”.  Either – at the time of your birth – you were born as a US citizen, and you are eligible, or you are not.  It can’t be cured at a later stage.  The word “born” is unequivocal.  You must be a US citizen at the time of your birth… the moment you enter the world determines eligibility.

Obama fully admits that his birth “status” was governed by the United Kingdom.  I have always wondered how it is possible a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom can be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?  I feel that is a very rational question to ask.  The contradiction is self evident.

Obama eligibility supporters seek to redefine the Constitutional requirement listed in Article 2 Section 1  – “natural born”  – to mean “native born”.   And Obama supporters would argue that all native born are natural born.  “No exceptions”. Their argument rests on a very simple claim:

If – at the time of your birth – you are born on US soil, then you are a US citizen at the time of your birth and therefore you are eligible to be President.

But President Obama does not agree with that simple definition.

Obama is on record as denying that all native born on US soil are – at the time of their birth – US citizens.  Perhaps you missed it, but Obama announced a new Constitutional requirement for President that is not contained in the actual Constitution.  According to President Obama, his supporters are wrong and it is not enough just to be born on US soil.  Obama requires more.

I am referring to Obama’s stand against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) back in March 2001 when he was a Senator in Illinois.  That act sought to grant equal protection under the law to all those born alive after an abortion attempt failed and the child was delivered into the world alive.  The BAIPA sought to recognize that such persons were US citizens deserving of equal protection under the law so that these infants could not be murdered after they were born.

Obama fought against those born alive from being recognized as US citizens.  He fought against them having equal protection under the law.  And in doing so, he therefore added a more stringent requirement to POTUS eligibility than is listed in the US Constitution.  According to Obama, if one is born into the world (“native born” on US soil) prior to being viable, then one is not a US citizen.  If one is not, at the time they are born, a US citizen, then one is not eligible to be President.

I know that both Obama and his supporters have sought to revise history regarding Obama’s statements on the Illinois Senate floor as to this issue.  And as much as I (and any rational person should) believe that he was advocating infanticide, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this report and will limit  my discussion and analysis of his statement to the ramifications of his testimony on Presidential eligibility.

OBAMA’S MARCH 28, 2001 ILLINOIS SENATE TESTIMONY

SENATOR OBAMA:

This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.

SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute...

Obama makes these statements with regard to abortion, and partial birth abortion (which is an abortion that takes place when part of the child has already entered the world – a gruesome practice I firmly stand against with every fiber of my being).

Therefore, according to Obama, only those who are born AFTER full viability may be considered US citizens with equal protection under the law.  His exact quote above is “… a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution“.  Of course, this would include Article 2 Section 1.  Therefore, Obama has crafted a completely heretofore unknown POTUS requirement which states that not all of those who are “native born” in the USA are eligible.

To be President, one must be – at the time of their birth – a US citizen.

According to Obama, one is not “born” a US citizen unless they are able to survive on their own after being born.  Since Article 2 Section 1 requires the President to be a natural born citizen, only those who are delivered after a full term, are – at the time of their birth – US citizens.  Hence, it is not enough to be native born in the US to be President.  According to Obama, one must be native born after an appropriate time in the womb.  If one is born prior to that time period, one is not a US citizen according to Obama.

It may be the case that the federal BAIPA law and the various State BAIPA laws grant various human rights and protections to those born prior to a nine month term, but Obama has never renounced his statements on the Illinois Senate Floor from March 2001.  And, as far as I can tell, Obama – to this day – does not believe a person born before a full nine month term in the womb is a US citizen.

CAN OBAMA PROVE HE SPENT NINE MONTHS IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB?

I ask this rhetorically because I know damn well that any child that comes into this world is a human being, not a “previable fetus”.  Notice how Obama says, “…where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it…”  Count me in as one who describes it as a child.  (It’s hard to believe that these quotes are real and not part of some horror film.)

Please don’t go around making this argument as if it really would determine eligibility.  I’m not trying to make this a genuine issue.  There is a ton of sarcasm present.  Yet, these are the President’s own words, not mine.  The POTUS said this crap… freaks me out, people.

NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE TO OBAMA BETWEEN THOSE BORN EARLY WHO WERE WANTED AND THOSE WHO WERE ATTEMPTED TO BE ABORTED.

Now let’s look at this from one more angle.  Obama’s statements above from the Illinois Senate Floor, besides just being gruesome and insane… fail to take into consideration that the rights and protections being denied to those children are equally denied to children born prematurely to parents who desperately want them.  Obama and those who would deny US citizenship and equal protection to these, the most fragile among us, because they were born prematurely, make no distinction in their application of the law between those who were almost aborted and those who were miraculously saved via incubation.

If they did make such a distinction, then that too, according to Obama’s logic above, would lead to a restriction on abortion. If you are trying to bring a child into this world and there are complications… the child is born much too early, placed into incubation and given no chance to live… according to this psychotic logic, the child has no equal protection under the law.  Has anyone thoroughly discussed the horror which the law would condone if the prematurely born had no rights?

Either you are a native born US citizen when you enter this world, despite your chances of survival or this world is hell and Satan’s angels are running the place.  Kick them out next November.  I digress  (sort of…)

Meanwhile, Obama needs to prove he was in the womb for nine months.  If he’s not going to prove his nine months in the womb, then he ought to retract his ghoulish creepy testimony.  He claims to have been protecting the rights of women, right?  Well, what about those little baby girls delivered alive despite a failed abortion attempt?  Women’s rights don’t mean anything for them?

You can’t make make this crap up, people.  It’s dark out there.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

72 Responses to “OBAMA Indicates Not All “Native Born” Are Eligible To Be President.”

  1. All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

    The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    The meaning of Natural Born at the time the Constitution was written referred only to citizenship due to the place of birth. That was the way that Adams, Hamilton and Jay used the term. They never used Natural Born to mean “two citizen parents.”

    ed. Your quotes fail to mention the one US Supreme Court case which defined natural born citizen quite differently — Minor v Happersett. In this case, the Supreme Court sort of makes these modern day political hacks seem rather unenlightened. But hey, it’s only the US Supreme Court… what do they matter to you. Read… learn –

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ”

    That case appears to hold an inconvenient truth for you, does it not? – Leo

  2. Sallyven Says:

    Obama used the term to describe these babies: “temporarily alive.” Aren’t we all? Our death, at some point, is 100% certain. Whether a person requires help to live, either inside the womb, outside it with incubation, during his first several years of life with care and feeding by others, and then, either because of illness or old age, will probably again require human care or some type of medical intervention. Remember Terry Schiavo? I can’t forget about her, or these helpless babies.

    Wait until Obamacare plays God and defines “temporarily alive” as it rations and restricts medical care among people of every age. Equal protection will no longer exist.

  3. Jan from NJ Says:

    Leo,
    Absolutely brilliant logic! You have him in a box on eligibility.

    I learned about this disgusting testimony during the lead up to 2008 election after seeing former nurse Jill Stanek on some media. I was so horrified by what I would also call infanticide, that I had to look up the specific votes by Obama in the Illinois senate which I found on the internet.
    I even got in an argument with my neighbor who said that Obama was “protecting the life of the mother” by not supporting BAIPA. I asked, “What does the life of the mother have to do with it? That helpless, innocent child is already BORN and struggling to live!!”
    Here again, most of media covered for him.

    Thank you for your persistence and keeping up the good fight. We are with you all the way.

    ed. Jill Stanek is totally responsible for making BAIPA happen… She fought this fight and won. Bravo. – Leo

  4. Thank you for vigilantly keeping on this, Leo.

    If the fraud in the White house gets a second term (by hook or most likely by crook), America is SOL.

  5. You can draw these things out even farther. Fans of abortion are quick to pull out the “my body, my choice” line of reasoning. Well, what about the terminally ill? If a woman’s right to choose is constitutionally protected, then via equal protection, so is a man’s and therefore any person, terminally ill or not, could choose to take their own life. So why does the government stop them.

    I’m not suicidal, but there was a very recent death in my family, and the end was slow and painful – as required by law.

    And of course what Obama says sounds stupid, rationalizations always do. Obama wants to be able to abort babies all the way up to and including those who survive a failed abortion. He has to rationalize an imaginary line between a child and a “pre-viable” sack of cells.

    I have a daughter who was born 7 weeks premature, but she WAS able to survive on her own. She did not need oxygen or anything. Does that mean, according to Obama, that we had up to 7 weeks after she was born to abort her?

    ed. I imagine these comments he made strike a special chord with you… it’s truly frightening when the President of the United States refuses to call a living breathing baby “a child”… notice how he says that some people refer to this as a child. I don’t care what excuses he makes and his supporters make… this is the most disgusting thing I can imagine. – Leo

  6. Faithful Sentinel Says:

    Careful Leo, Orly might try to subpoena Stanley Ann’s ultrasound files.

  7. bob strauss Says:

    It’s all about eliminating the infidels, any which way they can.

  8. The Minor v Happersett case said that at one time there was doubt. Well, so what? There was doubt that the world was round at one time. The fact that there was doubt one way or another does not mean a ruling one way or another. In fact, the Minor v Happersett case then goes on and says that it does not have to rule on the question, and it did not rule.

    So, grasp this, since the Minor v Happersett case did not rule on the matter of whether two citizen parents were required, it is NOT a precedent. It simply said that at one time there was doubt. AT ONE TIME.

    ed. It doesn’t say there was doubt at one time… it says as to those born of citizen parents, there have never been doubts. Big difference. Furthermore, the SCOTUS was not defining “natural born citizen”… they were defining “citizen” and they were using the example of who was a natural born citizen – those born in the US of citizen parents – as an example of a class of citizens whose citizenship was never in doubt, those that are nbc..They were not deciding POTUS eligibility. You quoted a bunch of people who wouldnt know Minor v Happersett from Alice in Wonderland as sources for your theory. I quoted the US Supreme Court. Suddenly you’re an expert on Minor v. Happersett? But I notice you didnt quote the case in your original post. Your homework assignment is to read this blog in full. Report back when that has been done. :) But seriously folks, this to and fro has just given me a wonderful idea for a new post on Minor v. Happersett. OH BOY!!! Something just hit me. A light went on. Watch for my coming article revisiting MINOR and WONG KIM ARK. It’s been staring us right in the face….I’ve just had an “aha” moment, an epiphany if you will. Stay tuned… – Leo

    So what was the case that DID rule?

    The Wong Kim Ark case, of course, and it very clearly said that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

    ed. Your use of the word “clearly” here is rather funny. here, let me use that word too… Wong Kim Ark clearly… crystal clearly…super duper crystal clearly with sugar on top… stated that the child of the alien was “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of a citizen. Both children were citizens, only one was natural born — the child of the citizen.

    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, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” 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, and by operation of the same principle.”

    The child born of the alien is as much a citizen as the natural born child of the citizen… here the SCOTUS tells you quite clearly that both children are citizens, but only one is natural born. – Leo

    The actual words were:

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

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    So EVERY child born in the USA was natural born (except for the children of diplomats). It takes a person who is particularly obtuse to believe that if a person is both NATURAL BORN and a citizen, she or he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

    That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, is right:

    ““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]”

    And you are wrong.

  9. Here is part of the Minor v Happersett ruling:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    You see the words: “For the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts?”

    In short, the court did NOT rule on the doubts. It did not rule on the doubts either way, it simply said that there had been doubts.

    But doubts are not rulings. They are nothing. They merely reflect the situation in which some people thought that X and others thought that Y.

    Since Minor does not solve the doubts or even try to do so, it is NOT a ruling on the issue.

    ed. The doubts were only as to citizenship… not natural born citizen status. You are misreading the case. The doubts involved only applied to who was a citizen… the Supreme Court is quite clear in this case on who was a “natural born citizen”. Oh yes, you have inspired me. I think, for those who are honest and reasonable, the Supreme Court has spoken. Stay tuned, kids. My next post will be a game changer. Thanks for the inspiration, Ellen. Furthermore, don’t keep reposting the same exact thing. Write something new and I will post it. I don’t have time to play parrot with you. Got anything new to add? – Leo

  10. Re: ” 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, and by operation of the same principle.”

    The child born of the alien is as much a citizen as the natural born child of the citizen… here the SCOTUS tells you quite clearly that both children are citizens, but only one is natural born. – Leo”

    Answer: Yes, it is actually true that when US citizens have children in the United States they are Natural Born Citizens. But there is nothing in this statement that says that the parents of the citizens were the cause of the Natural Birth. Nor does it say that a child born in the USA to foreign parents is not Natural Born.

    ed. It does say that. It compares two sets of children… the child born in the US of an alien and the child born in the US of a citizen. It says, quite clearly, that both are citizens, but only one is natural born – the child of the citizen. – Leo

    The statement also says that the child of an alien is just as much a citizen as the US born child of the US citizen. That is because it was a citizenship case, not the issue of what was or was not the meaning of Natural Born.

    Yet, the Wong Kim Ark nevertheless does define Natural Born.

    It cited the common law: “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    ed. But we don’t have “subjects” here. We have citizens. We don’t have common law, we have a Constitution. I’m curious, are you new to this issue? because this is old news. This same argument is all over this blog. I’m allowing your post up… but don’t waste your words again. You’ve had your say. Bring something new to the argument or just go to a blog that will agree with whatever you say… that’s not this blog. This blog has heard your false arguments for years now. I gave you a homework assignment and you would need at least a few days to complete it. This is my classroom and I am the teacher. Go on and get yourself educated. There’s plenty for you to catch up on. – Leo

    To go back to your own words. The above quotation does not say that the child of an alien in Britain was as much a subject as the Natural Born child of a subject. It says that EVERY child was a Natural-born subject.”

    It then went on to say that the same applied in the colonies of America, in the early states and under the US Constitution.

    ‘The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    What is the rule?

    ed. The rule had to do with citizenship… not the Presidential qualification who may be President. Big difference. But even so, the child of an alien is not natural born, not according to Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark. If the child of the alien was natural born, Gray would have said…” the child of an alien is a natural born citizen”. but that’s not what Justice Gray said. he said the child of the alien is “as much a citizen” and the natural born child of a citizen. If Justice Gray meant to say that the child of the alien was a natural born citizen, then that’s what he would have said. but he didn’t. And if the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to say that all persons born in the US were natural born citizens, then that’s what the 14th Amendment would say, but it doesn’t.

    Now, a simple question for you – Why do you suppose the 14th Amendment doesn’t state that all persons born in the US are natural born citizens? It would have been very simple for the framers of the 14th amendment to say that such persons are natural born citizens, BUT THEY DIDNT. Sometimes it’s the little things that count. – Leo

    It is that the PLACE is what matters. Children born of alien parents were Natural Born.

    The Minor case said that there had been doubts about this. But the Wong ruling does not indicate that it has any doubts at all. Regardless of whether one parent was an alien, or two parents were alien, if the child was born in the realm, it was Natural Born, and the same applied under the constitution.

    ed. Wong Kim Ark settled who was a citizen, and in doing so made quite clear that not all persons born on US soil are nbc. – leo

    This turns out to be the way that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams and John Jay used the term Natural Born, which a search of their writings shows only referred to citizenship due to the place of birth, not to the parents of the citizen.

    ed. That’s rather fraudulent. Read John jay’s use of the term “native” in the Treaty with Great Britain. There’s a blog on it a few months back. He used native as Vattel used it. Furthermore, there are no references by those framers which say what you allege. You must quote people here. Do not spread falsehoods. There are no quotes by Hamilton, Madison, Adams or Jay which allege your wrong position. – Leo

  11. ANT Pogo Says:

    You quoted this:

    “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, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” 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, and by operation of the same principle.””

    You say “here the SCOTUS tells you quite clearly that both children are citizens, but only one is natural born.”

    That’s false. Look again at the sentence that says “His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;””

    If a noncitizen has children inside the territory of the US, that “issue” is natural-born. The part of that same sentence in Wong Kim Ark that you say creates two classes of citizenship does no such thing, and is merely an expansion and reinforcement of the statement that the issue of a noncitizen is natural-born.

    The entire sentence, far from declaring two types of citizenship, states flatly that the child of a noncitizen born inside US territory is as much a natural born citizen as the child of a citizen is a natural born citizen.

    ed. Gray recognized that the law is not EXACTLY the same in Great Britain as here. Why? Because in Great Britain, no subject could ever be the monarch. But here, a citizen may become the President… and he understands that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” for one purpose… who can be President. Therefore, his use of “as much as” has legal relevance. The child of the alien is “as much a citizen” as the “natural born child of a citizen”. Both children are citizens, but only one is natural born. Had he meant to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen… I think, seeing as how Justice Gray appears to have a firm grip on the English language… had he meant to declare WKA a natural born citizen, he would have made a clear statement which reads something like this….

    “Wong Kim Ark Is A Natural Born Citizen.” But alas, that statement is nowhere to be found in our long winded Justice’s opinion. Perhaps he just forgot to mention it? – Leo

  12. IceTrey Says:

    I don’t use the phrase “native born” anymore, it’s too confusing. The argument I make is there are two types of citizens, natural born (born US, two citizen parents) and naturalized ( everybody else). That includes everyone who is a “citizen at birth” under the INA. These people are naturalized, they are just automatically naturalized at birth and that naturalization requires no process or paperwork to take effect.

  13. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    I’m kind of disappointed that you didn’t put a cherry on top of that super-duper-crystal-clear-with-sugar-on-top statement. :{

    ed. I promise to do so in my next post. :) – Leo

  14. obamareleaseyourrecords Says:

    “ed. But we don’t have “subjects” here. We have citizens. We don’t have common law, we have a Constitution. I’m curious, are you new to this issue? because this is old news. This same argument is all over this blog. I’m allowing your post up… but don’t waste your words again. You’ve had your say. Bring something new to the argument or just go to a blog that will agree with whatever you say… that’s not this blog. This blog has heard your false arguments for years now. I gave you a homework assignment and you would need at least a few days to complete it. This is my classroom and I am the teacher. Go on and get yourself educated. There’s plenty for you to catch up on. – Leo”

    Bravo!

  15. Thomas Morato Says:

    ellen3: “So EVERY child born in the USA was natural born (except for the children of diplomats). It takes a person who is particularly obtuse to believe that if a person is both NATURAL BORN and a citizen, she or he is not a Natural Born Citizen.”

    ellen3,

    Your statement suggests that every child born in the US is natural born and that there are exceptions to being natural born (that pesky parenthesis quote, those children born in the US of diplomats). I find your contradiction odd, since you SCREAMED “EVERY,” which I’m assuming by “EVERY” you mean… each, all, every single, every one.

    Please enlighten me on your argument. Are the children born in the US of diplomats citizens of the United States? If your answer is yes, why then would they be excluded from being natural born and eligible for president? Could it have something to do with their multiple citizenship status/allegiances at birth? If your answer is no… what is your argument again?

  16. bdwilcox Says:

    Let’s look at a series of events:

    1862 – John Bingham declares a Natural Born Citizen as one who is born on the soil of parents not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty

    1866 – John Bingham again declares an NBC as one who is born on the soil of parents not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty

    1868 – John Bingham’s baby, the 14th Amendment is adopted into the US Constitution

    1872 – John Bingham, four years after the adoption of his 14th Amendment, STILL declares an NBC as one born on the soil of parents not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty

    1875 – Minor v. Happersett declares a natural born citizen as one who is born on the soil to citizen parents

    1898 – Wong Kim Ark uses the 14th Amendment to declare that WKA is a citizen from birth, but not a ‘natural born citizen’ as is clearly expressed in the decision by delineating between children born on the soil of a citizen and those born of an alien (Until the 1922 Cable Act, a mother’s citizenship was determined by her husbands citizenship status, so born of citizen [single] or alien [single] was perfectly correct since only the father’s citizenship was taken into account)

    1968 – Justice Hugo Black states in Duncan v. Louisiana that John Bingham is the best authority concerning the intent of the 14th Amendment

    2008 – Obama agrees with and signs Senate Resolution 511 stating that John McCain was a natural born citizen because his parentS were US citizens overseas in the duty of their country (an exception Vattel granted to the jus soli requirement)

    2011 – ellen3 claims that the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case make Obama a natural born citizen even though both the father of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, and the Wong Kim Ark decision itself declare he isn’t.

    Please see this video for further quotes from John Bingham and others concerning the intent of the 14th Amendment:

  17. Leo, I cannot find the Wall Street story and the AP-Chester Arthur story! I got notice through my e-mail.

    Thanks!

    ed. I dont understand…- Leo

  18. JinOhio Says:

    Leo, I think the date here is a typo…?
    “… I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this report and will limit my discussion and analysis of his statement to the ramifications of his testimony on Presidential eligibility.

    OBAMA’S MARCH 28, 2011 ILLINOIS SENATE TESTIMONY

    SENATOR OBAMA:

    This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the… ”

    ed. whoops… :) – Leo

  19. thank you Leo for your knowledge.

    ed. thank you for your efforts as well, Pamela. – leo

  20. JinOhio Says:

    Here’s one for ya. Why can’t ellen3 read supreme court decisions with any clarity? Because she’s too busy making up her own (mostly false) perceptions about them.

  21. ANTPogo Says:

    [Because in Great Britain, no subject could ever be the monarch. But here, a citizen may become the President… and he understands that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” for one purpose… who can be President. ]

    Actually, Justice Gray understood only two classes of citizen, naturalized and natural-born. If you’re not one, you’re the other. There is no class of citizenship conferred at birth but separate from “natural born” that is recognized anywhere in the Wong Kim Ark decision or dissent.

    Justice Gray wrote:

    “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

    all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

    contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”

    ed. And within those sources are paths… for example, John McCain is not a 14th Amendment citizen, he is a citizen by statute… both are born citizens… but they do not derive their citizenship form the same path. A natural born citizen doesnt need the 14th amendment because his citizenship is self evident… other persons did need clarification from the 14th amendment and other persons, like McCain needed a statue to make them a citizen. All are citizens at birth but all have different paths. – Leo

    [Had he meant to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen… I think, seeing as how Justice Gray appears to have a firm grip on the English language… had he meant to declare WKA a natural born citizen, he would have made a clear statement which reads something like this….

    “Wong Kim Ark Is A Natural Born Citizen.” But alas, that statement is nowhere to be found in our long winded Justice’s opinion. Perhaps he just forgot to mention it?]

    He didn’t need to mention it.

    ed. Of course he didn’t. Why would he? His hand probably hurt from all that other writing. I’m sure he just had a cramp. That’s the ticket. – leo

    As noted above, Justice Gray said that there are only two types of citizenship in the US: naturalization and native-born. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray ruled, was not naturalized, because it was against the law for him to have been naturalized.

    “And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.”

    And yet, Justice Gray says that Wong Kim Ark is a US citizen:

    “Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.”

    He additionally notes that:

    “The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.”

    Per the Wong Kim Ark decision, if you’re a citizen, and you didn’t become that way via naturalization but by being born inside the territory of the US (regardless of the citizenship status of yout parents), then you’re a natural born citizen

    ed. But that’s not what the case says. It says the opposite. WKA was a citizen, not natural born. – Leo

    because there are no other types of citizenship. Obama is a citizen. He didn’t get that way via naturalization but by being born inside the territory of the United States, so he’s a natural born citizen. QED.

    The fact that Justice Gray’s decision meant that Wong Kim Ark could legitimately run for president was actually a source of complaint for Justice Fuller, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the case.

    “I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

    ed. And Justice Gray made sure to counter Fuller’s fears by stressing that WKA was only a citizen, not natural born. That’s why Gray wrote the part about WKA being “as much a citizen” … Gray said the child of an alien was as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen… that statement was to pacify Fuller…in my opinion. – Leo

    Justice Gray’s decision meant that Wong Kim Ark could run for president, and Justice Fuller didn’t like that. And since only natural born citizens can run for president, Justice Fuller’s complaint makes no sense if Justice Gray’s majority ruling in the case did not declare Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen with all the Constitutional privileges thereof.

    Justice Fuller, incidentally, also didn’t recognize any types of citizenship other than naturalized and natural born. He thought that since Wong Kim Ark wasn’t naturalized, and wasn’t natural born, then he wasn’t a US citizen at all.

    “Tested by this rule, Wong Kim Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed.”

  22. After all this time, from under what rock do these people (like ellen3) crawl?

    I love this twist in logic, Leo… very entertaining and thought provoking (as usual). Thanks for the “I’m not who you think I am” post… those of us who have been following you for the past 2 plus years already figured that out. Fact is, you don’t know who WE are, either! But as long as we agree to believe in the US Constitution,nat this point in the WAR, that is all that matters.

    I can’t for the follow up that you suggested above….

  23. Can’t WAIT for the follow up…

  24. ANTPogo Says:

    There’s another reason why Justice Gray didn’t need to explicitly state that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. In the appeal filing that led to the Supreme Court reviewing this case, the government stated flatly that the District Court decision that they were appealing had declared Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen:

    “The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his 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.”

    Like Justice Fuller, the government lawyers recognized that this District Court decision meant that Wong Kim Ark could legitimately run for president of the United States:

    “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

    Justice Gray, in his majority ruling, affirmed the District Court’s decision, with everything that both Justice Fuller and the government lawyers thought that implied: Wong Kim Ark, solely by virtue of being born inside the United States and without regard to the citizenship status of his parents, was a natural born citizen eligible to run for president.

    ed. That’s not correct. The holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court did not affirm the words “natural born”… the court only affirmed that WKA was a citizen. Gray’s careful wording did not include the words natural born. Furthermore, the case is strictly limited to persons born to parents who were permanent legal aliens… it does not make any ruling on persons born to illegal aliens, tourists or others here temporarily as was Obama’s father. When the Supreme Court states, as they did in Wong Kim Ark, that a single question has been presented… then that single question, as stated by the court in their holding… is the holding of the case. You are trying to put words into the court’s mouth which were not stated… furthermore, the Court stated the opposite of what you claim as I have pointed out many times…

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    “The single question”… “citizen of the United States”… this is the holding

    Here is what Gray said to start the case….

    “The question presented by the record is 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 domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”

    The only question presented was whether WKA was a 14th Amendment citizen, not an Article 2 nbc… nbc existed prior to the 14th amendment and no amendment was necessary to grant such a person rights as a citizen, whereas the 14th amendment was needed to clarify the citizenship of those who were NOT natural born.

    Let me reiterate it so you don’t conveniently forget… here I’ll put it in caps..(maybe you should stick your fingers in your ears) — THE 14 AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE CITIZENSHIP OF THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. WKA availed himself of the 14th Amendment. had he been a natural born citizen, there would have been no need for the case to have been brought. – leo

  25. Stephen Michaud Says:

    Dear Mr. Donofrio Esq!

    This Can-Am Canadian ww 2 vet has been following…(posting)… your excellent work going back to the Ed Hale and co days…

    I still see many postings on some blogs and media relating to how Senator John McCain is mentioned as a NBC….that seems contrary to your previous evidence….

    Any chance of you posting your postings that state otherwise….ORR

    ed. there you go…- Leo

  26. Stephen Michaud Says:

    MY BAD…POSTED TOO EARLY…

    ORR has new evidence come out where the subject is MOOT??

    MY heartfelt thanks to you for your necessary… tireless…and DANGEROUS…work!

    Regards…..Steve. Parksville, BC. Canada!

    ed. I dont understand… what is moot? – leo

  27. Bellisimo!!!! Very similar to your Ginsberg post, where she revealed her true self in stating that abortion serves as a population control for certain segments of the population. Unbelievable that a ghoul like Obama sits in the WH. If he is that depraved, then he is capable of anything. Ellen3 must be from the New “Ministry of Truth” office started by the Usurper (exactly the same argumants as SMRSTRAUS==over and over). I have seen that silly argument so many times that my eyes roll back, right before I slap it down with a heavy dose of truth. The truth sets us free, and is acid in the face of a liar.

    There is 1 question needed to reveal Obama’s Kryptonite. One that NO “Obama Ministry of Truth” apologist can answer, and the bit of logic that twists their lie into a pretzel. The qyestion that no one is allowed to ask in the media:

    Since it is a FACT that the purpose of the natural borm Citizen requirement is to prevent foreign influence into the Oval Office (see Jay’s 1787 letter to G. Washington, and Federalist #68), how is it possoble that Obama, admittedly born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?

    ed. The issue is especially true since he was British… and we have the Jay Treaty with the British wherein it is recognized that British subjects are not be natives of the US… – Leo

  28. Regarding the case of Wong Kim Ark and what Justice Gray said about the children of aliens in England:

    What the Obama defenders do not know (or wish to admit) is that aliens (known as “alien friends”) in England suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, the Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would “bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood — they were called denizens and were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute.

    In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor at least comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (naturalization). While residing in the US, these aliens do not “bear faith and true allegiance” to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. Hence, there is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens.

  29. Jan from NJ Says:

    re: Ellen’s crazy arguments

    Article II, Section one states:
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
    the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
    of President;……”
    Many of the founders did not meet the “natural born citizen” requirements of two parent citizens since many of their parents were aliens (not surprising with a new country). Therefore in order to qualify themselves for the job, they allowed a plain “citizen” (such as themselves-born in the country only) to be eligible to POTUS, BUT only those who were alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
    Barack Obama was not alive in the late 1700’s so his plain citizenship (which he has yet to even prove that definitively) does not qualify him.

    He fails the “Mother Nature” test :)

  30. Something else that I haven’t seen brought up is why the founding fathers used that term and made it a requirement for being president. At that time there were rumors that General Howe of the British army had a mistress who was considered a citzen of the new republic and that she was with child. They did not want the possibility of General Howe’s child to become president in the future and possibly return the new country to England. Paranoia maybe, but they did consider that. There was discusion on the floor of the new congress about this and Bingham made the definition of natural born clearer in congressional records.

    ed. interesting factoid. – leo

  31. Let’s have a little fun. Say that you get to the US Supreme Court and you are arguing the case. (Ignore the little issue of standing.)

    ed. I didn’t ignore standing, sunshine. I brought my case in State court under a statue which specifically provided standing to citizens… no court ever said I didnt have standing. Having fun yet? Get educated, sunshine. You keep showing your ignorance. – Leo

    You begin arguing the case and you are interrupted by one of the justices who says to you: “I believe in strict construction principles. The words “two citizen parents” do not appear in the US Constitution? Why should we rule as if it does?”

    If you reply, “but that was the meaning of Natural Born when the Constitution was written,” you may face the following from another justice:

    The justice looks at you and says: “I am an originalist. I base my rulings on the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution, and I am unable to find one of them—Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, Ben Franklin, Etc–or any of the other American leaders at that time who ever used the term Natural Born other than how it is used in the common law. Moreover, I have read the Federalist Papers. It never references Vattel. But it mentions the common law about twenty times.”

    What is your answer?


    ed. Scalia has relied on Vattel more than once… though, so you’re kind of screwed on that one. If we are arguing strict construction then I would point out that the 14th Amendment does not use the words “natural born”. Furthermore, I would argue that since Obama, at the time of his birth, was a natural born subject of the United Kingdom, he could not also be a natural born citizen of the US…
    an originalist would recognize the law as it stood at the time of the writing of the Constitution. At that time, the UK recognized perpetual allegiance… so Obama, a natural born subject when born, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, would therefore ower perpetual allegiance to the Monarch we just fougt a bloody war to get away from… the framers would not have ever allowed such a person near the white house, sunshine. – Leo

    When you answer, another justice speaks up, and she or he says: “I also am an originalist. I recall that in the Declaration of Independence, there are these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Are you telling us that the writers of the US Constitution did not believe that? After all, what you are saying requires them to really believe that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US-born children of foreign citizens.”

    What do you reply?

    ed. That is the absolute mother of all stupid arguments… we could apply that same logic to Kim Jong Il, Bin Laden or Hitler… why not make them President as long as we are doing the love child flower power thing… why even require a person to be a US citizen as long as all men are created equal? But seriously folks, you could say the same thing about naturalized citizens…. why shouldnt they be eligible. The answer sunshine is that the Constitution makes a very specific difference between those eligible to be Senators and Representatives and those eligible to be President… the former only need be citizens, the later need to be nbc – Leo

  32. Leo – this is an important post that will be shared by many. In the interest of complete accuracy, can you update your original post to reflect the correct date. Right now, it reads “OBAMA’S MARCH 28, 2011 ILLINOIS SENATE TESTIMONY”. I believe that s/b 2001?

    ed. i did. the typo has been fixed. – Leo

  33. Leo,

    In your discussion of Wong Kim Ark, I hope you will discuss the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment.

    Why is the child of a diplomat born on U.S. soil not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and a child born to parents who are in the U.S. legally on work, student, or tourist visas or who are here illegally subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

    In every example cited, the parents will (or should, in the case of illegal aliens) return to their native country and raise their child as a citizen of that country.

    We have forced citizenship on those children against their will. Citizenship should be the result of a voluntary act unless you are born to citizen parents. And you have pointed out the problems with dual citizenship.

    To illustrate the problem of birthright citizenship, there is the problem of “accidental citizenship” discussed in this link. A Mexican national was born in the U.S. as a matter of medical convenience. He grew up in Mexico not realizing that he was a U.S. citizen. When he decided to buy a condo in the U.S., he became subject to various U.S. tax laws as a result of his being U.S. citizen.

    http://lewrockwell.com/nestmann/nestmann27.1.html

    ed. Justice Gray’s decision in WKA is one of the most notoriously horrible decions in SCOTUS history… thank goodness it is strictly limited to the single question presented. One could even say that it only applied at the time it was written to subjects of the Emperor of China due to the treaty in place. His “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” argument is radical to say the least. I suppose that’s why Obama’s supporters haro on that flawed case so much… regardless, it does state quite clearly that WKA was a citizen, not natural born. – Leo

  34. Leo:

    At one time I clicked “Notify me of new posts via e-mail” and I have just been receiving today many of your old posts per e-mail-these go way back. I do know that one of the post had to do with the AP mispresenting Chester Arthur’s situation.

    You have not done a new post in the last day or two on Chester? If not, these were part of the past posts that you made.

    At any rate perhaps you need to be aware that old posts are coming to people (in this case, me!) when those people (in this case, me!) started receiving post notices at later date.

    I want to receive new post notices, but then there has been a flood, so to speak of the old ones. So, it seems to be a matter of website protcol.

    Thanks for your help, Leo! I do read what you have to say. There are things I want to ask you (and have asked you), but it seems to press you! I wish you and Stephen Pidgeon the best!
    —————————————————————————-

    Leo, I cannot find the Wall Street story and the AP-Chester Arthur story! I got notice through my e-mail.

    Thanks!

    ed. I dont understand…- Leo

    ed. Thanks for clearing that up… It recently came to my attention that my quo warranto research was not available to the public. I went back through my blog and released a bunch of stuff. Enjoy. – Leo

  35. thinkwell Says:

    If jus soli only made one a natural born Citizen, then what would have been the need for the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment did not address natural born Citizenship at all. It only defined as U.S. citizens those born to non citizen parents (i.e., former slaves), but born within the sole jurisdiction and boundaries of the USA. Note that all former slaves were born jus soli, yet a Constitutional amendment was required to make them citizens, overruling the laws of certain States.

    If prior to the Fourteenth Amendment jus soli was not by and of itself sufficient to make one a U.S. citizen, how then could anyone claim that jus soli could be what the Founders considered was by and of itself sufficient to make one a U.S. natural born Citizen? It simply does not compute.

    That the Fourteenth Amendment exists at all is proof positive that the Founders did not consider jus soli only enough to confer natural born Citizenship status.

  36. kudos.

  37. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    I know what you’re about to read might seem like a fit of age discrimination, but I pose these questions with clear mind and absolute honest determination for an answer…

    What is the percentage of powerful, aged governmental employees, such as Supreme Court justices, long-time politicians, etc…, that suffer from real medical symptons of senility? Does symptoms of senility increase in a person if they belong to a group of other senile people? What percentage of senile people know or can even admit they suffer from symptoms of senility?

    Maybe what we view as corruption in the people who “run things” is really just the symptoms of senility affecting decisions that govern the flow of events in our world. Maybe our world is nothing more than an elderly home run by the residents.

    Please understand I’m very aware that not all upper-aged people are senile, but some are.

  38. IceTrey Says:

    @ANTPogo

    You don’t have to be an immigrant to be a naturalized citizen. You can be naturalized at birth by statute. ie. born overseas to a US parent, born here to a foreigner, etc.. Both McCain, who was born in Panama and Obama, who had a foriegn parent are naturalized citizens.

  39. ohioborn Says:

    Re: “Why is the child of a diplomat born on U.S. soil not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and a child born to parents who are in the U.S. legally on work, student, or tourist visas or who are here illegally subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?”

    Because of DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

    Foreigners in the USA have to obey our laws. For that matter citizens in the USA have to obey our laws. If the aliens are in the US illegally, they also have to obey our laws, an in fact they have already broken them, by being here illegally.

    All of these people, the US citizens and the aliens, are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because they have to obey the laws of the USA. They have to obey all the laws, and they even have to pay US taxes.

    Who doesn’t have to obey our laws and pay our taxes? Foreign diplomats. Why? Because of diplomatic immunity.

    There was also a time when American Indians on reservations were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. But I believe that that has changed. In any case, foreign diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction. A case regarding an American Indian on a reservation would be interesting, but no such case has ever been brought.

    In any case, Obama’s parents, both of them, were in the USA at the time of Obama’s birth. They were not diplomats or American Indians on reservations, so they were subject to the law (even the US tax laws), so Obama was born in the USA of two persons subject to the laws of the USA and hence is a Natural Born US Citizen.

    ed. He may be a citizen… but he is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen by statute if born in Hawaii… he isn’t a 14th amendment citizen according to the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark because his father was not permanent domiciled here. That case is strictly limited by the very words in the holding of the case to parents who are permanently domiciled in the US. If Obama was born in the US, he is a citizen by federal statute. he is not an article 2 natural born citizen and he does not meet the definition of 14th amendment citizen in Wong Kim Ark. – Leo

  40. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Justice Gray was appointed by the usurper, Chester Arthur, whose Father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. What was the citizenship status of Chester’s Mother at the time of Chester’s birth?
    If she was a US citizen, then this could explain why Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case referred to ‘the natural born child of A citizen’ – singular. Justice Grey does not state the natural born child of parentS who are citizenS of the USA at the time of the child’s birth. Was this the pay off by Justice Gray to Chester Arthur?

    Thank you, Leo, for staying on his case.

    ed. No. That does not make sense. At the time Gray wrote that, citizenship followed from the father… For example, it wasn’t until about 1955 that a child born abroad of a US citizen mother and an alien father was granted US citizenship through the mother… and even then there were residency requirements involved. – Leo

  41. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Dont try posting here under more than one name. That gets you banned for life from this forum. Buh bye to you know who.

  42. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I had forgotten that the separation of the wife’s citizenship occurred as late as 1955. I wonder if anyone, prior to 1955, considered the effect on Presidential eligibility of changing the law in this way.

  43. As far as I know, Alexander Hamilton was the only signer of the constitution who was NOT born on American soil. It seems to me that if the founders simply wanted to make sure the POTUS was born on American soil, they would have just said that in the constitution and used a lot less words and complexity. The argument that the founders went to the trouble of making the exception allowing the POTUS to also be a simple citizen at the time of signing just to accommodate Hamilton is ludicrous. With this in mind, the founders obviously understood NBC to mean something more than merely born on American soil.

  44. Leo:

    Thank you for your post. I was a seven-month premature baby, 3-Ib, 2-oz, placed in an incubator, kept by a boarding family and finally adopted.

    Your writing in such a way brings to mind the Constitution. I consider abortion to be the ultimate “Illegal Search and Seizure” and, as such, I consider it to be expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

    I have heard the testimony of Gianna Jessen and obtained a copy of her biography “Gianna: Aborted…And Lived to Tell About It” by Jessica Shaver. Gianna Jessen survived a saline abortion, and I think it was of 17-hours in duration Her testimony and her very life is a raging rebuke against Obama and his elk.

    I am looking forward to your new post concerning Minor and Wong Kim Ark. I am reminded of Proverbs 27:17-“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens other.” One thing happening on this blog is that the people who are actually bringing contrary arguments are helping you sharpen your skills. Remember, this Leo, you are a sharp instrument, so to speak, and during this time America needs all the sharp instruments she can find.

  45. It wasn’t until after Susan B Anthony led the suffrage movement that women had any rights at all. They were for the most part nothing more than chattle, not allowed to own property, businesses or allowed to vote. I don’t believe they were counted as citizens even. However, Arthur’s mother was born in Vermont, his father in Ireland. Likewise, in the British Nationality Act of 1949 the tranferof citizenship was only granted to the children of male british citizens. It wasn’t ubtil the British Nationality Act of 1981 that women could pass down the right of citizenship. Obama’s father was a british citizen who lived in the british colony of Kenya. He was not permanently domiciled here, but was on a student visa. Thus he did not fit the requirement of the 14th ammendment.

  46. Borderraven has been pointing out this treaty from 1951, the United Kingdom Treaty, June 6, 1951, signed by President Truman. It gives the British consulate measures of jurisdiction of it’s Nationals, including informing of the need to perform military service, providing passports, and recording births and deaths. I wonder if Obama’s birth was reported and recorded in Britain. The relevant section is Part 6 Article 17. It seems to be a reaffirmation and clarification of the Jay Treaty.

    http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1507.html

  47. Larry the Grunt Says:

    Leo,

    I am currently researching my state’s election laws. It has been published in a local newspaper that our laws include a statute mandating the election board must place on the ballots the candidate certified by a political party, regardless if a candidate meets eligibility standards. IF I find that to be true, I will be suing my state for what I feel is unconstitutional law. Care to comment?

    ed. See the application I wrote for Cort Wrotnowski to the SCOTUS . The case you need to read is 429 US 1317 McCarthy v Briscoe. – Leo

  48. Leo,
    From a strickly personal standpoint, I can see the hypocrisy in Obama actions and words. You have just uncovered more of it. When Obama lies, it’s politics according to the media. When Obama is wrong, he’s mistaken but meant well. The media is so left, and so biased, it’s pointless to even toss out Obama’s own words as proof of his confused logic.

    I quietly acknowledged your challenges in the Chrysler lawsuit. We can clearly witness the future potential devestation when a judge changes the words of a witness. We, in my opinion have reached the end of the beginning of corruption of our Judicial branch, leaving us open to un-Constitutional activity. Obama eligibility, War Powers act, the Czars, the un-Constitutional judges, and plain cowardice on the part of our elected represetative branch, is a slippery but fast slope to Facism.

    Obama eligibility was the canary dropping dead in the proverbial coal mine. We the people should have heard the alarm bells of a progressive/socialist/facist/elitist attack on a previous Constutitional Republic. The country usually self-rights itself, hopefully this time it can be non-violent and and not a repeat of 1860.

  49. I would like to point out a fact about Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray, in considering the sole question of whether the US born children of Resident, domiciled, aliens of Chinese descent were US Citizens, used the 14th Amendment w/ respect to the children of non US Citizen negro slaves. This is an important distinction, and further narrows the holding of the ruling.

    Gray pointed out that Negro slaves, before the 14th Amendment, were certainly domiciled legal residents of the US, but like WKA’s parents, they were forbidden by law to achieve US Citizenship. The reasoning he arrived at was that since the 14th Amendment made the chidren of those parents citizens, it should also serve the children of Chinese resident aliens the same way. The holding of the case was therefore very specific, i.e that the children of NON Naturalizable Resident aliens, when born in the US, are US Citizens by birth and election of residence, in accordance with the intention of the 14th Amendment to Naturalize chidren of Resident alien NON Naturalizable negro slaves, who were born in the US. Gray reasoned that a Legislative prevention of US Citizenship to the parents should not supercede the 14th Amendment (his theory of it anyway) right of US citizenship to the child (but he didn’t cite Marbury v. Madison). While he hinted in the dicta that Anyone born in the US is a US Citizen, regardless of parentage, the holding of the case is restricted to the question about the children of Non Naturalizable resident aliens. By that reasoning one could infer that children of 2 Alien, non legal US resident parents, are not US Citizens, or the question of WKA’s US Citizen status would not need to be asked.

    Here is the relevant passage, right before the holding of the case:

    “No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain

    Page 169 U. S. 704

    classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens.by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.

    The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

    That is a very slick statement, and a tactic used by Obama apologists. Negro slave parents were not citizens of the US whether they were born in the US or not, so the issue was that they were not Citizens of the US, not where they were born. It should also be noted that his dicta about Jurisdiction went against his own holding in Elk v. Wilkins only 14 years before, and that he completely misconstrues Senator Trumbull’s definition during the debates of the 14th Amendment, which was:

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means”.

    Trumbull’s definition is almost exactly the wording of the CRA 1866, not a change of that statute, as Gray says. He also totally misconstrues the difference between “Subject to the jurisdiction”, and “Within the jurisdiction”. He says there is no difference. However, “subject to” refers to “Citizens”, and “within” refers to “all persons”, meaning All persons have the protection of the laws within the territory of the states, but are not necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, since they may not be citizens. Citizens Subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the governmment, but All persons must obey, and shall be protected by, the laws within the jurisdiction of the states.

    ed. The “holding” is Wong Kim Ark is, by its own strict wording, very limited. You make valid points… Leo

  50. thalightguy Says:

    With the following being said:

    ‘According to Obama, one is not “born” a US citizen unless they are able to survive on their own after being born.’

    The relevant question for Obama becomes:

    Does he believe a person ceases to be a citizen when the same factors come true?

  51. By Obama’s definition I guess none of us are citizens as we all need to be fed and cared for after being born.

  52. nbpundit Says:

    Obama has opened a whole new can of worms, as a new born child cannot sustain themselves in the areas of feeding, protection from the elements, and
    from predators. Therefore in his own words any new born is not a citizen until the child is capable of being productive on its own.
    He is twisted and insane. And as a country we are in deep trouble due to being asleep at the wheel for the past 100 years.

  53. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Curious people with Smart Phones can read QR Codes of advertisers.

    Go to:
    http://www.barcode.com/qr-code-generator.html

    Generate your QR Code and post the image in your site.

    Also use CafePress.com and Zazzle.com to make stuff like stickers and shirts.

    Put your QR Code anyplace people can see it and let their curiosity lead them to your site. Slap a sticker on your car, or a wall, or in a window.

    I’m getting ready to do a CafePress shopping spree.

  54. You have stated several times in your postings that you consider NBC to be a fact of birth.

    I believe that relative to its purpose, to define qualifications for the POTUS, then it must represent more than just a fact of birth. It must also represent a “status”.

    This is my belief as a layman. I realize that you are an educated attorney and a constitutional scholar. I’m going to lay out my position. Then, you can take out your constitutional baseball bat and
    whomp me up along side the haid.

    According to Justice Mashall in Marbury v Madison, the words in the Constitution must be presumed to have meaning. Furthermore, any construction that renders portions of the Constitution to be
    meaningless are invalid and may not even be argued.

    I submit that limiting the meaning of NBC to a ‘fact of birth’ renders the phrase useless in defining qualifications for a candidate or holder of the Office, at least 35 years after the childs birth.

    The NBC clause was added to assure that the POTUS did not have “dual citizenship, divided allegiance, divided loyalty and was not subject to the claims of a foreign power”. Stated simply, there are a thousand things that could happen in the 35 (or more) years between birth and election that could compromise a candidate’s purity of citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and make him subject to the claims of a foreign power.

    Therefore, I believe that NBC must represent both a ‘fact of birth’ as well as a ‘status’. In order to properly protect the qualifications of holders of the Presidency, the candidate must maintain NBC ‘status’ and not suffer from dual citizenship, divided allegiance and divided loyalty and must not be subject to any claims from a foreign power at the time of his election.

    To avoid hypotheticals about the current POTUS, let me use Jim A as a hypothetical example.

    Jim A is NBC. Born in NJ. Father Joe A, US citizen. Mother Ruby A, US citizen. Suppose that Father & Mother take citizenship in Country X, while Jim A is still a youth. Upon becoming adult, Jim A somehow fails to completely clear up his dual citizenship problem and still maintains dual citizenship with Country X. While running for President, Jim A can truthfully state: As a fact of birth, I am an NBC. I was born on US soil and both of my parents were US citizens at the time of my birth.

    Assume that the sole arbitrator of eligibility for Presidential Candidates is Leo Donofrio. What say ye, Leo: Is Jim A eligible to stand as a candidate for POTUS or not?

    Furthermore, I submit that the eligibility clauses of the Constitution are not written to define the eligibility of “candidates” for the office. If the founders intended to vet the eligibility of “candidates”, then they would have inserted that word. No, the eligibility requirements are written to be controlling legal authority for the President of the US, as he holds the office. He must be an NBC as a fact of birth. He must retain the purity of his NBC “status” through the election and during the term of his office.

    Let me use Jim A again for a new hypothetical example.

    Jim A is NBC. Born in NJ. Father Joe A, US citizen. Mother Ruby A, US citizen. Jim A runs for President, wins and is sworn in. Within a few months, Jim A falls in love with Princess Betty, a citizen of Country Y, the daughter of the King. Blinded by his love of Betty and in a moment of weakness, Jim A accepts citizenship in Country Y during the marriage ceremony in Country Y. The oath of citizenship does not require renouncement of any other citizenships. Therefore, Jim A, POTUS, now holds dual citizenship with Country Y.

    Assume that the US Attorney General is Leo Donofrio. What say ye, Leo: Do you start quo warranto proceedings or impeachment proceedings because Jim A is no longer eligible to hold the Office?

    If NBC is merely a fact of birth, then “Once NBC, always NBC”.
    If NBC is both a fact of birth and a ‘status’, then “Born NBC factually, might lose NBC status”.

    In a response to reader John, Leo makes this editorial comment. Quote. ed. UPDATED 11:38 AM March 30, 2011 – I did not realize from your original post that you applied for Irish citizenship… If you took an oath of allegiance to Ireland, than you are not eligible as you would have voluntarily forfeited your NBC status. leo Unquote. (Allow me to emphasize the usage of the word “status”.)

    Leo, it would appear that your thoughts about NBC fact vs status have been evolving.

    I’ve made my case, Leo. Now you may pull out your constitutional baseball bat and hit me over the head. I can take it.

    ed. See my next series of reports which will, among other things, touch upon these issues. I’ve been researching all weekend for this report which is about the SCOTUS definitions of nbc. See my post later today about the coming reports. But, let me say that there is only one situation which would kill nbc status if one had it at birth… forfeiture of US citizenship. This is because being a Citizen is necessary to be POTUS. The Constitution capitalizes the word Citizen, but does not cap natural or born. So, if nbC at birth but one loses the “C”, than one is not eligible any longer. If a person takes an oath disavoying US Citizenship, than he should not be eligible. Other than that, it’s not as clear cut as you wish it to be… see my next reports. – Leo

  55. Several times you have alluded that Obama’s next election might establish a ‘precedent’ that effectively overrides the meaning of NBC. Several times, you have stated that Chester A Arthur’s election did not establish a precedent because the country was not aware of the fraud involved in his election.

    I strongly disagree that BHO’s next election would establish a precedent.

    I would encourage you and your readers to fight and resist any such interpretation.

    An illegal or unconstitutional act can never be allowed to set a precedent that such illegal or unconstitutional acts are henceforth to be accepted, allowed, sanctioned.

    Nay! The most that can ever be said is: He got away with it.

    Do you think that I could argue to a traffice cop: “Office, I speed on this section of the freeway every morning. Therefore, it establishes a legal precedent. You can’t issue ma a ticket”

    Do you think a petty thief could make the same argument?
    Do you think Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, John Edwards, The Governator, etc., etc., etc. would get away with making that argument to their wives?

    In BHO’s case, there is no constitutional exclusion for a “person who usurped the Office of the Presicency by hook, crook, lies, deception or fraud in his first term is therefore allowed to run for a second term without meeting the constitutional requirements, including NBC”.

    Nay, BHO must still be an NBC to run for election in 2012.

    We can never conceed that a precedent has been set. We can never conceed that a precedent will be set if he wins election the second time.

    We must stand in unison. There is no legal precedent from his first election. There can be no legal precedent from his second election. The most that can ever be said about BHO is: He got away with it.

  56. thalightguy Says:

    Leo,

    Did you ever address the United States vs Low Hong case?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22903646/U-S-v-Low-Hong-1919-Natural-Born-Citizen-22855052-United-States-v-Low-Hong-Fed-Rep-Vol-261-Jan-Mar-1920-Pp-73-4

    ed. I will be discussing this case in me next series of reports… – Leo

  57. Can you please comment on the following?

    Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/

    ed. I will refrain from commenting in detail because my next reports will do so extensively… I will be reporting on the federal judicial opinions (and some States cases as well) which have discussed the nbc clause – with of course deference being given to the SCOTUS, and I do believe I can fairly say that I’ve learned alot more about the issue this week and that I have new things to add which I believe will fairly state the truth of the situation in such a way that it will become the most logical national/popular understanding of the nbc clause as it relates to Obama’s eligibility. – Leo

  58. Birfer2 Says:

    It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

    James Madison -May 1789

  59. sunlight Says:

    The culture of death permeates the Left. I learned this at a young age.

    In the spring of 1969 when I was a kid in high school I had a chance to meet a famous Leftist up close. It was Jerry Rubin of the Chicago 7, freshly famous from his disruption of the Democrat Party National Convention the previous summer. He was talking to a group of h.s. students, about a dozen of us. (I was curious about this nationally famous person.) He explained a new society where we could all share everything and get along in peace. I asked him straight on, what do we need to do to create this new thing? He answered me point blank, one on one, “Go home! Kill your parents! Burn down their house! Destroy theirs cars and all their money! After you’ve all done that, we can begin again. We can build a better world.”

    Luckily for me I had a very wise and patient father who helped unscrew me.

    Jerry Rubin had laid out the template for me in simplest terms. Control those who are born yesterday. Kill everybody else.

  60. Excellent logic, and excellent post, Leo!

    And if “viability” is the ability to survive on your own, not even full-term babies are “viable”… they too would die without an adult providing them food!

    ed. Good point. The whole thing is not just absurd, it’s truly evil. I did not even know about the BAIPA thing when I got into this nbc issue. That’s how little coverage the media gave it. Talk about the emperor’s new clothes… Anyone who denies to grant equal protection under the law to a new born baby… to say with a straight face in the Illinois Senate that it is not a US citizen… that’s not a good person… that’s not a Christian, not a Muslim, not a Jewish person… not a person of any faith but faith in evil. And it really has nothing to do with God… some things are just evil by definition. This is one of those things. – Leo

    The “viability” argument is only brought up by those who do not value human life. And they view “unwanted” babies as “previable”, and “unwanted” adults (like Terry Schiavo) as “postviable”.

    The godless left think that both the “previable” and “postviable” should be left without food and water to die.

  61. sunlight Says:

    Leo,

    From the time I first heard you speak on Plains Radio and maybe on Lan Lamphere’s show too back in October 2008 I’ve followed the veins of truth to pull back the curtain. I’ve found that if you understand the history of central banking in this country, you can find how our money and therefore our power as individuals has been usurped. I’ve learned so much I hardly know where to begin. Because you opened my eyes to Obama, I hope here to return the favor.

    Since money is power Let’s follow the money. Let’s begin at the back side of one dollar ($1) Federal Reserve Note. There is a pyramid with the words “Novus Ordo Seculorum,” Latin for “New Secular Order.” At the base is the Left side and the Right side. What’s that all seeing eye at the top?

    Hint #1:
    Money is Power.

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

    “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.

    “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

    “Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave.” Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

    “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” Major L L B Angus.

    http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

    Hint #2:
    14th Amendment
    to the Constitution of the United States of America, 1871,
    (the evil twin
    to the Constitution for the united States of America, 1787
    which has no 14th Amendment)

    14th Amendment, Section 4:
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED! Sound familiar? Sounds like NO STANDING! Sounds like US Citizens are in servitude to whomever established this offensive rule.

    Hint #3:
    United States Code
    TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002 Definitions
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html

    “The United States isn’t a Country. It’s a Corporation”
    http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

    Hint #4:
    Sovereign American v. 14th Amendment US Citizen
    No American 1776 up until the 14th Amendment was ever a 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen, not George Washington, not Abe Lincoln, nobody! They were citizens of their respective states (countries) all members of the United States.

    Sovereign – A real person. Sovereigns can own property while Citizens/Subjects cannot. According to the original Constitution, all government comes from the Sovereign Individual. Without the Sovereign Individual, there is no government.

    U.S. Citizen/Subject – A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “strawman.” [To call oneself a “sovereign citizen” or “sovereign subject” is an oxymoron, since “sovereign” and “citizen/subject” are mutually exclusive of each other.] When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract.
    http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/

    Hint #5:
    Unalienable rights (which come from our creator not a king or a government)
    What are they? Few in this country know.

    unalienable = un-a’lien-able
    exact same word, two pronunciations.

    As sovereign Americans our rights to life and property are un-a’lien-able in the county recorder’s office, in the court room, on tax returns. It means that no government may force upon you an equity position in you body (Obamacare,) your labor or your property. They may place no claim, no lien upon you or your property.

    No one controls and a sovereign American and he controls no one except himself, as long as he cause no damage, harm or injury to another.

    Side note: The Latin word for the adjective, “left,” is sinista. Sinistra also means: damage, harm and/or injury. Sinistare in the Latin verb for: to cause damage, harm and/or injury. This simple Latin word is censored from most Latin to English online dictionaries that I searched.

    Hint #6:
    Code may be legal in corporate law but is not lawful in common law.
    CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode. ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

    Hint #7:
    The 13th Amendment, ratified March 10, 1819
    It states:
    If any citizen of the united States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

    The 13th Amendment was ratified as follows:
    Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
    Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
    Kentucky, Jan 31, 1811
    Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
    Ohio, Jan 31, 1811
    North Carolina, Dec.23, 1811
    Delaware, Feb 2, 1811
    Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
    Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
    New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
    New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
    Virginia, March 10, 1819
    Vermont, Oct 24, 1811

    Virginia ratified the 13th Amendment on March 10, 1819. This completed the 13 states required to ratify an amendment. (Virginia Legislature Act No. 260, Virginia Archives of Richmond, file, page 299, micro-film). It was published by printing 4,000 copies, triple the usual order, with instructions to send a copy to President James Monroe, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Amendment had been printed in at least 18 separate publications by 11 different states and territories from 1819 to 1868. Virginia printed the correct 13th Amendment in 1819, Colorado in 1868.

    During the turmoil of the civil war this original 13th Amendment was overlaid by the slave Amendment and was never lawfully repealed.

    http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm

    ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996.

    ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

    ESQUIRE, n [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

    I have great respect for you and admiration for your work to expose the truth. Now that I’ve seen more pieces to the puzzle I would prefer that you, Leo Donofrio, and all people of honor within your profession acted
    as counselors in law
    rather than
    an attorneys at law.

    I believe there can be remedy in the Republic for the united States of America, long abandoned since 1861, but now restored.
    http://www.republicfortheunitedstates.org/

    Best wishes to all who value individual liberty within a representative republic with its diffusion of power over political power monopolies of any sort (such as monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, democracy, racial supremacy, corporate rule, socialist rule, and especially rule by anonymous and elite bankers.)

    ed. Everyone should go to their local coin dealer and by a silver dime from 1964 or earlier… it’s not so long ago that the dime, cost a dime. Today it will cost you 3-4 dollars… “dollars”… what’s a dollar? That dime now costs 3 to 4 of those things we call a dollar, but which are really just pieces of cotton paper with ink on them backed by nothing but faith. When people lose faith, those pieces of paper and the digital equivalents of them (numbers on a computer screen)… will be worth nothing. Gold is over $1500 an ounce and silver is hovering between 35-40… ten years ago silver was close to $4 an ounce and gold was around $300. What has changed? Is silver and gold different? have they become anything different from that which they were before? No. But what has happened to the dollar? It’s been printed and printed and printed… the more of something there is, the less it is worth… the faith in its value is decreased as the more of it is produced. This is true about all things… records… when there’s only a few of something left in the world…art…Monet, Dali…original first pressings of The Beatles… those things go up in value… but an MP3 of a Beatles song isn’t worth anything… a digital scan of a Dali painting isn’t worth anything… same for your money. The more it’s printed and digitally created, the less it’s worth… and right now, all those people who have the ability to print the money are printing it…BAILOUTS!!!! …. giving it to each other…using it to buy gold and silver, art etc…real estate… and when they are done with their piracy… the dollar will be a corpse… They steal your wealth by printing more of what you own. – Leo

  62. Your argument that Obama somehow owed allegiance to a foreign country is based completely on the rules of that country (Britain’s perpetual allegiance).

    That rule GRANTS Obama certain privileges, but requires nothing of him should he ignore those privileges. Your accusation that he was somehow governed by British law is stretching the truth immensely. He had certain rights—that is all.

    If you somehow think that birth rights should be altered because of rules of a foreign country, then Mexico could pass a law in that all people born in the state of California are granted Mexican citizenship, rendering them ineligible (by your definition) to become US president.

    You may say that it is allegiance to his father that renders Obama ineligible, but there is no requirement that a person even know who his father is. Many people are not aware of the identity of their father, and in rare cases, their mother. Are kids who are left, hours old, on the doorstep of a hospital in Detroit and raised by a nice American family not eligible to become president?

    Your arguments are simply not in line with logic, or the constitution.


    ed. Excuse me, but you appear new to the issue. Your argument above has been discussed on this blog so many times and has been the subject of so many blog posts refuting it here that I cannot even get upset with you because you are obviously being led to dirty water by other blogs. This is a LEGAL blog, not a propaganda site… So, I will begin the refutation of this silly argument, once again, starting at Obama’s own web site, Fight The Smears, which states – at this moment in time –

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    “Governed”…he was governed by the UK at birth… his choice of words… one is governed by that which one owes allegiance to, in his case, the Monarchy of the UK, and this was a matter of both UK and US law. Furthermore, this argument has also been thoroughly discussed and debunked at this blog on multiple occasions…read the following

    The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

    The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

    Furthermore, read the following historical discussions on the issue from main stream media sources:

    New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.

    The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

  63. ohioborn Says:

    IF the USA still had a draft, and a child was born in the USA and his father was a citizen of a country that considered him also a citizen, and was hence “governed” at birth by that country, would that mean that we could not draft that person when he was of age?

    If a US soldier has under a foreign law allegiance to that country and he was born here and hence has legal allegiance to the USA, does that mean we cannot try him for treason if he did something traitorous?

    If a person is governed by a foreign country and hence has to pay taxes to that country, does that mean that we cannot tax him too?

    When a person with dual citizenship is “governed” by X country, does that mean that he is NOT governed also by Y country? No, obviously not, that is what dual citizenship means. And the same for taxes and the draft and treason.

    In virtually everything our law holds that only OUR law applies. And that is what the electors of the US Electoral College held when none of them changed their votes to vote against Obama, and that is what the US Congress also held when it voted to confirm Obama’s election unanimously.

    ed. see my response here. – Leo

  64. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I started buying silver trade ounces in 1976 after reenlisting in the Navy, when I was awarded a $2,000 bonus. $5 a paycheck back then. Last year I sold two platinum Nobles for above $1,600 each, which I had bought for about $422 each, using my 1990 divorce settlement.

    I recommend a visit to Kitco.com for pricing and always sell face-to-face at a reputable place, never sell thru the mail. I sold to the Gold Mine Jewlery store in Irvine, CA.

    Silver is the poor man’s metal, but more poor men sell more Silver, than rich men sell Gold, so Silver rises in value in greater multiples. During the Iran Hostage Crisis Gold rose 2x – 3x, while Silver rose 7x. So, buy metals and wait for crisis to see how it rides. Find your sell point. I’ll sell Sivler if it reaches $50.

  65. sunlight Says:

    Leo,

    Ever heard of the story “The Wizard of Ounces?”

    Of course not.

    But you have heard of “The Wizard of Oz.”

    In the movie Dorothy’s slippers are ruby. In L. Frank Baum’s book, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” published in 1900, Dorothy’s slippers are made of silver, not ruby. The capital city of Oz is Emerald City. Much like our District of “Legal Tender” (Columbia.) How do you get to the Emerald City? Follow the yellow (gold) brick road! The Legal Tender of the Federal Reserve is not money. It’s an instrument of debt. The IRS is the debt collector for the Federal Reserve.

    How did Dorothy get home to her friends and family?

    She clicked together two pieces of silver, her silver heels.
    http://www.themoneymasters.com/mm/

  66. I didn’t say that the US does not recognize dual citizenship. I’m saying that there is no law that allows the laws of a foreign nation to supersede American law. You didn’t answer my question about a country making a random claim on a citizen, or granting citizenship to a group of people born in the US.

    You also didn’t answer my question about a person with unknown parent(s).

    Obama owed nothing to Britain at birth. British law granted him citizenship, or if you will, made him a “subject”. If you are saying that this British law is what makes Obama ineligible, who is to say that another country cannot make you a subject of their monarch, rendering you ineligible to be president?

    ed. They can do whatever they like, but according to Secretary of State Lansing, as he explained this very issue to Senator Dodge, if the child was born of naturalized US citizen parents then the US State Department can demand a person be released from military duty in a foreign country whereas if the parents were not US citizens, even though the child may be born in the US, the US can’t do anything about that country’s conscription of him. You need to read the links I provided you and discuss the points made therein. You appear to be a new reader and I’ve posted your comments… but if you wish to continue commenting here, you must study the materials I highlighted for you and discuss them.

    see the links in my previous response… discuss. Also discuss the fact highlighted in the State Department’s foreign affairs manual regarding that when a dual citizen is in a foreign country, that country has more of a claim to him than the US.

    Your manner of thinking can also be applied to a naturalized citizen who has given up prior citizenship… they aren’t dual citizens at all… they are only US citizens after naturalization. So, under your thinking, why should they not be eligible? What’s the policy behind making them ineligible? – Leo

  67. Reading all these recent posts I had a thought. Since Obama has dual citizenship and is also a Brithish citizen could he not be required to report for duty if the British government required him to? Seems this could open one big can of worms.

    ed. The issue of whether he still has dual citizenship depends on facts not known to us. I will try to do a report on that issue. I have read the other reports on the issue by other bloggers, but I have separate thoughts to dicuss. – Leo

  68. Leo,

    I have seen the scenerio that JimA presented. Acceptance of dual citizenship has created a gray area, where a nbC can receive citizenship of another foreign power, and not have to relinquish US Citizenship. It is a fairly recent development that a US Citizen must make an overt declation of intent in order to lose US Citizenship. In USC 8 S1481 are the statutes regarding the assumption of foreign Citizenship, and since 1978, and again in 1986, they have been amended so that assumption of foreign citizenship does NOT mean automatic revocation of US Citizenship.
    I would say that since the very well known reason for the requirement of natural born Citizens to be POTUS is to prevent foreign allegiance, then that reason cannot simply be made moot by a congressional statute that is not an Amendment to the original meaning, per Marbury v. Madison. Especially in light of the fact that the founders would have never contemplated dual citizenship, especially in the POTUS.

    ed. Good point. A statute cannot change the Constitution. – Leo

  69. “The issue of whether he still has dual citizenship depends on facts not known to us.”

    The link on the fightthesmears page is actually a link to FactCheck’s article on a Colorado newspaper article referencing Obama’s citizenship. It shows by British and Kenyan laws that Obama’s inherited citizenship lapsed in 1982 because he did not declare allegiance to that particular nation. So those facts are known.

    ed. But it fails to state the law properly. This will be the subject of a well researched report. And it discusses an issue which I have not yet come across elsewhere. Reserve your judgment. – Leo

  70. Sorry Leo…

    ed. snip. I gave you an assignment. You did not do it. Do your homework and then you can post here again. Discuss Secretary of State Lansing’s letter to Senator Dodge in my report entitled, The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

    Do your homework, then we can talk… I am the teacher. This is my classroom. You had your say, twice. You don’t get to shout over me. Go preach to the converted. There’s plenty of forums for that. You want to speak here, you have to do your homework. Peace. – Leo

  71. themadjewess Says:

    I had to kick Ellen off of my own website.

    I NEVER claimed to be an expert in this mess. I know when I see a wag the dog and a FRAUD. Many years in the restaurant business can give you some super insight to people, body movements, lying..etc. Obama is a professional LIAR, whats amazing, is, he is not even good at it. There are phoney’s and then there are REAL phoneys….

    As far as the lfbc, not natural born etc..I just point TO those of you who DO study the law. (I am an entertainer in life, outside of online….)

    I dont even copy and paste things I see, just link.

    Ellen drove me nuts.
    She is disrespectful, taking up bandwidth.
    She can always go get a wordpress blog herself, she will have many YES WE CANs following her.

    I applaud your patience, Mr. Donofrio. I have none left.

  72. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Keyes v Bowen (Vetting POTUS Candidates in California Elections)

    is docketed for SCOTUS conference on September 26, 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/58661281/Keyes-v-Bowen-No-10-1351-Docket-June15-2011

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: