Natural BornTruth.

Recently, I wrote an article wherein I condemned Professor Lawrence Solum, an esteemed Constitutional scholar, for tampering with an article he published in the Michigan Law Review (September 2008) which focused upon the issue of whether John McCain was eligible to be President despite his birth in Panama.  That article did not mention Barack Obama.

The opening paragraph of the article stated:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.’” (Emphasis added.)

Shortly after that report was published, Obama’s dual nationality issue started to get legs when I petitioned the US Supreme Court to review his eligibility (as well as the eligibility of John McCain and Roger Calero, the Nicaraguan born Socialist Workers Party Candidate) just before the 2008 election.  Up until that petition, Obama’s dual nationality issue wasn’t on the national radar.

Solum was caught in a rather delicate situation as the issue developed national awareness since he clearly indicated Obama was not a member of the class of persons whose eligibility fit within the “core meaning” and “general agreement” of the natural born citizen clause.  As a result of the attention, Solum scrubbed the two citizen parent reference.  You can read the whole sordid story in my previous report.

Solum’s original report had it right:

- all persons born on US soil to US citizen parents are – beyond question – eligible to be President

-  all persons who were not US citizens at the time of their birth are – beyond question – ineligible to be President

The eligibility of everyone else is questionable.

That was the truth when Solum first wrote the article.  And it’s the truth now.  And I always want to know the truth and to speak the truth.  So, having come down so hard on Solum, I recently challenged myself to go back and review the relevant judicial history to see if I had overlooked anything important that would help establish the case for Obama’s eligibility.  I also set my gaze upon searching for anything I might have previously overlooked which strengthens arguments against his eligibility.

NEW INSIGHTS

As a result of this effort, I’ve developed new insights and analysis which strengthen my opinion that the original meaning and intention of the natural born Citizen clause would exclude Obama from eligibility.

But I’ve also had an important insight which helps the case for Obama.

I have not seen this particular analysis discussed before.  I Googled the appropriate terminology, and there is nothing I can find that previously discerns this particular insight.  It appears both factions of the argument have been short-sighted as to this point.  It is new.  Therefore, I have an ethical duty to bring it to your attention.

There is a great body of historical, judicial, academic and journalistic evidence which indicates that only a person born in the US to parents who are US citizens is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President.  But the media, academia, Congress and a supporting circus of blogosphere attack dogs have tried – in vain – to marginalize anyone who speaks truthfully about the issue.  Hell, Solum marginalized his own reputation over it.

I never want to be rightfully accused of doing that – of twisting the legal evidence to fit a stubborn conclusion.  The very notion is sickening to my core.

These new insights are very technical and difficult to explain.  This is particularly true of the new analysis which helps the case for Obama’s eligibility.  The technicality involved certainly posed an ethical challenge.  If I just kept my mouth shut, it would probably remain obscured.  Who knows, it might remain obscured even after I discuss it.  But I will do my best to make it clear for posterity.

I am a lawyer who understands true ethics.  And such a lawyer is obligated to reveal cases and facts to the opposition which are damaging.  This is the way the Bar and the Bench should behave.  The truth must come before the desired outcome.  Unfortunately, that’s not the way it is in our judicial system.  But it will be the way of this blog.

Leo Donofrio Esq.

About these ads

100 Responses to “Natural BornTruth.”

  1. Something of interest, that may or may not have been missed as I cannot recall where or when I read it was that Obama Sr was part of a Kenyan government program. He was sent here by the Kenyan government. His education paid for by the Kenyan government, in order to become part of the new Kenyan government – after British withdrawal. Perhaps Obama Sr then would be considered a government official in the US on business.

    ed. I have thought about it as well… but unless he had diplomatic immunity, I don’t think he can be considered a minister or consul… – Leo

  2. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    I can hear, see, and read it now, before you even post the article, what mainstream radio hosts, news reporters, and blog writers will be saying and showing:

    “Leo Donofrio, author of the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ blog (picture of Leo in dark sunglasses holding his poker trophy is displayed), has shifted his position and now claims that Barack Obama is a natural born Citizen (this article’s text hinting towards Barack’s eligibility is shown). ‘Birthers,’ like Mr. Donofrio, after failing to prove President Obama was not born in Hawaii (picture of Hawaiian hospital followed by computer-generated long-form birth certificate is displayed), clung to the claim set forth in the best-selling but almost-cancelled book (photo of book displayed) by Jerome Corsi, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President,’ that the U.S. Constitution made President Obama an illegal U.S. citizen. But Mr. Donofrio has finally come to his senses: he has dug up new evidence which clearly shows that Mr. Obama is far from illegal, probably even more naturally born than most Americans (photo of Declaration of Independence is displayed). You can go read all about what Leo had to say at our (insert reporting agency’s name) website. http://www.reportingagency‘sname.com

    “Leo Donofrio, would you please show your crazy “birther” pals, like Orly Taitz and Donald Trump, the natural born truth!”

    (Tongue-and-cheek humor from a guy who sees that the weight of evidence is not on Barack’s side…so far anyways. Leo?)

    ed. LOL Right. Don’t think I haven’t thought about that scenario coming true. But seriously, folks… I have some new stuff for both sides… Like I said, I do not believe he fits the intent and original meaning of the nbc clause, and I have some new analysis which strengthens that allegation. But if I were his lawyers, this new thing in his favor is the argument I would make. – Leo

  3. Sally Hill Says:

    For as long as I have been a reader at this blog, I have always held the opinion that you are an open and honest person, and I applaud you for your ethical decision to share any and all information you uncover, both for and against the issue at hand.

    I have long been of the mind set that I can see both sides. I try to always put myself in my opposition’s shoes and see it from that side so I can try and see if there are any holes or flaws in my side.

    It is for these reasons that I think it is imperative that SCOTUS hear and rule on the issue – although I think we have all figured out that they don’t have the guts to do so.

    Thank you for your tireless work.

  4. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I concur.

    However, we will be left with the principle that the ‘original intent’ of the Framers of The Constitution, as amended by Amendments of The Constitution, and as properly interpreted by SCOTUS, MUST prevail.

    The key issue has always been the necessity to safeguard the freedom of ‘We The People’. That can only mean that there must be no risk of foreign allegiance by The POTUS and that means that The POTUS must be born on US soil to US citizen parents.

    A very important consequential issue has always been the need to avoid the tearing apart of ‘We The People’ of this Country, which is a natural consequence of having a POTUS with any foreign allegiance.

  5. Dean M. Says:

    You’re assuming Obama is Obama, the son of Obama of Kenya. We really don’t know that he is. Some believe he is the biological son of Malcolm Little, otherwise known as Malcolm X.

    ed. Well, I dont believe that. – Leo

  6. Leo,
    I feel like I missed something here. What are the facts that support Obama’s claim to being NBC?

    Pete

    ed. I haven’t published my analysis yet. – Leo

  7. Garacka Says:

    Let me guess on the insight that helps the case for eligibility:

    Stanley Ann thought she had entered a legal marriage. However, in the late summer of 1961 she (or her mother) uncovered the other marriages of her husband, making that marriage null and void. The purported husband was considered an ambassador from the UK/Kenya by participating in the Foreign scholar program, which I will guess comes under the authority of some Treaty. The marriage fraud then falls under some sort of a violation of the treaty, and treaties are to be respected under natural law (hey I’m guessing) which causes any consideration of his natural law based citizenship authority over his son to be null, meaning only the mothers citizenship weighs under natural law, making the son Natural born. That she was (possibly) in a foreign country at birth) was because she was traveling to resolve a treaty dispute and thus was, herself considered a ambassador of the U.S when (and if) she gave birth in Kenya.

    This is a contest, right?

    ed. No contest… and no that’s not it. Nothing to do with it. – Leo

  8. like was he really the son of BHO, Sr., or of another? Will be interested in hearing your insights.
    In the first case, even if he was not the son of Obama Sr., he was still adopted by Soetoro. Corsi’s book shows that the name “Soebarkah” was written on Stanley Ann’s passport, when she removed him from her passport.
    Remember, Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship.

    ed. Nope, not that. Nothing like that. – Leo

  9. Well, let’s hear it then. Does it decide the issue one way or another? Does it leave it open?

    ed. I believe I have insights which strengthen the argument that he’s not eligible according to the original intent and meaning… and since the Article has never been amended, he is not eligible in my opinion. However, I will tell you how I would argue if I were his lawyers… and I think it’s a better argument than any of his supporters have made. That being said, I still believe he’s not eligible. Wait for the report. It’s gonna take some serious editing to condense the research and analysis into a format which is accurate and fairly comprehensible to non-lawyers. – Leo

  10. Philip. N Says:

    Leo,

    From the very beginning I’ve had one question, How can a person born a Dual National be defined as a natural born citizen and eligible to be President?

    I asked my U.S Representatives and they treated me like a six year old child who ask why and you reply, just because; and let’s not get started with the media.

    So I had to set out on my own to research the matter and everything that I have found points to a person born with divided loyalties cannot be defined as a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

    For the last three years your blog is the only one that I know of that I can come to and find the truth and for that I thank you.

    Any information that could answer this question that we both share whether it shows eligible or ineligible would greatly be appreciated.

    As always I trust that you will be true to the character you have shown us as I would expect no less out of myself.

  11. Well, it was from your tutelage that it was revealed that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of natural born Citizen, not insofar as “citizenship” is concerned and not insofar as “Political Executive Office Eligibility” is concerned.

    I have often expressed that circumstance to being a “legal loop-hole” that a person of low character has taken advantage of for the purpose of Usurping the office.

    So, for there to be another or other “Legal technicalities” that might be available to exploit for the purpose of evading the “Original National Security intent” of the prerequisite imperative requirement of proscribing any and all but a “True Citizen”, as Aristotle would have it, will only further confirm the low character of any that would invoke them.

    IMO.

    ed. I think things will become more clear to everyone who has been following this issue in the days ahead. – Leo

  12. So what are your new technical insights?

    ed. Coming soon… – Leo

    I have recently run across these two argument in support of a two-parent of a natural born citizen. I was wondering if you knew its author.

    Original Intent

    In Alexander Hamilton’s first draft of the U.S. Constitution, a person had to be “born a citizen” of the United States in order to be eligible to serve as president. However, in July 1787, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, recommending that the presidential eligibility requirement be changed from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen”. The stated purpose of the change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency:

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

    From this information alone, we may infer that:

    •To the members of the he Constitutional Convention, the words “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” meant different things. Whatever set of persons is defined by the membership requirement “natural born citizen,” it’s a different set than the one defined by the membership requirement “born a citizen.” Since it is fair to conclude, in context, that the wording change was intended to further restrict who would be eligible to be President, it must be the case that not all those who are citizens from the instant of birth are also “natural born citizens.”

    •Someone who was “born a citizen” of the United States might also be a “foreigner” in some sense; but a “natural born citizen” is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.

    •”Born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” pertain only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth. Consequently, the wording change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” could not have excluded from the presidency persons who became foreigners during adulthood. The change could have, at most, only excluded persons who were “foreigners” when they were born.

    ed. Agree. – Leo

    The wording change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” doesn’t make any sense—it would not have excluded anyone not already excluded by the “born a citizen” requirement—unless the term “natural born” is understood as more restrictive than “native born.”

    ed. Absolutely agree. – Leo

    To fully eliminate the possibility of someone who could possibly be classified as a foreigner becoming President, the meaning of “natural born citizen” would have to include only persons who, from birth, owed allegiance to the United States exclusively and did not acquire, since birth, any foreign allegiance or nationality.

    ed. Agree that the wording change alone – from bc to nbc – would not eliminate the possibility of a person becoming POTUS who acquired another nationality at some time AFTER being born. – Leo

    The change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” would not have provided any additional protection against foreign influence in the presidency—that is, Jay’s wording change could not have barred from the presidency anyone who was not already barred by the “born a citizen” requirement—unless the term “natural born citizen” meant a person who was not a “foreigner” (a citizen or a subject of any foreign country) since birth.

    ed. Disagree… The natural born wording would bar native born persons who – at the time of their birth – owed allegiance to a foreign nation. It would not bar those who gained another citizenship at some point after being born. The extra protection comes from the perspective that a person will have a natural loyalty to the nation where he was born, and an even increased natural loyalty to that nation if it is also the nation his parents are citizens of. That person has a singular loyalty at birth via jus soli as well as jus saguinis. Should he gain another allegiance at some point after his birth, such allegiance will only be available via statute/naturalization. Now consider that Jay’s notion of “a strong check” is aimed not just at the office of POTUS, but at the entire administration of Government:

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

    We know that foreigners who become naturalized US citizens are eligible to be Senators and Representatives. In their case, the strong check is that they must become citizens before they may enter into the administration of our national government. But note that “a strong check” is not a total bar to foreigners being part of the government. That first part of Jay’s quote applies to all of government, not just the office of POTUS. This is a point which I have not seen discussed before, and if it has, I must have missed it. I have always assumed that the letter from Jay pertained only to the POTUS. Thinking about your comments caused me to take another look at Jay’s letter and as a result, I see now that the first sentence applies to the entire Government – Congress, the judiciary and the Potus/Executive branch.

    But the second sentence applies only to the POTUS… and here Jay obviously is making the case for a stronger check upon foreign influence… the only possible way that stronger check could be accomplished was through requiring the POTUS to not be a foreigner in any way at birth. A person may be a “born citizen” of the US while also being a “born subject” of the United Kingdom as was Obama. As you stated above, such a person may be born a US citizen, but that person is also a foreigner in the sense that he is also born a citizen of a foreign nation.

    Whereas, a person born of US citizen parents on US citizen soil is not in any way a foreigner…

    So, by requiring both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis requirements for POTUS, the stronger check required by Jay as to POTUS is accomplished. And it is obvious that Jay is arguing for a stronger check for POTUS. That is not disputable. Now, you must also keep in mind that the nbc clause capitalizes the word “Citizen”, but not “natural born”… and this tells us something very relevant. It tells us that the POTUS must be a “Citizen”… at the time he becomes President. It’s not enough to be a natural born Citizen, one must be a Citizen at the time one becomes President. Therefore, a person who was nbC but who throws off his US citizenship (and who never regains it) cannot be President.

    At the time the Constitution was written, the idea of a dual citizen was considered somewhat of an aberation that resulted from a person who was born in a country different than from where his parents were citizens.

    At the time the Constitution was adopted, the UK held to perpetual allegiance, meaning that it was not possible to renounce your allegiance as a subject of the monarchy. That was never the law in the US. Our nation was built upon the right of a man to declare his allegiance to a new nation and to throw off his allegiance to an old one. But if a person was to acquire a new nationality… at some point after birth, such would be accomplished by naturalization… and that would almost certainly require the person to end their US citizenship and to throw off allegiance to the US and to adhere to and swear an oath to his new foreign nation. This is what we have always required in our oath of allegiance required of persons who seek to be naturalized here in the US. And it was, as far as I can tell, the same rule for naturalization all over the world.

    Therefore, Jay would not have been very concerned with the rare possibility that a US citizen might acquire a second citizenship later in life via naturalization abroad (therefore renouncing US citizenship), only to come back to the US in the future to regain US citizenship…and then become President. That would have been an extremely rare possibility to the framers, all things considered.

    Furthermore, a person who renounced US citizenship in favor of a foreign nation would probably be required to go through the naturalization process in the US all over again… and it’s not clear at all that the second US citizenship could be considered “natural born”. Perhaps Jay and the framers would say that the voluntary renunciation which ended US citizenship was like a death of citizenship… and the naturalization was a rebirth, and therefore the person was not natural born. But even if such a person could be said to be natural born, the possibility of such a person becoming POTUS was, at the very best, extremely remote.

    There are more likely possibilities where natural born citizen children/minors might gain a second nationality and then at majority elect to be US citizens. They would not have suffered the same kind of citizenship suicide as adults making the election to renounce US citizenship. But, once again, Jay did not call for an absolute ban on foreigners in Government, he required “a strong check” against it. So, while changing the wording from Hamilton’s suggestion of “born citizen” to Jay’s requirement of “natural born Citizen” might not prevent every single possibility of a person – born in the US of US citizen parents who (at sometime after birth) acquired a dual nationality – from being POTUS, the change in wording does provide a very strong check against it.

    Compared to Hamilton’s “born a citizen” where the person might be a dual national at birth (like Obama), Jay’s natural born Citizen clause (assuming it means born in the US of citizen parents), certainly provides a much stronger check against the admission of a foreigner as POTUS.

    So, like I said a few hours ago (when I started to reply to your question)… I disagree with your conclusion on this point. But I have to thank you for challenging me to explain why I disagree. Bravo, sir! This discourse is one of the great pleasures of writing this blog for me. You have caused me to extract, what I honestly believe to be – Constitutional truth – and a new understanding of both Jay’s letter and our own Constitution. I need a drink now, and I’m kind of afraid to read the rest of your letter because I need sleep, and if I read it, I might not sleep again until tomorrow afternoon. This is one of the best comments this blog has ever seen. – Leo

    John Jay’s letter to Washington establishes the fact that the Framers were worried about the undivided loyalty of the President, and thought that the requirement that he be a “natural born citizen” would be sufficient to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance (anyone who could be claimed as a subject or citizen of a foreign sovereign) from serving as President. But how could that be, if “natural born citizen” differs from “natural born subject” solely in the difference between a subject and a citizen? A British “natural born subject” could have multiple nationalities, and owe allegiance to multiple sovereigns. And many nations claim anyone with at least one parent (sometimes it must be the father, sometimes it must be the mother, sometimes both) who is a citizen or subject of that nation as a citizen/subject also.

    Clearly, if both your parents are citizens (or subjects) of the same sovereign, and you were born in that same sovereign’s territory, then and only then is it impossible for any foreign sovereign to have a claim to your allegiance (ed. …at the time of your birth – leo) under the law of nations as commonly understood. John Jay’s request to Washington makes no sense otherwise.

    ed. Agree. – Leo

    Consider again Article II, section 1, pa. 5: “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.” That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
    •Those who are 35 years old or older, AND
    •Those who have been a resident of the US for 14 years or longer, AND◦Those who are natural born citizens, OR
    ◦Those who were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted

    Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President?

    Before answering that question, consider the case of Congressman Smith. He was born in South Carolina before the American Revolution. At the time of the Revolution, he was not yet an adult. His parents were British loyalists, and fought against the Revolution. But after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, he was elected to Congress. But his right to be seated was challenged on the basis that he was not a citizen, due to the actions of his parents.

    James Madison himself spoke in defense of the fact that Mr. Smith was a citizen. The reasoning he used is decisive with respect to understanding the reason for the exception in the Constitution to the “natural born citizen” requirement.

    Madison essentially argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen because of where he was born, and because he was a minor when his parents sided with the British loyalists against the American Revolutionaries. He focused on that point, because he obviously felt that any adults who sided with the British loyalists would not qualify as citizens, regardless of where they were born (he explains the reason for that.) Bear in mind that while the Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement that one have “birthright citizenship” (whose normative definition means either “jus soli” OR “jus sanguinis” citzenship (OR, not AND.)) But Madison nevertheless argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen from birth, by reason of his place of birth alone, and explicitly not due to his parentage, because (as Madison argues) his parents never were US citizens at all.

    Madison’s argument prevailed, and Mr. Smith was seated as a Congressman. The Congress accepted Madison’s argument that Mr. Smith had birthright citizenship solely due to the location of his birth in South Carolina—when South Carolina was a British Colony, and not yet a State of the United States. By that same logic, most residents of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted were native citizens of the US by their place of birth alone.

    Note that, according to Madison’s argument, those who were citizens of any State became citizens of the US instantly, automatically and by operation of natural law and the law of nations the moment two events occurred: 1) The society in which they were citizens came under the sovereignty of the United States, and 2) they were adults who accepted, and did not reject, allegiance to the United States. However, their status as US citizens began only at that moment, and not before. Therefore, most people who were alive when the Constitution was adopted would have had parents who were not US citizens when they were born. That point is crucial, and decisive.

    So, based on Madison’s argument (which Congress accepted,) if “natural born citizen” means simply “native born,” or means essentially the same as “natural born subject” (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject, and also excluding those whose citizenship was acquired by naturalization) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.

    But if “natural born citizen” means “born on US soil, with parents who were US citizens when their child was born,” then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the “natural born citizen” requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.

    ed. Agree with the last sentence here, but as for the Mr. Smith thing, I need to look this up. I am not aware of it other than what you have wrote. It is intriguing, but I can’t do the research at this moment. Excellent comment again, though. – Leo

    The above is sufficient to establish the meaning of “natural born citizen” beyond any reasonable doubt. But there is yet more evidence that leaves no possibility of doubt whatsoever. We have the testimony of Founder and historian David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815,) who was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

    Dr. Ramsay wrote an essay entitled “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen” (1789,) a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

    Hence the need for the time-limited Constitutional exception that permitted those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted to be President, since only those born after 4 July 1776 would have qualified as natural born citizens, and they would have been no older than 13 years of age in 1789.

    Given Dr. Ramsay’s position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents.

    ed. Agree with all of that. Ramsay’s comments are well know by now, but they were not common knowledge until this issue of Obama’s eligibility came forth. – Leo

    In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law. Specifically, natural law with respect to questions of nationality and allegiance to a sovereign.

    Note the phrase “as a natural right.” Modernly, it seems strange to us to associate questions of citizenship with “natural rights.” We consider questions of citizenship to be purely legal matters, not questions of “laws of nature” such as those investigated by physicists. But that was not at all true in the 18th century. At the time, science was still in its infancy, and its stunning and then-very-recent success inspired those who lived through the initial scientific revolution to seek “natural laws” to explain and justify their hypotheses, theories, concepts and policies. That tack was especially strong among those who founded the United States and wrote its Constitution. They were determined to throw off the chains of tradition and arbitrary authority, and to establish their society and government based on invariant, self-evident principles arrived at by reason and conformance with objective reality. They used the term “natural” in a way similar to the way we modernly use the term “scientific,” in the sense of “justified by reason and the way the world works, not by tradition or arbitrary human policy” (which isn’t quite the formally correct definition, but is nevertheless what most people mean when they use the term.)

    That’s why the political writings of the time constantly and incessantly refer to “natural law.” The point was to claim that the concepts, principles, rules or laws under discussion were derived by reason and logic from objective facts, and not merely the remnants of irrational cultural traditions. It was the Age Of Reason, and naturalness was its standard of validity and truth.

    When the US Constitution was written, the “natural law” that dealt with issues such as nationality and allegiance to a sovereign was called “the law of nations.” Modernly, we call this “international law.” In 1789, the preeminent codification, description and explanation of “the law of nations” was a work written by Emerich de Vattel, entitled THE LAW OF NATIONS, or principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. The Founders were not only familiar with de Vattel’s treatise, they relied on it extensively when they wrote laws and Constitutions (of their respective States, not just the Federal one.)

    In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:

    § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    Note that de Vattel defines “natural born citizen” as the purest form of citizenship, requiring both jus soli (“law of the soil”) citizenship and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”) citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens.

    But de Vattel wrote in French, not in English. In French, the words he used instead of the English “natural born citizens” were “les naturels, ou indigenes.” Literally, “les naturels, ou indigenes” translates as “the naturals, or citizens.” Note that “les naturels” does not translate as “natives.” For “naturel” to mean native the word would need to be used as an adjective. In the quoted section, it is used as a noun. In fact, when de Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts.

    The text of de Vattel’s treatise was translated into English more than once, some of those translations being published well before the American Revolution. None of those pre-Revolutionary translations rendered “les naturels, ou indigenes” into English as “natural born citizens” The first that did so was published in 1797, 10 years following the Constitutional Convention, 8 years following the adoption of the Constitution, and 8 years following the publication of Dr. Ramsay’s essay on US citizenship—where “natural born citizen” is defined by the Founder/historian to have precisely the same meaning as the one de Vattel establishes for “les naturels, ou indigenes.”

    We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

    And we can also reasonably conclude that the professional translator who rendered “les naturels, ou indigenes” into American English in 1798 as “natural born citizens” would have been fully aware of the occurrence of that phrase in the brand-new US Constitution, and that he had the same reasons as Dr. Ramsay to use the same definition of “natural born citizens” as was generally accepted among speakers of American English at the time.

    Based on the facts and reasoning presented above, there can be no other sound conclusion but that “natural born citizen” must have been intended to have the same meaning as de Vattel defined for his term-of-art phrases “les naturels, ou indigenes.” And the only way the “natural born citizen” requirement can prevent a person from having allegiance to a foreign sovereign is if its meaning is the same as the one de Vattel defined and labeled “les naturels, ou indigenes,” and which a professional translator translated into English as “natural born citizen” just a few short years after the “natural born citizen” requirement was written and ratified in the new US Constitution.

    ed. Excellent break down of Vattel’s translations. Good stuff. – Leo

    And that ends the argument, decisively.

    ed. Except for some dissonance raised by the various judicial discussions of the nbc clause. While I do not agree that Wong Kim Ark decides the issue, I recognize why others believe that it does. I will address that case in much greater detail in my next report.-Leo

    Such direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen” is beyond dispute or refutation.

    ed. And yet, our national media, academia, Congress and judiciary would rather marginalize true history… to equate it with quackery and salacious conspiracy theories which make true legal scholarship and true historical facts seem like the ravings of madmen and racists. This nation is in big trouble. An I’m not talking directly about Obama. I’m talking about the power of sarcasm, ridicule and when that fails, intimidation and when that fails, thuggery… brutality, and sanctions thrown at those are speaking legal truth. – Leo

    The evidence from the historical record and from the text of the Constitution itself is clear, compelling and irrefutable: The reason the Constitutional Convention required that the President (and later, by Amendment, the Vice President) be a “natural born citizen” is that they were concerned that the person who would be head of State, chief executive and Commander-In-Chief of the US armed forces have absolutely no conflicts of interest, legal obligations or loyalties to any foreign sovereigns or foreign powers.

    Some nations claim you as their citizen or subject based on where your were born, some based on who your parents were (father and/or mother,) and some based on both together. By requiring that the President be born at a location where the US is sovereign, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his place of birth is precluded. By requiring that the President be born to parents who are solely US citizens, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his parentage is precluded.

    You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it’s not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it’s what the Constitution requires. And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same. And get away with it. Is that really what you want?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. Here, here. Well done, David. – Leo

  13. Considering your comment:

    “However, I will tell you how I would argue if I were his lawyers… and I think it’s a better argument than any of his supporters have made. That being said, I still believe he’s not eligible.”

    I am assuming that you have contrary arguments to destroy this better argument. Please do not forget your new revelation about Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

  14. nbpundit Says:

    A good argument would be, Obama Sr was not Obamas’ biological father.
    Frank Davis was, an avowed communist.
    Therefore, Obama is a natural born citizen as both of his biological parents were at the time of his birth american citizens.
    That one has been floating around on the innernut too.
    I’d say if the O! was inclined to admit this to be the truth the argument about his eligibility would be closed. Of course then there would have to be some kind of evidence to verify this as fact. If none of Davis’ family is around to donate DNA. or if he’s got some get floating around it could be a moot point in proving this.
    I look forward to reading your analysis.
    Oh, and Heh….

    ed. None of the above has anything to do with my research and analysis. Obama’s father is Obama, Sr. And all of my research accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii. – Leo

  15. Dear Leo,

    Thank you for your kind words. I only wish I can claim credit for them. As I said, I really don’t know who the author is, and was trying to find out if you knew. I first ran across the material at none other than Free Republic — a web site I have been unceremoniously kicked off for railing against Sarah Palin when she endorsed John McCain in his Arizona Primary race. I had no objection to her supporting John McCain in the general, but to do so in his primary race was inexcusable, in my view.*

    Be that as it may, here is the link (with all if its interior hyperlinks) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2727680/posts

    It is Post # 8, posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:27:32 PM by sourcery.

    Lastly, I think Obama actually give up his U.S. citizenship when he went to Pakistan and never actually renewed it, and is therefore ineligible to be President because he is simply not a Citizen at the time of his taking the oath of office.

    At this time, due to the lack of propriety evidence, I cannot say where Barack Obama, Jr. was born, or even when. I am not even sure whether or not Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has ‘officially” acknowledged it was Barack Obama’s delivery hospital, even though that information is now in the public domain.

    If you find out who is the rightful author of this material, simply note it here –I will be notified.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * I am still a completely wild supporter of Sarah Palin’s. And every day I take a moment to fall down on by bony, old knees and look up to the starry skies above and pray to God Almighty she runs for president in 2012, and if not successful in 2012, to run in 2016. I do this not because of any particular political attribute Sarah Palin might have, but from the simple circumstances of her raise to political prominence outside of the present political establishment, which as the story of one Barack Obama has proven to us all is fundamentally corrupt.

  16. Leo,

    You say all of your research accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I accept that too, but I no longer believe that with 100% certainty. Would you not agree that the release of the allegedly fraudulent birth certificate creates some doubt?

    As Obama has said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” The release of the “doctored” birth certificate suggests to me that Obama still has something to hide.

    What that something is remains to be seen.

    World Net Daily reports that a 22 page brief has been filed with the FBI that claims that the birth certificate is a fraud.

    How this is handled will be a story itself. Will the FBI scuttle any investigation? Will the main stream media report on any of this?

    I have come to believe as you have already alluded to that there are issues much bigger than Obama’s NBC status. There is a lack of integrity and honor in the system that as it becomes more pervasive, it becomes more frightening.

  17. BIrther Deluxe Says:

    Glad to see you’re sticking with his ineligibility Leo. You had me thinking we had lost your further input.

  18. I don’t understand the assertion that natural born citizens cannot be dual nationals. Even if Barack Obama’s father had naturalized as a U.S. citizen before Obama was born (and hence Obama would have had two U.S. citizen parents), he still would have been a British citizen under existing UK law.

    Under UK law before it was reformed in 1983, any child of a father who was a British citizen “othen than by descent” – i.e. BHO Jr. – was a British citizen by descent. Even if the father assumes a foreign citizenship, the father does not lose his status as a British citizen unless he affirmatively renounces it to a British government official.

    ed. Had his father naturalized he would have been a US citizen and would have sworn an oath to this nation. Obama would have been born of two US citizen parents on US soil, hence nbc.- Leo

  19. da verg Says:

    yes what about the fact that obama as a child and teen ager had no say
    in his citizenship, assuming he was adopted, moved to indonesia
    became an indonesian citizen. He certainly never relinquished
    his US citizenship?

    and what about the fact that he never re-applied for US citizenship when he came of age, at least , no records have been disclosed for him doing so?

    and then there is the sticky point where he filled in his selective service application with a fake social security number, because perhaps 1- he didn’t know it was fake or 2- he couldn’t get a real one ? Thereby his grandmother gave him one from her job in HI dept. with access to dead people numbers with no survivors ? And hence he used a SS number for a person who got it from state of Connecticut, who was born in 1890 ?

  20. da verg Says:

    from D Farrier above

    ames Madison himself spoke in defense of the fact that Mr. Smith was a citizen.

    >>If Mr Smith was shooting for presidency, instead of simple congressman or senator, Madison would have changed his tune. This paragraph above doesn’t give a hint about POTUS eligibility, but strengthens the notion of having to be a citizen to be in Congress. BTW, there are several people in Congress who are citizens, yet weren’t born here. So the Madison commentary is not really spot on for the obama eligibility issue. Kenya just came out in last couple of weeks dedicating various territories, lands, edifices, on behalf of their native son obama. Something fishy is going on, and our representatives are ignoring it.

    Whatever happened to the OK governor, did he/she sign the eligibility law that the House passed in April or did they punt it , again , like AZ governor did ???

  21. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Leo,

    As far as that lame Madison quote used… It is merely the 1st sentence of a very long speech Madison gave on the floor of Congress that includes this statement as further explanation of what the topic was about, that a one, Mr Smith who was born before the revolution, thus his citizenship was not determined by birth, but by loyalty to the local society in which he was born into prior to the formation of the union. Hence, Smith was a native, not a natural born:

    “Mr. Smith founds his claims upon birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony…if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, … if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

    Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim.

    Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence and Smith’s parents dying before the revolution was over, the society had adopted young Smith, raised him, educated him & sent him overseas to study under Franklin. Ramsay was a fool to try and get him ousted. He was bitter & that is just human nature, but Madison got it right on the law. Smith was a native citizen because the society recognized him as a citizen member of that society at the time of the revolution & his parents death made no change to that status.

    I’m not sure which SCOTUS case I took this from. It’s either the Bellei case or the Flores-Villar case:

    The descendants of the original citizenry received citizenship as a matter of course.41 The new comers to America, the immigrants who came in after the founding generation, themselves gained citizenship, by means of naturalization under laws enacted by Congress. Children born to them after they became citizens gained citizenship at birth, again as a matter of course. But what about children born to these naturalized citizens before they became citizens, while they were yet aliens?

    Here, the answer was provided, clearly and positively, by Congress, as in its first session it enacted the immigration and naturalization “Act of 1790”.42 Immigration and naturalization, as Rep. James Madison then put it, was not a right but rather a “privilege”. In context, “privilege” denoted that Congress might properly limit immigration and naturalization to persons of commitment, to one who “really meant to incorporate himself into our society” and of a character sufficient to add to the “wealth and strength of community”.43 Character as thus stated included republican virtues as opposed to the servile, class-ordered mentalities—the “sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments”—then associated with the old world.44

    Upon showing character and commitment, by compliance with the terms of naturalization, immigrants became citizens. And so did children born to them before they were naturalized. The 1790 Act provided that upon naturalization all of their children “dwelling within the United States shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice, these children are not made citizens by means of jus soli: It mattered not whether these children had been born in the United States or abroad. Rather, citizenship was attuned to jus sanguines. It turned on the connection of their parents to the United States, that they had become United States citizens.
    ____________________________________________________________
    41 As explained in a thoughtful opinion:

    Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution . . . was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
    42 Act of March 26, 1790, entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 1 Stat. 103.
    43 I Annals of Cong. 1150 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
    44 Id. at1156 (Rep. Sedgwick). Sedgwick later defined republican virtue as “habits of temperate discussion, patient reasoning, and a capacity of enduring contradiction.” 2 Annals at 571. Sedgwick also would exclude exploiters, those seeking short term gain without long-term commitment. Id. The whole debate was consistent with modern notions about political communities. As explained by Michael Walzer, “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be . . . historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 61 (1983).

  22. borderraven Says:

    Leo,
    Although diplomatic officers have diplomatic immunity, and invading soldiers who are following orders are given as examples of aliens who owe foreign allegiance, being as they have sworn an oath of allegiance to their sovereign; the US Congress, in 8USC1101(a)(15)(A) thru (V) defines as “non-immigrant aliens”, either based on allegiance or domicile:

    “(A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;…”

    “(F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 1184(l) 1 of this title at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in a language training program in the United States, …”

    ed. now this may change things… thank you for pointing that out. When did that statute or anything like it first come to be law? VERY VERY interesting… – Leo

  23. Garrett Papit Says:

    Leo, I know you start from the position that Obama was born in Hawaii and that your focus isn’t on that debate. Further, I agree that that argument seemingly has less merit based on the currently available evidence, but I’m curious to hear your opinion on the recently released long-form and the allegations that it might be fraudulent. Is it kooky conspiracy fodder in your opinion? Or is it possibly a game by Obama to keep this issue on the forefront and distract from your main issue of NBC status as it relates to dual-citizenship. Or, is it a completely legitimate document that should not be questioned. I know you aren’t an expert in digital documents, but I’m just curious to hear your opinion. I see things written by both sides and there does seem to be some strange anomalies on the BC…at least the PDF version posted on the White House site. The black and white version proved in hard-copy form to the AP doesn’t share all of these anomolies, but does still lack the aged appearance one would expect from a document this old. Or is this something you don’t want to even comment on for the record?

    ed. It is completely bizarre… all of it. It’s a circus and nobody challenging Obama’s eligibility … is the ringleader of that circus. I believe the man was born in Hawaii… but I also believe his not proving it has helped deflect attention from the true legal issues discussed at this blog. From what I have seen… his computer images obviously raise questions of authenticity. But I think that’s intentional and I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that he can prove, beyond any doubt, that he was born in the US. For that I rely on the same thing which wins poker tournaments… a solid analysis of the limited information before me… and then a gut check… my instincts are screaming he can prove place of birth. I predicted he would release another BC and he did. Did you ever consider the amount of people who would have to be in on this conspiracy… which would have to date back to 1961? That IS a factor to be weighed. The newspaper announcements are not decisive because they might have made something up to help establish his citizenship… but those clippings are evidence… it all seems like a game to me and they are really driving you all mad with it. I feel for you. You dont trust him, you dont like him… and you know he’s got a political agenda which is somewhat foreign and socialistic… and you want to get rid of him and you WANT to believe the BC evidence so bad. But I think Obama was well aware of the Arthur and Hinman thing… and I give this cat alot of credit for being smart and savvy, which many opposing him do not. I know a card shark when I see one. Obama is alot …big time alot… smarter than most of his enemies could ever acknowledge. This has been a well played bluff. And it’s truly, beyond question… marginalized his obvious eligibility problem due to having been a natural born subject of the UK. – Leo

  24. Lisa C. Says:

    Timing…
    I thought this was interesting. A reporter on CNN (or one of the other cable news stations) mentioned that Paul Ryan might reconsider running for Pres. and reminded viewers that Ryan is “young and has a lot of time to run later.”

    He then mentioned how a reporter had made the same statement to Obama during his campaign, asking why Obama didn’t wait until he was better-known.

    Obama’s answer was that he “had to run now as it’s a matter of timing.”

    I remember Michele Obama making similar statements at the time and always thought them odd. She also said that Obama would “only run once” and, if he didn’t win, would never run again.

    I’ve come to believe that the “matter of timing” necessity was twofold: (1) Obama would be unelectable were people to know more about the truth of him and his birth circumstances and (2) he could only have run against McCain or some other candidate who was also compromised with respect to natural born citizenship status.

    So, I blame the Republican party, for which I’ve voted many times in my life, for this disaster.

  25. Up Date: After further reading the entire thread at Free Republic, sourcery does state he was the author of the post, excluding his referenced sources.

    However, something doesn’t smell right about his claim. First, I get an encryption code thingy when I click on his name. And in his post there are several footnote references i.e. “Id. at 6″. There were no such footnotes attached to his post.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  26. markcon Says:

    I do not believe you would hint at a loophole that concerned anything that happened later in life that would some how legitimize him, which would be impossible cuz noone has any real records. so I would focus on the the birth and the mom. you repeatedly give the benefit of obama being born in usa and is a citizen so that avenue is out given the dual nature of it from his father- so that leaves cutting out the father- why not cut out mom to given that she was not old enough to confer citizenship. hmm that leaves a citizen baby with citizen grandparents. close?

    ed. I do not see any credible evidence that Obama was born out of the US. Key word = credible. Furthermore, the number of people since 1961 who would have been necessary to pull such a conspiracy off is huge. I have made more through comments in another post. There are plenty of forums which focus on the BC issue, this isn’t one of them. I have only dealt with that issue as I believe it has benefited Obama… and it has been a very tactical distraction for him. – Leo

  27. Bill Cutting Says:

    This is interesting, first time I’ve seen this from a current congress critter.

    Rep. Gary Miller (CA-42)

    “When observing the debate surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears clear that the authors intended only to grant citizenship to persons born here who were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The authors also understood the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to have the same meaning as the phrase “and not subject to any foreign Power,” included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It would be difficult to argue that temporary visitors and illegal immigrants are not subject to a foreign power or that they do not owe allegiance to anybody but the United States.”

    http://www.boogai.net/repwatch/no-birthright-citizenship/

    ed. Nice find… better save that. It could be scrubbed. – Leo

  28. Fennerb@gmail.com Says:

    For whatever it’s worth, “Id.” is not a reference to a footnote. It’s a reference to the immediately previous cited authority.

  29. Leo,

    You wrote, “Had his father naturalized he would have been a US citizen and would have sworn an oath to this nation. Obama would have been born of two US citizen parents on US soil, hence nbc.”

    But you were referring in your article to “dual nationality.” Even had Obama’s father naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he still would have been a British citizen, and therefore so would Obama himself. If I understand correctly, you believe dual citizenship is only a problem if the person does NOT have two U.S. citizen parents. But if a person is a dual national who DOES have two U.S. citizen parents, he is still an NBC.

    ed. I have discussed this in great detail in another comment. John Jay sought to include the nbc clause as a “strong check” against foreign influence in the administration of Government… it was not meant to protect against every possible remote possibility… you can’t protect against all foreign thought…especially in a patchwork nation such as the US so gloriously reflects…my remarks to that other comment go into much greater detail. Feel free to comment theron. – Leo

  30. gorefan Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I just wanted to clear up some things in Mr. Farrier’s statement.

    The draft constitution presented to the Convention by Alexander Hamilton on June 17th, 1787, did not have the “born a citizen” phrase. In fact, that draft plan did not have any Presidential requirements since it did not have a President, it had a Governour who serves a life-term.

    “The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behavior” James Madison, “Notes on the Debate in the Federal Convention.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    The draft Constitution that Hamilton submitted to James Madison at the end of the Convention did have the “born a citizen” statement. When he gave the draft to Madison, he reportedly said that the draft “delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations” Elliot’s, “DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, CONVENTION HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, IS 1787; WITH A DIARV OF THE DEBATS OF THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION; At REPORTED By JAMES MADISON” Volume V, Appendix No. 5.

    The eligibility clause he wrote said,”Article IX, Section. I. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Hamilton’s draft Constitution came after the Jay letter and after the Constitution had been drafted.

    Mr. Farrier’s statement is also inaccurate in its description of the William L. Smith case. Smith was born in 1758, his mother (a british subject) died in 1760. His father aslo a british subject, sent William to England for schooling in Feburary of 1770, five months later the father died. William stayed in England and Europe until 1783. He returned to South Carolina and was elected to the South Carolina legislature. In 1788, he was elected to the first US Congress. Dr. David Ramsay petitioned Congress to overturn the election on the grounds that Smith could not have been a citizen for the required seven years. In the trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison made a speech in which he said,

    “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; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=bQ8EfoaTBLsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cases+of+Contested+Elections+in+Congress+from+the+year+1789+to+1834&hl=en&ei=793nTYnKEpSWsgP48_mIDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


    ed. That’s sort of bad public speaking from the usually in good form Madison… because “birth” only derives its force from parentage… places don’t birth people. Right? That first statement that birth is a criterion of allegiance… it’s just bad English and it doesn’t make sense. In the second sentence, he probably meant to say that allegiance derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage. Birth does not. The first sentence is just useless to me. And in the second we have to make an assumption as to what he said, because it’s allegiance which is the issue, not birth… Assuming he was arguing as to allegiance…there you see two framers, post constitution, arguing over citizenship… but they were not arguing about Article 2 Section 1… and I’m not saying you mean to say they are. Your point is understood just fine. Madison appears to be making a case for birthright citizenship despite parentage whereas the other framer opposed him. – Leo

  31. Leo, you wrote: “I have discussed this in great detail in another comment. John Jay sought to include the nbc clause as a “strong check” against foreign influence in the administration of Government… it was not meant to protect against every possible remote possibility… you can’t protect against all foreign thought…especially in a patchwork nation such as the US so gloriously reflects…my remarks to that other comment go into much greater detail.”

    In the comment you referenced, you wrote “The natural born wording would bar native born persons who – at the time of their birth – owed allegiance to a foreign nation.”

    I can tell you from my own experience that a two-citizen requirement does NOT serve to bar persons who owe allegiance to a foreign nation at birth, if by allegiance you mean a tie of citizenship between the person and that foreign nation.

    My father was born in the UK. He is therefore a UK citizen other than by descent. That means his children are UK citizens by descent regardless of where they are born. By definition, then, I am a UK citizen even though I was born in the U.S. – and I therefore owe allegiance to the UK in addition to the U.S.

    My father, however, also naturalized as a U.S. citizen and my mother was born a U.S. citizen. That means I have allegiance to a foreign country while at the same time having two U.S. citizen parents. Does my foreign allegiance exclude me from serving as POTUS nonetheless? If not, why not?

    ed. if your father was naturalized before you were born, you have [NO] allegiance to the UK. (Leaving out the [NO] was a typo on my part which a reader drew to my attention. My bad.) The UK gave up the issue of perpetual allegiance about 1870. Don’t know what you are talking about, but you appear to be mistaken. Furthermore, the US does not recognize that you have any allegiance as a matter of US law if you were born of two citizen parents, who were US citizens at the time of your birth…is that the case? If it is, then you are nbc. – Leo

  32. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    It seems to me that the movers and shakers of the New World Order governmental system have run out of options to keep Obama propped up as some great savior in America and are using the confusion of his birth place and citizenship status as a way to tear down his public image and replace him. Maybe they plan on moving him into the Kenyan government system next, which is why they’re constructing sites of honor to him over there.

    Leo, did anything ever happen with the Alex Jones Show? Contact or anything?

    ed. Nope. And I reached out to one of their writers as well… nobody wants to talk to me over there far as I can tell. – Leo

  33. Rodney Rawlings Says:

    Not to belabor the BC issue, but I wanted to address what Leo said about there having to be a vast conspiracy dating back to 1961.

    This is a common criticism of so-called “conspiracy theories” implying that they would have to involve all-powerful cabals able to keep hundreds of people quiet over long stretches of time, etc. But in many cases this would not necessarily apply. First of all, when one is dealing with governmental entities, many of those in the inner circle and just outside of it don’t want to risk their position, and many do not question the rightness of the orders and rules they have to follow, even if it does not make sense to them.

    ed. Not just Government… local people, too. People from that area he was from. The hospital would have to be in on this. The Hawaii DOH. It goes on and on… believe in it if you like, but you will never see any justice about it. Moreover, what proof do you have? Your problem is that your only reason for him hiding something is that he doesnt have it. I think he’s hiding to keep the nation distracted from this. Imagine if the focus was on the genuine issue of what we discuss here… a damn serious legal issue. Imagine there was no BC issue… and this was the only issue. It would be a huge issue, but it’s relegated to quackery because of the BC. Furthermore, the real conspiracy is that this looks so much like Chester Arthur and Hinman… so much so that I can’t help but wonder if Obama ever did a research paper on the Arthur/Hinman thing… I’m sure he was aware of it. But go chasing that BC… The fact that the new one is such a bad forgery only proves my point… by showing it he shores up so much of his base… and makes the rest of you go even more nuts… he’s playing this hand so perfectly. Doyou honestly believe this cabal that got him to the White House and all the money behind him and the media…you honestly in your heart believe this weird wacky BC was the best they could do… with all this time to get something right? You have to pretty naive to believe that. The BC is shit… all of it. But you keep eating that dinner, yum yum. Eat it up. Let your dreams run free… – Leo

    Once that is established, you have the herd mentality of everyone else on the next level outside, who conclude that since everyone important seems to accept something as true, it must be and so no further inquiry is necessary.

    ed. I never said inquiry isn’t necessary. I said that this was a smokescreen. What you don’t understand is that he can produce a perfect document… he just won’t. You have no idea the powers that you are dealing with, do you. This is not a bunch of amateurs. These people are ten damn steps ahead of you… all the time. My problem isn’t that people are inquiring, it’s that they’re inquiries are ignorant of a more likely conspiracy. Because they want to believe he was born in Kenya so bad, they can’t see it, and if they can see it, they don’t want to focus on it. – Leo

    And even among those who might suspect something is wrong, we have the career climbers who don’t want to risk antagonizing those on the inside or contiguous to it.

    And once THAT is established, what do you think the majority of the faceless public, most of whom have the herd mentality, will conclude? They would have to reason that 50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.

    Once this scenario operates, the passage of time would have little effect, and the falsehoods, if not seriously challenged, could be believed for a long time.

    In short, it doesn’t take a conspiracy (beyond a few people directly involved), just a lot of mental inertia, lack of self-assertion, submission to others’ authority, career climbing, and some central deception or facade to get things rolling.

    In the case of Obama’s birth certificate, according to Jerome Corsi it appears that political influence was wielded by Obama, and also there was criminal destruction of records in Kenya and in the US. Seeing as how a lot of Obama’s records were being kept from examination in addition to the BC, one could see how Corsi might conclude it was possible the man was born in another country.

    ed. The evidence is very weak compared to what is in his favor. How many people would this conspiracy involve then, from the start to right now? How many? At a minimum, list the people who would have to be in it. Don’t leave anyone out. – Leo

    This is not to say I accept his analysis–I have not read his book, though I intend to–but some vast, unrealistic conspiracy does not seem to be a prerequisite of its being true.

  34. gorefan Says:

    “That first part of Jay’s quote applies to all of government, not just the office of POTUS. This is a point which I have not seen discussed before, and if it has, I must have missed it.”

    Jay did not want foreigners in the government. In a letter in 1798, he made this plain.

    “13th May 1798

    Dear Sir

    It is said that the Naturalization Act is to be revised and amended. Permit me to suggest an idea which I have for many years deemed important. We doubtless may grant to a foreigner just such a portion of our rights and privileges as we may think proper. In my opinion it would be wise to declare explicitly that the right and privilege of being elected or appointed to or of holding and exercising any office or place of trust or power under the United States or under any of them shall not hereafter be granted to any foreigner but that the president of the United States with the consent of the Senate be nevertheless at liberty to appoint a foreigner to a military office.

    I am dear sir
    Your most obedient servant

    John Jay”

    His opinion mirrors that of the English Naturalization laws.

    “Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such disabling clause in it.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

    ed. what was the part of our naturalization act that was gonna be changed… seems you’d have to know exactly what they were going to be changing, what language he was opposed to which isn’t evident from your quote. I think this further illustrates that Jay would not agree a natural born citizen was someone who was also a natural born subject of the UK. – Leo

  35. Getting back to basics, it seems there are only three realistic possibilities to the intended meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it was used in the Constitution – 1) born on the soil to two citizen parents; 2) born on the soil to at least one citizen parent; 3) born on the soil without regard to the citizenship of the parents. It’s interesting to think about the Supreme Court assembling to hear the best arguments from both sides [with Leo arguing for 1) above]. Who would be arguing for 2) or 3)? If an individual justice looks at all the history and evidence and honestly thinks it’s 50-50 on what was intended, how does that judge decide how to vote? By what process and what criteria should he or she make the decision? Is there a standard, a precedence, case law, guidance, on how and what to decide in such a situation? Interesting to ponder……

  36. Leo:

    “ed. I do not see any credible evidence that Obama was born out of the US. Key word = credible.”

    The birth certificate quandry has certainly compromised the Constitutional nbC issue. I have no doubt that this has been completely intentional.

    Obama’s slick-handlers (and I do mean, attorney’s, etc.) have intentionally made any “credible evidence” of his birth outside Hawaii to be very, very hard to see. Every so-callled birth certificate that Obama has presented to America has be proved a fraud, forgery, etc. “Proved” may be too strong a word here, but there are definite problems with each one.

    If Obama can actually present an authentic certified birth certificate and it says “Born in Hawaii”, all well and good. My point to you, Leo, is that the birth certificate issue marginalizes the nbC Constitutional issue whether Obama provides genuine proof of birth location, or not. The real problem is that Obama and his handlers are trying to convince us that birth location alone provides Constutional nbC status.

    So, what is Obama’s real issue? I can only conclude that Obama is Kenyan-born.

    ed. that makes no sense at all. this issue became even more marginalized when he showed the 2d BC… people are sick of the whole thing… they want to move on… and most already have. You are NEVER going to find what you are looking for… never. – Leo

    Now to the legal issues, you are saying that Obama is well aware of Chester Arthur’s situation with Hinman? So, is Obama a constitutional scholar? I’ve heard that he never presented a case in court alone while working for the the law firm. If this is true, how skilled an attorney must one be?

    ed. you don’t have to be a litigator to be a scholar. most professors are not litigators. contrary to popular belief, very few lawyers are. – Leo

    I am aware that your blog operates under the Hawaiian-born senario, and I do agree with your nbC analyis. A person can track your writing on the subject, comparing it to the historical record and it fits hand to glove. I will move off from these other marginal to this blog-off topic matters, however important, unless you invite us back.

  37. Rodney Rawlings Says:

    I should have made a few other points:

    1. The deception would not have to go back to 1961–just, at most, the years of Obama’s rise in politics.

    ed. How do you figure that? It would have started with those newspaper announcements of his birth… they would have to be part of it. So start with his family in 1961. Of course, a family, if they wanted their son to be a US citizen and he wasn’t otherwise eligible, might make such an announcement… Regardless, it starts there if it happened, but it didn’t. He was not born in Kenya. Of that much, I’m feel very confident. – Leo

    2. There would have to be a measure of political corruption, threats and fear, and ignorance/stupidity involved in the relationship between Democrats and the state of Hawaii. I don’t think this is out of the realm of realistic possibility.

    3. Concerning the newspaper announcements, from what I have read of Corsi, these are accountable to the desirability of establishing American citizenship for any child at the time. In fact, such a motive would explain a lot of what some people feel would have to be explained by some “conspiracy.”

  38. borderraven Says:

    To JohnC Says:
    June 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM

    IMHO – Both parents could be dual nationality US/UK, but as long as they were US citizens before the birth in the US, then I’d rule the child NBC. It’s just the technicality of the circumstances at the moment of birth, where I make a conclusion. (USA)+(USA)+(USA)=(NBC)

    However the remainder of the Article II qualification would still have to be met, for ballot placement, providing our elections officials are vigilant.

  39. Rodney Rawlings Says:

    Leo, I’m on your side. I’m hoping your arguments prevail, and I do recognize this BC could be a smokescreen. Obama is ineligible no matter where he is born.

  40. kittycat77 Says:

    Leo,

    On the other hand why would it be a conspiracy for people to have pulled it off back in 1961? Please let me say that there are many newspaper articles before BO became a president that referred to the “Senator Obama” as being Kenyan-born.

    ed. “Kenyan born” does not necessarily mean “born in Kenya”. His father was Kenyan. C’mon, you don’t think it’s a huge source of pride for Kenya that Obama is President of the US… Obama was a Kenyan citizen (as well as a British subject)… a former Kenyan citizen is President of the USA. Of course he was Kenayn born in the sense that his blood is Kenyan… geez. Surely, you can see that there is more than one interpretaion of Kenyan born. That doesn’t prove anything. – Leo

    Also, if he was born out of the US, let’s just use a hypothetical, what reason would they have to say he was born in the US? In Hawaii, it’s my understanding that he could be born anywhere, and he could be made a US citizen, natural born or whatever it may be.

    ed. That is ridiculous. Not true at all. False. Totally false. – Leo

    And the reason to have him as a citizen would be to get any kind of benefits that is offered to many citizens. I’m sure Grandma Dunham would have had that foresight to want him to have benefits.

    And another thing, he may be an absolute genius, but he’s definitely an one not for the good pretty much. There’s two kinds: one who’s an evil genius or one who’s a genius and works for the benefit of mankind.

    I don’t see him as that last one, the one working for the benefit of mankind. As far as I’m concerned, if and when he’s found guilty, he can be a genius in prison.

    ed. The day you think is coming where somebody proves he was born in Kenya is never going to come. Never. – Leo

  41. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I think the brilliance of Obama’s campaign was the online posting of the virtual COLB for everyone to see. It wasn’t real, it was an online image or virtual reality of propaganda.

    Average people saw it and inferred he was a Born in the USA US-Citizen, and that made him eligible for POTUS. But, sadly those we trust to provide checks and balance the Congress, academics and media, also saw the COLB and fell down the hole too.

    ed. and they hid the real issue in plain site… the admission he was born governed by the UK… right in front of our faces. They got a big kick out of that.- Leo

  42. gorefan Says:

    “what was the part of our naturalization act that was gonna be changed”

    Congress wanted to change the amount of time necessary to become a citizen. They increased the time for residency to 14 years from 5 years.

    I think Jay’s letter (like his letter to Washington) was just him trying to influence Congress to incorporate his ideas and the fact that Congress was going to amend the Act, was his opening.

    “Permit me to suggest an idea which I have for many years deemed important” may be a reference to his earlier letter to Washington.

  43. Leo, you wrote: “if your father was naturalized before you were born, you have allegiance to the UK. The UK gave up the issue of perpetual allegiance about 1870. Don’t know what you are talking about, but you appear to be mistaken. Furthermore, the US does not recognize that you have any allegiance as a matter of US law if you were born of two citizen parents, who were US citizens at the time of your birth…is that the case? If it is, then you are nbc.”

    ed. Typo in the first line…should have read, “if your father was naturalized before you were born, you have NO allegiance to the UK.” My bad. I have made a note in the comment where I fixed it and noted that it was a typo. – Leo

    When a British national (including a citizen) becomes a citizen in another country, this generally has no effect on that person’s British citizenship. Here’s the UK Border Agency on the issue: “You will not normally lose your British nationality if you become a citizen or national of another country.” http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality/

    My father has confirmed that, if he wants, he could still obtain a UK passport. Furthermore, he still receives a UK pension despite being a U.S. citizen.

    On the issue of allegiance, my father naturalized as a U.S. citizen when I was nine years old.

    ed. You were not nbc then. At the time of your birth, you were a dual national. Same as Obama. – Leo

    The question is therefore why my dual nationality would count against me if I was born before my father naturalized, but not if were born AFTER he naturalized. As far as I see it, either I am a dual national in the eyes of the U.S. or I am not.

    ed. It’s not that simple… the difference is huge. In order to naturalize in the USA, your father must take an oath of allegiance to the USA. Once he has naturalized, the US has diplomatic power with regard to you. If a country doesn’t recognize that your father swore an oath of allegiance to this nation, that’s not our problem. The framers could not control every possible situation. Read Secretary of State Lansing’s letter to Senator Dodge and the entire report I wrote on this issue > Read this http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-state-department-has-always-recognized-and-abided-by-foreign-laws-concerning-us-citizens-born-with-dual-nationality/ and my comnments here. -Leo

  44. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Interesting article on the new BC thing…http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/110601

  45. Philip. N Says:

    Leo,

    The anticipation keeps building, Does this have anything to do with the wording of 1790 or what changed in 1795?

  46. Borderraven, you said: “Both parents could be dual nationality US/UK, but as long as they were US citizens before the birth in the US, then I’d rule the child NBC.”

    This is where I get confused. If foreign allegiance is what the founders sought to prevent in the NBC clause, then the two-citizen parent requirement is hard to understand, because it doesn’t accomplish the objective of obviating foreign allegiance.

    ed. I previously referred you to my comments at the following link where this issue was previously confronted. To summarize, the nbc clause was “a strong check” on foreign influence, but nothing could be an absolute bar to any foreign influence on this nation considering the patchwork nature of the US and the uncertainty of the future. The nbc clause was a stronger check than had it required “born citizen”, and if the framers had intended all “born citizens” to be POTUS eligible, Hamilton’s “born citizen” POTUS requirement would have won out, but it didn’t. Jay’s “natural born Citizen” won out and this must be considered to be a stronger check on foreign influence than the more relaxed requirement of “born citizen”. Why add the word “natural” to Hamilton’s suggestion of “born citizen” if the framers had no purpose for the word? – Leo

    On the other hand, if foreign allegiance is merely a function of what the U.S. chooses to recognize, why not simply have a provision in the Constitution that makes it clear when a person’s foreign allegiances are considered abrogated under U.S. law?

    There is simply no case law that I have ever come across that stands for the proposition that a person’s ability to confer foreign allegiances to his or her offspring is considered extinguished at the moment of his or her naturalization. And yet that very proposition seems to be a central foundational tenent of the belief that NBC constitutes a two-citizen parent requirement.

    ed. See my reply here to your other comment in this thread on the same point.. – Leo

  47. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

    For him to be born in Kenya and Hawaii to produce a birth certificate and newspaper announcements to be printed, a fantastic series of events would have to had occurred.
    The newlywed future parents would need to find time to get away from university, find money to afford travel to Kenya, want to see his parents, get passports, make preparations and fly there, only to get stuck due to her pregnancy. Then Ann would need to make a phone call to her mom, so a birth could be registered and she would call the newspapers. All that and the US state Department, under Hillary Clinton, would years later need to scrub travel records, and the Kenya Government would have to sanitize hospital records. But, anything is possible.

  48. borderraven Says:

    RE kittycat77 June 2, 2011 at 7:54 PM

    After Obama entered the presidential election, and Corsi was caught trying to “research” Obama’s birth, there was plenty of incentive to scrub records, so he could be put in power, so Kenya might benefit in foreign aid or protection.

    If the truth got out that he was born in Kenya, then nobody would win.

  49. Leo, you wrote: “It’s not that simple… the difference is huge. In order to naturalize in the USA, your father must take an oath of allegiance to the USA. Once he has naturalized, the US has diplomatic power with regard to you. If a country doesn’t recognize that your father swore an oath of allegiance to this nation, that’s not our problem. The framers could not control every possible situation. Read Secretary of State Lansing’s letter to Senator Dodge and the entire report I wrote on this issue.”

    I read Senator Lansing’s letter and your comments, but I don’t see how that has any bearing at all on the present discussion. Senator Lansing’s letter did not concern Ugo Da Prato’s U.S. citizenship or allegiance in any sense – his U.S. citizenship and allegiance was not in doubt. The issue was whether Da Prato’s father had naturalized before Da Prato was born – but that concerned whether Italy had a citizenship/nationality claim on Da Prato for purposes of ITALIAN LAW, not U.S. law or natural law.

    At most, the Lansing letter stands for the proposition that the U.S. has limited power to affect the well-being of a U.S. citizen who is also a citizen/subject of the country in which he finds himself. In this case, it was Lansing’s contention that Da Prato was NOT an Italian subject.

    ed. Exactly, he was NOT an Italian Subject because his father was naturalized before he was born. If his father had not been naturalized, the son would have been an Italian Subject according to both Italian law and US law and therefore US law would have respected Italy’s claim to him. – Leo

    The Lansing letter is completely silent on when and how U.S. LAW recognizes a person’s foreign citizenship/nationality when that citizen/nationality is not in doubt in that foreign country. That is what is at issue in the present discussion.

    ed. You are wrong. The Lansing letter does discuss it. The relevant portion of Lansing’s letter is below. I specifically draw your attention to Lansing’s reference to the naturalization treaty between the US and Great Britain, but perhaps more relevant to your query is Lansing’s discussion of German nationality law:

    ed. According to US law as stated by Secretary Lansing, the attempt at retention of foreign allegiance is a fraud if a person naturalizes here and takes our oath. Therefore, that German law which attempted to give such an option to German nationals naturalizing here was not respected by the US.

    Moreover, a person – who may have been born in the US to a former UK citizen who was naturalized here before that birth – does not owe any allegiance to the UK…as a matter of US law via treaty with the UK. Such treaty being the supreme law of both lands. That treaty was not controlling upon your father or you when you were born – same for Obama – since your fathers were British citizens at the time of your birth. As such, while the UK may allow a person – who was born to former UK citizens, after such citizens have naturalized here, to apply for UK citizenship – such persons, according to the treaty, do not “owe” allegiance to the UK at the time of their birth, whereas – according to both US and UK law, Obama (and you) did owe such allegiance to the UK at the time of your births.

    Also note that there is a huge difference between a person having an “option” to become a UK citizen and that person “owing” direct allegiance to the UK. Under the terms of the treaty, that person owes no allegiance to the UK as a result of his birth to US citizen parents. – Leo

  50. Rodney Rawlings Says:

    I also need to say that it would be far better for Obama to be thrown out because of the parentage issue, rather than because of a non-US birthplace, because this reasoning would reinforce the Constitutional requirement, in danger of being lost forever after having served to protect the US (insofar as it can) for so long without interruption.

    In any case, his ouster must happen soon, because I wonder if the NBC requirement can ever survive TWO illegal elections, even if the Republicans DO “win” the second one.

    So, though I don’t reject the BC issue so far, and disagree with Leo, I am rooting for Leo’s more subtle NBC issue to be the one that prevails.

  51. kittycat77 Says:

    Leo,

    I’m not trying to “push” BO being born in Kenya, but why are you trying to make him be born in HI? It really does work both ways because there’s evidence on both sides. I can also see Kenyan-Born Senator Obama as being “born” in Kenya. I think that I understand what you’re saying is that they’re claiming him as their “soil” son or whatever. Regardless, if he wasn’t born there, but if he was born in HI or if he was born on the steps of the WH or in the fields Nebraska, he’s still not an NBC.

    Then it’s just possible that he was born in Kenya.

  52. kittycat77 Says:

    ed. “Kenyan born” does not necessarily mean “born in Kenya”. His father was Kenyan. C’mon, you don’t think it’s a huge source of pride for Kenya that Obama is President of the US… Obama was a Kenyan citizen (as well as a British subject)… a former Kenyan citizen is President of the USA. Of course he was Kenayn born in the sense that his blood is Kenyan… geez. Surely, you can see that there is more than one interpretaion of Kenyan born. That doesn’t prove anything. – Leo

    Leo,

    I think it can either/or. Look, before you even started your stuff, I was talking to a group of people who were sending off certified letters right and left to the congress, the secretaries of state and to all the various people of the electoral board. I mean, just about everyone. These people had worked very hard, had it organized and spent their own hard-earned money doing this. It was a labor of love for them to try to help save this country.

    There was one lady on there, I think she was an RN, who had happened to listen to the Keyes/Obama senate debate. The version that she listened to was an uncut version, and when they were fixing to stop to take a break after Obama made his long speech in his debate, Alan Keyes said to him, point blank….but you’re not a Natural Born Citizen of the US. To which Obama replied….and I’m not planning to run for president either.

    She heard this, and I know it’s only one witness at first, and then another witness came forward later and heard this same thing too. Every matter is settled on the mouth of two or more witnesses, per the Scriptures. As per them, but mankind’s law is no longer as good as this — never will be.

    Anyway, we all went looking for these tapes. We could find the tapes, but they had been cut. You could tell they were cut off abruptly for them to take a break. You could tell it. This person and the other person said it was as they were stopping, then the audio was still continuing for a few seconds as this was said. Maybe the person who edited them didn’t realize it, I don’t know. It’s possible. Sad too.

    ed. Would you like for people to consider such a thing as serious evidence against you? This is what I’m so ashamed of in our nation. The entire Obama born in Kenya thing is based upon gossip… and further based upon Kenyans who note that Obama is a former son of that nation which he is. Please, move on and argue the BC somewhere else. I’m wasting too much time on this with you. I apologize but there are plenty of places for you to vent that issue. This is not one of them… I have only considered it in so far as it has been a smokescreen to the undeniable Constitutional legal question of his eligibility is concerned. You could tell the tapes had been cut? Assuming you are an expert in such audio engineering…what does that prove? Does that prove that even if they were cut, what you want the tapes to say…was actually said? No, it does not. Furthermore, Tom Hoefling Chairman of America’s Independent Party and Chairman of the Alan Keyes for President 2008 campaign has also denied the exchange took place.

    But hypothetically speaking, even if Obama did say it (which I do not believe), he could have been making reference to the dual citizen issue, not the born in Kenya issue. How do you take the alleged exchange to mean he wasn’t born in Hawaii? There’s nothing in that purported exchange which makes it applicable to the place of birth issue and not the dual national issue. But it didn’t happen anyway. – Leo

  53. ed. How do you figure that? It would have started with those newspaper announcements of his birth… they would have to be part of it. So start with his family in 1961. Of course, a family, if they wanted their son to be a US citizen and he wasn’t otherwise eligible, might make such an announcement… Regardless, it starts there if it happened, but it didn’t. He was not born in Kenya. Of that much, I’m feel very confident. – Leo

    Not true. As far as I know, both of those newspaper ads were strictly routine public service birth notices. Private birth notices were printed in another section.

    Secondly, both newspapers simply mirrored what was on the HDOH birth index. So, conceivably, if Barack Obama wasn’t born in a hospital on Hawaii, and a third party filled out the non-hospital birth application, those newspapers birth notices could have been generated without any conspiracy at all. Simply routine.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. Dude, somebody had to have sent the info in to the paper, right? Whoever that was would be the first person to start the conspiracy… not necessarily a conspiracy to make him President, but a conspiracy to make his birth record fraudulent. It starts right there with whoever would have transmitted the false info. There are a PLETHORA of people discussing this. Find those forums because my patience is wearing thin.
    - Leo

  54. Leo,

    I want to apologize for misconstruing Lansing’s letter in my previous post and want to comment further on it. In his letter, Lansing stated it was the policy of the State Department to not recognize the dual nationality of persons born to citizen parents on the grounds that the parents had renounced foreign allegiance as part of the oath of citizenship. I take it that is what you view as the key passage.

    I see what your point is. But that raises an intriguing question about how the United States views foreign allegiance. According to the Lansing letter, one renounces foreign allegiance as part of becoming a U.S. citizen. As a result, if he subsequently has children, those children will never have that allegiance without any positive action on their own.

    Yet a person who naturalizes cannot be President of the United States. This suggests that the United States does not view renunciation as complete renunciation of foreign allegiance. So, if the parent cannot completely renounce foreign allegiance, how is this renunciation conclusive for the child?

    ed. As to your new point, it’s not just foreign allegiance, but foreign influence which the framers were trying to keep out of the White House and the administration of our national government – as per John Jay’s leter to Washington. Allegiance is one thing, influence another. That a person might naturalize here does not mean the foreign influence won’t carry over from that person’s former nation into the White House. The nbc clause and the naturalization oath provide strong checks upon foreign influence with the nbc clause providing the much stronger check. Again, I refer you to my comments here which discuss this very issue. John Jay’s letter is featured and brought to light in new ways. – Leo

  55. Leo:

    Concerning my last partial-post below, I do not understand “this makes no sense at all.” My understanding is that at the founding of the Republic, and before, there were no birth certificates. I assume to prove location of birth people had to look at county/township/courthouse records, etc. Family bibles could have even provided proof. Naturalization records are certainly a critical part of the mixture. I do not know when birth certificates first appeared, but they have becoming increasingly crucial as to confirming one’s identity. So, it is quite easy to marginalize nbC since most people recognize what a birth certificate is (or at least the concept) as apposed to a Constitutional requirement. All have birth certificates but not all are Constitutional scholars. So, in this way, over time the nbC clause gets cast into the corner (school room corner for correction).

    I do agree that a 2nd (3rd or more) edition(s) of a birth certificate does increase marginalization. But I do not see where Obama was born makes any difference whether marginalization has actually occurred. As to Hawaiian or Kenyan birth, the parent’s status still must be that both are citizens born the President is born.

    I am not looking for anything concerning Kenyan birth. I have seen evidence of Kenyan reports, and I did hear a video where Michelle said that Obama was born in Kenya. But the way things are orchestrating this is being squashed.

    You can know for certain that the Obama Administration told the American media (even before assuming Office) that they had better keep quiet concerning the birth certificate issue under threats of duress. This matter has been investigated and corrobarated by the Northeast Intelligence Network led by Larry Hagmann.

    My question: Where am I missing it?

    —————-

    My point to you, Leo, is that the birth certificate issue marginalizes the nbC Constitutional issue whether Obama provides genuine proof of birth location, or not. The real problem is that Obama and his handlers are trying to convince us that birth location alone provides Constutional nbC status.

    So, what is Obama’s real issue? I can only conclude that Obama is Kenyan-born.

    ed. that makes no sense at all. this issue became even more marginalized when he showed the 2d BC… people are sick of the whole thing… they want to move on… and most already have. You are NEVER going to find what you are looking for… never. – Leo

    ed. I see no “credible” evidence the man was born in Kenya. None. I’m done with this and I’m not wasting time here with it any longer. Move on to another blog. I have not time or patience for this issue. It’s gossip and it’s a losing hand, a dog as we say in poker. Play that hand if you like, but not at my blog. – Leo

  56. da verg Says:

    If Hitler, King George, Park of North Korea, Ahmamidgetman of Iran, Castro, Chavez, etc impregnated an American woman and that woman gave birth to offspring on American soil>>>would that make that offspring a natural borne citizen?

    I don’t think so, the framers of the Constitution put in clause on NBC after fighting a war, risking life, limb, family, and many their fortunes/livelihoods to put a subject of British empire into the White House (and that is what obama is)….I don’t think so.

    Can anyone state it any clearer than that?

  57. Couriouser Says:

    The Founders feared foreign influence would destroy their fledgling republic. There is no way they intended a nbC child born on U.S. soil and sovereign territory of two naturalized parents to leave the country as an infant or small child, grow up in a foreign country to whom the parents had sworn allegiance, become a naturalized U.S. citizen and qualify for POTUS. That would be like regaining virginity; It’s not possible.
    Hypo: A child is born on U.S. soil of two Chinese (pick your country) naturalized citizens. When the child is an infant or very young, they return to China and swear allegiance. The child returns to the U.S. at age 50, becomes a naturalized citizen, resides in the U.S. for 14 years and runs for POTUS. He doesn’t read or write English but has learned to speak English. Women vote for him because he has a melodious baritone voice; liberals vote for him because it makes them feel they are more enlightened and better than others for voting for the first Chinese-American president; people with yellow skin vote for him because he has yellow skin; the media fails to vett the candidate and neither do the secretaries of state by ignoring their pledge to “protect and defend” the nbC clause of the Constitution because he is a “minority” and they fear charges of racism. He wins the election.
    He has met the age and residency requirement but does he meet the nbC requirement? I say, “No!” The minor child’s citizenship, although born a nbC, would follow that of the father.

  58. Leo, please don’t do it…..I wish you would reconsider giving the opposition anything that could possibly help them bolster their arguement.

    ed. I will do it because it’s the ethical thing to do. It doesn’t tip the scales… I still believe he is not eligible, but I will not hide from the truth of any relevant point. I’m insulted at your suggestion.- Leo

    I know – You want to do the ethical, honorable and right thing by providing analysis on both sides of the issue, but the opposition is anything but ethical or honorable and they would not do the same for us, Constitutionalists.

    ed. So you want me to join those who would lie and cheat? Is this what you teach your children? I hope not. – Leo

    I know – Two wrongs don’t make a right, but there is way more at stake than simply who is right and who is wrong on the eligibility issue….The very survival of the country is at stake, as it is under attack from within by a cabal of Marxists and communists…..They have NO HONOR and wouldn’t pee on one of us if we were on fire….Please don’t give them anything…..They are big boys and girls, so if they are missing out on something then let them figure it out for themselves.

    I’m not a Repub and I’m no Dem….I am an independent person who equally despises the “two party” (actually one party) system….Dems and Repubs, alike, both make me sick.

    Our Republic is in serious trouble as it has been under attack for more than a century, but the Marxist globalists are now in turbo drive in their plan of destuction…..They are running roughshod over us now.

    I hope that you will please reconsider furnishing the opposition with any new positive insight to their arguement….Let them eat cake!

    This blog will be VERY IMPORTANT for posterity in the years to come….Your work here has been nothig short of first rate.

    Maybe you could hold off on posting any pro eligibility analysis until after the 2012 sElection of Obama….Thanks for any consideration to what I have written.

    You can go ahead and yell at me now! :)

  59. Leo,

    I am reviewing the various issues regarding Obama’s eligibility as preparation for a possible challenge to his placement on the ballot in Arizona.

    You have posted on the problems of dual nationality and the U.S. State Department has documents as well. As I was reviewing the subject of dual nationality, the following conundrum popped into my head.

    Point 1. Your status at birth is the status that governs your eligibility for life. There is no law or circumstance that can change that. If you were not a natural born citizen, you can never become one later.

    Point 2. Obama lost his British citizenship at age 23, therefore he is no longer a dual citizen and as of age 23 has allegiance only to the U.S.

    I am anticipating that someone could make the argument in point 2 and conclude that Obama is eligible to be president. If I have stated point 1 correctly, point 2 cannot be used to justify Obama’s eligibility.

    If the problem is one of dual allegiance, as someone might argue, you have told me that Obama has lost his British citizenship at age 23, therefore the problem of dual allegiance disappears, and Obama is eligible.

    Does the practical argument win out over the logical argument? In a sane world, it should not, but I’m not so sure we are living in a sane world anymore.

    ed. You don’t seem to grasp the whole of the issue. Please see my comments here for guidance, specifically with regard to John Jay’s letter to Washington. – Leo

  60. It had been discussed previously, here, I believe, that BO may have legally modified his record of birth in HI; after reading this link from a reader, it made me wonder if this could be the version his latest public bc release references. If so, what was changed from the original record on file? What is legally allowable to change or modify on bc’s?

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/110601

  61. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    That I don’t know the history of the Immigration and Nationality Acts or when 8USC1101 became effective, or what was in effect on August 4, 1961. It would be a monumental task to reconstruct the laws to circa 1961.

  62. Neil,

    Don’t wait to challenge the “0″, file a State challenge against the whole of the State Election Laws as being unconstitutional in that they do not respect nor provide mechanism to insure that the Statutory Construction of the COTUS Art.II Sec.I Cls.V prerequisite imperative requirement proscription of ANY person except a natural born Citizen is on the ballots for either of the Federal Executive Offices.

    Include in the filing a “Motion to Certify a Constitutional Question and/or Proposition of Law to the SCOTUS”

    ……and send a copy of the filing to each of your State and Federal Representatives, along with Service on the Governor and Attorney General.

  63. borderraven Says:

    Leo,
    As to birth place, I give equal weight to Hawaii and Kenya, and balance the weight of evidence provided: The COLB, the Hawaii LFBC and the the Lucas Smith footprint bc. That said I keep an open mind given motive and opportunity for the newlyweds Barack and Ann to have traveled to Kenya over a summer break in 1961, and for the Kenya government to make every effort, in 2008, to scrub the records of the Mombasa hospitals. But, I see no evidence of an attempt by Barack Sr to register his son at a British consulate, although it is not required to confer UKC, nor do I see any evidence Ann Obama registered a birth with a US consulate in Nairobi, in 1961. If there is any conspiracy to scrub US travel records, the Clinton, being a cabinet member under Obama, would have to had committed high treason to do so, when she could have buried the evidence and bring it forth as a power grab later. So, the weight leans heavy towards a Hawaii birth, at this point.

    ed. I give no weight to any of the born in Kenya stuff. None. – Leo

  64. so if putin came to visit bush…and had a layover in dulles natl…where he had the…opportunity to…solicit a prostitute…and such prostitute ended up with child…of the foreign dictator….and such child was born in the USA to a US citizen mother…and the father was identified on the childs (long form) BC….

    would that child be eligible to be POTUS…

    this is what the SC has evaded answering….a constitutional issue…very relevant to the security of our nation…they have shirked thier oaths of office to defend the constitution…in both spirit and deed….by refusing to elevate the nature of this issue on natural born citizenship

  65. Leo:

    I am sorry and I will not bring up the matter again! How you deal with this on your blog is entirely up to you. Peace!

  66. Lisa C. Says:

    This is off-topic but could be relevant. Does anyone know why Michele Obama is not currently able to practice law? Several law blogs have looked at the wording on the Illinois state website for licensed lawyers able to practice in the state and note that the wording following her listing suggests that she was offered a choice of not practicing or being censured.

    That is, the wording would be different were she, for example, simply not current with fees. Citations are given for other attorneys who, upon having had”serious” complaint of malfeasance or malpractice filed against them, choose to ‘willingly’ suspend their licenses — and were listed with the same language as that for Michele. I’m curious if this is just more obfuscation in this oh, so, transparent family.

  67. From Federalist #68:

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. ”

    This Federalist Paper was written by A. Hamilton, who suggested that the requirement for POTUS should be “born a Citizen”. As we know he was overruled in favor of nbC. I think the founders realized that Congressional ability to set naturalization law would change who was “born a Citizen”, and allow an open window for foeign influence, and Hamilton was acknowledging that. By making the requirement nbC it gives A2S1 the permanance of Natural Law, rather than A2S1 being at the whim of Congression statute, i.e A2S1 must be changed by Amendment, not naturalization law. They were right, since those “born a Citizen” include those born abroad to 1 US Citizen parent.

    Obama’s Kryptonite:
    If the Reason for the natural born Citizen clause was to prevent foreign influence, how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, is a nbC, eligible to be POTUS?

  68. Dear Leo,

    I understand your point of view, but must object to your use of the word “conspiracy”…

    ed. snip.. I can’t let this issue take over my blog. take it somewhere else. I’m sick of it. It’s a loser. You’re being played like a fiddle. By a master fiddler.- Leo

  69. But to focus on your conspiracy point…Obama may simply be ashamed to admit he was not born in a hospital, which would call into question virtually every aspect of his natal history.

    ed. ashamed is not the exact word if that is the case… not ashamed but legally vexed. – Leo

    Lastly, I live in Georgia and would like to participate in blocking Barack Obama’s ballot access. If you know of any body that is presently working in this state for such a purpose, I would appreciate some contact info.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  70. Dear leo,

    I understand perfectly. It wasn’t my main point of interest either. I was just responding to your post.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. we cool. and let me say this… the new BC docu is just wacky and weird and it’s a freak show. but I do not believe it means what most think it means. I think it’s part of their game and Im sick of that game. They hold all the cards. In this game, they don’t. – Leo

  71. David Farrar;

    Every States Election Laws are deficient in that they do not incorporate the Statutory Construction of the COTUS A2S1C5 in their ‘ballot access laws’ insofar as the Executive Offices are concerned.

    Just File. Look up your State Supreme/Superior Courts Rules for Original Jurisdiction and just File a Challenge to the whole of the State Election Laws as being deficient for Constitutional purposes.

    Do not ‘discriminate’, block ALL Ballot access even before ANY Candidate seeks ‘certification’.

    Oh ya, include a “Motion to Certify the Question and/or Proposition of Law to the SCOTUS”.

  72. Leo:

    I searched for found in a prior “(F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 1184(l) 1 of this title at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in a language training program in the United States, …”

    I found a pdf and which has “9 FAM 41.62 Regs/Statutes” in the document. I cannot tie the pdf to the US Code, but the date of the document is 06/12/2008. It looks like it is something out of the State Department. It is curious but the date may be conincidence since I have not found orginal source. Attached is the pdf as follows:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87251.pdf

    ed. this is an interesting line in inquiry, but I do not believe the 14th Amendment is even relevant to the core issue of who is an Article 2 nbc. Unless the 14th Amendment repealed the nbc clause, which it didn’t, then the nbc clause must have independant meaning according to Marbury v Madison. – Leo

    It does not have the section 1184 in the pdf as far as I can tell. Looking at that is like trying to swallow all the water in the ocean!

  73. So it a number of states that give voters standing to challenge Barack Obama’s ballot access within five days of his registering is successful in getting the nbc issue to the Supreme Court, would you be interested in participating?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. What states do that? What am I missing? – Leo

  74. Leo,
    I applaud your ever stronger exclusion of topics not related to nbC. You are thE expert and only publisher on this crucial topic. You cannot have your time diluted with fringe issues. Now I, among countless others, eagerly await your next report with all your new insights. I have long been inspired by you and now more than ever. Your reengagement excites me!
    Robare

    ed. I am not fronting… or shilling…it will be serious stuff. Still need a few days. – Leo

  75. Thalightguy Says:

    Leo,

    Not to change the subject but I just found out there are 27 States that require the Electoral College of there States to vote for the Nominee, New Mexico is one of the strictest making it a fourth degree felony.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

    My very own State of Oklahoma is included in that list:

    http://www.oklegislature.gov/osStatuesTitle.aspx

    §26 10 102. Oath for Presidential Electors.
    Every party nominee for Presidential Elector shall subscribe to an oath, stating that said nominee, if elected, will cast his ballot for the persons nominated for the offices of President and Vice President by the national convention of his party. Said oath shall be notarized by a notary public and filed with the Secretary of the State Election Board no fewer than ninety (90) days prior to the General Election. Failure of any party nominee to take and file said oath by said date shall automatically vacate his nomination and a substitute nominee shall be selected by the state central committee of the appropriate political party. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the State Election Board to notify the chairman of the state central committee of the failure of any nominee to file said oath.
    Laws 1974, c. 153, § 10 102, operative Jan. 1, 1975

    §26 10 109. Penalty.
    Any Presidential Elector who violates his oath as a Presidential Elector shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).

    To my understanding the Electoral College was set in place as the last line in defense to insure that only a qualified person becomes President?

    Whatever happened to the agreement that we the People set fourth so long ago?

  76. Leo:

    I am trying to date-source what is written below from a prior post that you said was important. I searched for what is under (F) and it got fouled. Sorry! I totally agree that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with nbC since there is not mention of it in the Amendment.

    The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens—

    (A) (i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;

    (F) (i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 1184 (l) [1] of this title at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in an accredited language training program in the United States, particularly designated by him and approved by the Attorney General after consultation with the Secretary of Education, which institution or place of study shall have agreed to report to the Attorney General the termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant student, and if any such institution of learning or place of study fails to make reports promptly the approval shall be withdrawn,

  77. Garrett Papit Says:

    Leo,

    I completely admit that I’d LOVE for Obama to have been born in Africa and it come out. However, I’m willing to accept the truth whatever it is and try to base my opinion on logic with out bias as much as possible. It’s just clear that he’s either 1) Hiding something BC related or 2) He’s trying to make it appear that he’s hiding something BC related. I go back and forth on which it is.

    My question at this point, and I’d like your legal insight, is this. If the BC is forged than his BC, and NBC status for that matter, no longer matter…right? Meaning, he potentially committed a felony. Or could you weasle around the law by creating a non-official composite from other BCs if it contained the correct info reflected on the source document? And does the wording the the BC is the record or ‘an abstract of the record’ have any legal bearing in reference to the above scenario?

    Thanks

    ed. Steve Pidgeon researched the law on this issue thoroughly and he did a very good job. He showed me statutes which make this illegal even if the information alleged in the fake BC is true. But you would have to prove Obama knew the PDF itself was forged… for example, assume Obama has the real BC and he gives it to his ‘puter peeps to upload and they, instead of uploading the real thing, decide to mess with people and upload a weird wacky copy with anomalies… with the intention of keeping the birthers distracted from the dual citizen issue. Unless you could prove Obama knew that such action was taken, as long as the BC looks like the document Obama handed them, and contains the same info… then you could not prove Obama guilty of a crime. And I make a prediction Obama will never be prosecuted between now and for anything to do with such a crime. – Leo

  78. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    On the site http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html they write at the top”
    “In these pages, superseded text is presented like this: [in italics](This is superseded text.) Added text that is not a part of the Constitution is presented like this: [in bold] (This is added text.)”

    I see no indication A1 S2 C5 has been superseded by amendment.

  79. borderraven Says:

    RE: Couriouser June 3, 2011 at 10:10 AM

    See Perkins v Elg (1939)

  80. Joseph Lausier Says:

    You have said that Obama holds all the cards, save the NBC card, and he may win that card too if he attacks the NBC argument obliquely, as he has done so successfully up to now. Never head on, always at an angle. But he has to start thinking about his legacy. He may not win in 2012, and if his opponents win, he has to worry about many investigations, including the fraud he is perpetrating with his fraudulent BC. He could be going upriver for a few years if they get in power and start digging. Bauer is leaving. He has read the tea leaves. There are a lot of nervous people at the HDOH who are thinking of the future. Don’t you sense the panic? Don’t you smell Hillary in the background?

    ed. No. I don’t. – Leo

  81. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    A bit OT for the viewing audience.

    I tried to warn people not to fall into the Obama propaganda trap, but they let themselves be distracted by things they don’t understand.

    A PDF is not real, concrete or hardcopy, it is electronic, virtural and imaginary. The only real or concrete or hardcopy is the COLB and long form birth certificate when it is printed out on security paper.

    That said, the process used by Hawaii DOH to process the vault copy into a certified copy is made suspicious with every process step. If they would have stuck to the old photographic (micro) film to paper method, then it would have produced the Nordyke twins and Edith Coats style long form. But, what Obama is flaunting shows variations in the curvature of the image.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

  82. The European Says:

    Leo,
    I find you as a person interesting, intelligent and honest.
    Not so your partner Pidge.
    How someone with a single brain-cell can fall for this

    http://klarseher.wordpress.com/page/2/

    joke and publish this

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/attorney-stephen-pidgeon-found-record.html


    ed. Steve is an intelligent person, and a passionate one. I can’t read German and so far all Steve has said is that he found this reference, not what it means. But I do not agree with Steve on many things. He has been a true friend to me. – Leo

  83. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    RE: §26 10 102. Oath for Presidential Electors.
    “Every party nominee for Presidential Elector shall subscribe to an oath, stating that said nominee, if elected, will cast his ballot for the persons nominated for the offices of President and Vice President by the national convention of his party. Said oath shall be notarized by a notary public and filed with the Secretary of the State Election Board no fewer than ninety (90) days prior to the General Election. Failure of any party nominee to take and file said oath by said date shall automatically vacate his nomination and a substitute nominee shall be selected by the state central committee of the appropriate political party. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the State Election Board to notify the chairman of the state central committee of the failure of any nominee to file said oath.”

    Shouldn’t it read:
    §26 10 102. Oath for Presidential Electors.
    “Every party nominee for Presidential Elector shall subscribe to an oath, stating that said nominee, if elected, will cast his ballot, by yea or no, in regards to the persons nominated for the offices of President and Vice President by the national convention of his party.”

    As this wording restricts the elector to his party affiliation, but allows the conscientious discretion to mitigate/correct a party error.

    ed. Im not sure. -Leo

  84. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Does Hugh at June 3, 2011 at 10:34 PM need:

    See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ Search Engine

    Search string “8USC1101″

    I too am interested in the history of the legislation and laws as it was in effect on August 4, 1961.

  85. Attorney Donofrio,

    Could you elaborate on the document atty. Pidgeon is speaking about in his latest interview regarding a name change record for Obama?

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/attorney-stephen-pidgeon-found-record.html

    ed. See my response. – Leo

  86. Dear Leo,

    I don’t know about every state, but I simply Googled: “Contest or challenge candidate qualifications (insert state’s name here) Georgia” and it came up with:http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/21/21-2-5.html

    “21-2-5. (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought. (b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  87. Re: David Farrar June 3, 8:47 P.M.

    Leo: “What states do that? What am I missing?”

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=16

    Arizona Revised Statues Title 16 Elections and Electors
    Chapter 3 Nominating Procedures
    Article 6 Challenge of Nomination Petitions
    16-351 Section B says the following:

    B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.

    Arizona has an early primary. Challenges must be filed within 10 days following the last day of submittal for the nomination papers. The filing period for nominating papers is Dec. 20, 2011 to Jan. 9, 2012 5:00 P.M.
    The challenge period therefore runs from Jan. 10 to Jan. 24, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and MLK ‘s birthday on Jan. 16.

  88. Moreover, Leo,

    I was just suffering on the subject and found a recent interview by an attorney named: Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, who has found a record of a name change for Barack Hussein Obama in British Columbia; located at

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/attorney-stephen-pidgeon-found-record.html

    In the video/interview with Mr. Pidgeon, he mentions the state of Washington offers a set period of time after a candidate registers for ballot access wherein which the electorate has legal standing to challenge any candidate’s qualification.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  89. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    This whole Barack Obama BC/NBC issue is just a big jigsaw puzzle for people to try and solve. There’s actually one true picture to be constructed, but at the same time, there’s four or five pictures that can be formed which are almost the real picture. When someone constructs the right picture, they will have a sense of self-fulfillment of getting it right, but there’s going to be no wall to hang the picture on. The only walls that will seem to be available will disappear as you drive a nail into them. Even if the picture matters to you and a few thousand others, the picture will just get passed around among the group, but will never have an affect for changing anything politically or lawfully. How could the North American Union emerge if the U.S. population honors their own constitution so doggedly? Those that won’t let you hang the picture of truth are trying to smear what’s important about our nation in our thought processes, so we believe that figting their plans for a North American Union, and ultimately a New World Order, is fruitless. It’s comparable to having a 400 pound muscle bound bodybuilder snatching the completed picture out of a regular sized man or woman’s hands, and if the average-sized person tries to take it back they’ll get their ass beat real hard. I’m not saying to let anyone defeat us, but the tactic to destroy them has to be very intelligent, well-planned, and executed, not just some public outcry.

  90. I’m suspicious that the original bc lists the father as “Unknown”…his mother had the reputation of sleeping around. How would this affect the nbc requirement?

    ed. what original BC? – Leo

  91. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    These might help.

    McCain born in Panama

    (March 19, 2008)
    The Tribe/Olson ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Memo (March 19, 2008)

    (April 30, 2008)
    SR-511 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    (August 21, 2009)
    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
    7 FAM 1110 Page 1 of 13
    7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
    7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
    7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”
    (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
    c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
    (1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

  92. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    See page 251/259

    Why Barack H. Obama Jr is not eligible to be President and is not President of the United States

  93. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    See:
    Why Barack H. Obama Jr is not eligible to be President and is not President of these United States

    See frame/page 251/259

    http://www.tpath.org/uploads/Why_Obama_is_not_President.pdf

  94. Research on nbc issue started showing up in 2006 by Chicago peeps:

    Attorney Sarah P. Herlihy’s essay was widely disseminated on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. . .

    IN 2006, LAWYER WORKING FOR LAW FIRM WITH TIES TO OBAMA FLOATED THE IDEA OF A “TAKEOVER” OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY A FOREIGN POWER

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/02/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house/

    (I’d wanted to reply to something specific on either this or a previous post, but didn’t find the info until now and don’t remember the specific comment…but it was relevant to it.. Seems to show intent to slip in an ineligible candidate!)

  95. Re;Linda Starr’s comment, When analysing the Herihy’s essay/treatises/policy statement as well as the various other contemporary “works” and Legislative attempts of Amendments and Legislation to “change, enlarge and or otherwise modify” the definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, it is instructive to note that not one of them expresses the “Constitutional definition” they seek to change.

    It is from that insight that I come to the conclusion that the SCOTUS, given the opportunity to respond to a Bona Fide Petition asking the “question” in a context that does not cross the separation of powers “gray area”, will necessarily arrive at the correct and proper original “definition, meaning and intent” relying largely on Minor vs. recognizing that it forecloses any other definition sans contradictory Legislation as Leo has so astutely expressed.

    ed. Except that Justice Thomas stated they are dodging the issue. Perhaps the dodging may soon end. Who knows? I certainly do not believe that the argument against Obama’s eligibility was as strong as it could have been until this week. At least, my arguments haven’t been as strong before as they are now. It’s been a learning curve for me. That’s for sure. – Leo

  96. They say the proof is in the pudding. Obama is, and willbe for all times, the consummate example of one who is ineligible to be President. after 3 years of this travesty, any one with half a brain knows tha he has not one iota of allegiance to America.

    What really sickens me is these clowns who call themselves “conservatives” who then go on to claim that Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal would make great Presidents.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: