MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

[UPDATED: Dec. 27, 2011 – See green text below regarding SCOTUS syllabus.  I have made corrections as explained below to my own error on the topic.]

[This is a follow up to my last report, US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. ]

[UPDATED – 8:32 PM June 24, 2011. Updated material appears below in red.]

Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent.  The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.  That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.

And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men.  To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens.  It is still precedent for that determination.  Google [ “minor v happersett” “women are citizens”  ] and review the results.  A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.

But most important is the case itself.  The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court, which states: .   The syllabus and/or headnote for each case is not written by the US Supreme Court.   See the following official SCOTUS disclaimer:

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 .)

Back in the 19th century the official court reporter created headnotes more often than a syllabus, but neither have ever been considered to be law or were ever written by the court.  I made an error in this post and have therefore corrected it, while leaving the original mistake for historical accuracy.  

  The syllabus for MInor v. Happersett states:

“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”  (Emphasis added.)

That’s a These are direct holdings of the case.  Hence, it is they are stated at the the top of the syllabus.  (In this case, that syllabus reflects the holdings of the case.  Regardless, I must reiterate that the syallbus is not law.  As you will see below, the syllabus in this case stated these points clearly, but the headnotes are private property of the court reporter and are not included in the opinion of the case or as law.  Had the headnote misinterpreted the law or facts, as is sometimes the case, this would have been more problematic, but in the case of Minor v. Happersett, the reporter got it right.)

It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely.  This is not true.  The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women.  The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen.  The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.

The Court also held that the Constitution did not grant anyone a right to vote.  So, our country chose to amend the Constitution by the 19th Amendment and thereafter all citizens were directly granted a right to vote by the Constitution.

The 19th Amendment did not create a right to vote in the Constitution, the Amendment only protects against discrimination based upon sex once a state has granted persons the right to vote.  This is an important distinction in that Minor v. Happersett’s ruling on voting rights is still good law and has not been superseded by the 19th Amendment.

But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen.  The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of  “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens.  Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen.  And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

Before moving on to the issue of whether citizens have the right to vote, the Supreme Court in Minor stated their holding as to the citizenship of Mrs. Minor (and therefore as to all women and men):

“The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”  (Emphasis added.)

The independent ground the Court used to determine that Virginia Minor was a US citizen is stated as follows:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ …

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

Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

1.  “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”  First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”.  But then it makes a second statement about this class -

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”  This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”.  They are citizens, natural-born.  This distinguishes them from all other citizens.  If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens.  This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not.  The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.  This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent.  (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court in Minor did not hold that all women born in the US were citizens.  Only those born to citizen parents in the US were deemed to be citizens by the Court in Minor.

Since the Court was not required to construe the 14th Amendment – as to Mrs. Minor’s citizenship – the Court refrained from doing so.  Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1 as an independent ground by which the Court determined that Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen since she had been born in the US to parents who were citizens.

Those outside the natural-born citizen “class” were subject to doubt regarding US citizenship.  And the Court in Minor exercised judicial restraint by avoiding that issue.  When Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, some of those doubts were resolved in favor of US citizenship for those persons not in the class of natural-born citizens.  But that case did not open the class of natural-born citizens to include persons born in the US without citizen parents.

With regard to this being binding precedent, the important point here is that Virginia Minor’s citizenship had to be established by the Court before it could move on to the voting issue.  Establishing her citizenship was part of the holding.  Had Mrs. Minor not been determined by the Supreme Court to be a US citizen, the Court would not have reached the issue of whether US citizens are granted a right to vote.  The Court would have exercised the same judicial restraint it exercised in avoiding the 14th Amendment issue.  On this point, the Court stated:

“Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.”

WONG KIM ARK DID NOT EXPAND THE CLASS OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens defined in Minor.  The simplest way to put it is thus:

If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.) 

That is the simplest way to accurately state the issue.  Read it again:

If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship.

HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT

The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent.  Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken.  They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:

“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”  (Emphasis added.)

Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again.  They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court.  This is a direct holding of the case.  It is clearly precedent.  For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen.  But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.

The recognition of US Supreme Court precedent excluding Obama from POTUS eligibility is a theoretical game changer.  This places a permanent asterisk* upon his administration’s authority.  It may lead to multiple challenges against official actions of his administration.

If he wishes to be a true statesman to this nation, President Obama ought to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to his eligibility rather than let the asterisk fester.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

116 Responses to “MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

  1. Frank95054 Says:

    Clearly, the Democratic party successfully instigated a Coup! America has an impostor in the White House. President Obama issues Executive Orders to usurp the law making powers of Congress. He engages in War against a Sovereign Nation: Libya! Furthermore, Obama appoints Czars to head government agencies instead of obtaining the approval of the Senate for his appointments.

    America is living in a time when powerful men trample on the Constitution with impunity. She is government not by the rule of law and the Constitution, but by a Dictator with the support of his political party. All the while the guardians of the Constitution look the other way and carry out his illegal orders.

    Finally, when the guardians of the Constitution; I speak of America’s military, do nothing to restore the republic, then the people must take up arms and fight the traitors in Government. The people must act to ensure the continued viability of our Country. Failure to act is to ensure that our children remain shackled to evil men who one day will wage war against our citizens.

    ed. While my opinion on Obama’s eligibility is well known, my opinion that he hasn’t done anymore damage to the Constitution and the nation as was done by W. Bush’s administration (and those prior) is not as well known as I would like it to be. The bail out of the banks was worse than any socialism I could ever imagine… billions taken from the future poor generations of working class people and given to rich bankers as bonuses… Obama signed on for that as well, and did similar crap with the auto bailouts… but his predecessors from the right and the left did equal damage, if not more. After seeing Obama in action since 09, I am not worried about him more than I was before him… it’s the Constitution which takes a consistent beating from both sides of the aisle. Until we start voting for only people we actually know and trust, people from our own communities… and not career politicians… this country will never go anywhere but down taking the Constitution with it… any person who needs millions to get elected isn’t worth pennies. Do not contribute to these leeches anymore. None of them. We could change everything so fast if we just stopped paying for their elections and started voting for local people we know and trust… – Leo

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    Conversely, Horace’s 14th Amendment in Wong Kim Ark makes Ark, born of aliens with no intent (or legal right) to naturalize, eligible to vote while Ms. Minor, born of citizens, was not.

    I’ve read decades upon decades of SCOTUS holdings, and I noticed patterns of social morays and prejudices interwoven into those holdings, e.g., denying women the vote, . . .

    ed. The court in Minor did not deny women the right to vote. The Court held that the Constitution did not grant anyone, not man or woman, a right to vote. Until the 19th amendment, that was true. The Court in Minor did suggest that something might be done about that, but I commend their restraint in not using the tool of judicial activism to try to put something in the Constitution that the Court found was not put in by the framers. But you can bet that Minor will be castigated because the Court stayed within its authority rather trying to create more power for itself than it rightly could claim. – Leo

    This same fear of the mob, or social movements, has stifled SCOTUS on hearing on the merits legitimate questions of Obama’s Article II eligibility.

  3. borderraven Says:

    flagged for offline reading

  4. Leo,

    You have done an excellent job as to explaining who the natural born citizens are and why the 14th Amendment citizens are not natural born citizens.

    I work in building automation and read control basic ( logic ) almost every day.

    And I’ve always had a problem with people construing the 14th Amendment citizens as natural born citizens.

    Just as in control basic it doesn’t add up.

    The Amendments says, All persons born (A) or naturalized in the United States (B) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (C), are citizens (D).

    In control basic it Reads:

    ( A , B ) and C = D

    Since the Amendment uses the word ” or ” in between ” persons- born ” and ” naturalized ” it tells us that ” A ” and ” B ” are the same and if ” C ” is true you have “D”.

    We know without a doubt that a naturalized citizen can never be defined as a natural born citizen and we have the 14th Amendment defining persons born as the same as those naturalized.

    Therefore logic does not allow the 14th Amendment citizens to be defined as natural born citizens.

    ed. interesting logic. I hadn’t thought about it that way. – Leo


    I will apply that same logic to Minor V. Happersett in my next comment.

  5. I’m trying to link this to my FB page, but FB keeps removing it.
    Am I allowed to link this ?

    ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

  6. Leo, fat chance of asking for Declaratory, although he has recently hinted that his family would be OK with only 1 term, and he seems to foreshadow his political theatre.
    He must know that enough people are aware of this eligibility issue, and the SCOTUS precedent, and that credible challenges to his eligibility, backed by this solid precedent, will be pressed in many states in the next election.

    ed. I’m not buying his comments on that. Not at all. Makes me wonder about martial law… “I didn’t want to stay as President, but due to the emergency before us, I am called to duty to remain President indefinitely.” It’s just something floating around my consciousness at the moment. – Leo

  7. Tony Stark Says:

    Given the tight control of the media by Obama supporters, they will just keep repeating the mantra that it is dicta and not precedent as you so clearly explained until the gullible accept their lies as truth.

    ed. It won’t be that easy in light of the following from the majority opinion in Minor:

    “Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.” – Leo

  8. Dear Leo,

    But couldn’t the Minor case just as easily established her citizenship by the 14th Amendment? My point being, wasn’t the legal precedent that women were citizens equal to men already established by the 14th Amendment?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. They could have done alot of things, but they didn’t do that. Don’t ask me to imagine all of the possible things a court could have done. That’s ridiculous… The court didn’t reach the 14th Amendment because it didn’t need to. That’s why I have included a point heading “judicial restraint”. Obviously, this was not an activist court, it only went as far as it had to go to make its point and it refused to go any further. This is why their construction of A2S1 is precedent… had they determined Mrs. Minor was not a citizen, they would not have reached the voting issue, as the following quote from the majority states:

    “Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.”

    -Leo

  9. “ed. I’m not buying his comments on that. Not at all. Makes me wonder about martial law… “I didn’t want to stay as President, but due to the emergency before us, I am called to duty to remain President indefinitely.” It’s just something floating around my consciousness at the moment. – Leo”

    Yes, martial law is not out of the question! “O” has proved that he has no respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, the American miltitary, the aged, babies knitted in their mother’s womb, and any number of great things about our country. The American people are being enraged. Yes, martial law is not out of the question. It is possible that martial law might be declared to protect the Government leader from We the People.

  10. Dear Leo,

    So you are saying…the Minor court had the 14th to establishment the citizenship of women, but specifically chose A2S1 nbc to establish this woman’s citizenship because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens; thereby establishing the legal precedent that an A2S1 nbc didn’t need the 14th Amendment to establish their citizenship — whereas Obama does?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. yes. this results from their open and honest acknowledgment that they themselves were not sure whether persons born of non-citizen parents in the US were actually US citizens, even after the 14th Amendment. An activist court would have jumped at the chance to construe the 14th Amendment, but the Court in Minor exercised judicial restraint… they recognized that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen because – unlike those born of non-citizen parents – she was, in fact, a “natural-born citizen” as they defined that term relating to Article 2 Section 1. So, we have a precedent definition of nbc due to this Court’s proper and ethical judicial restraint. They had no reason to reach the 14th Amendment so they didn’t go there. – Leo

  11. In Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927) @ 660-661, you will note that Wong Kim Ark (WKA, 169 US 647 (1898) exceeded what was recognized in the cited Annals of Congress, re: February 3-4 of 1790 (WKA and Weedin quoting Mr. Burke @ 1160). In the debate of the Naturalization Bill of 1790, Congress http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=573
    from pp. 1147 – 1164 was persuaded by several particulars: that like the later WKA gloss-over mention @ 169 US 647 @ 666 (IV.), citizenship should be unique like the ancient Romans (cf. Mr. Hartley pp. 1147-1148, Mr. Jackson 1153); that the influence of naturalization did NOT necessarily follow the Common Law of Britain and Europe and the application of in pari materia (where statute construes the law passed) past 1701 in regard to naturalization (cf. Mr. Page @ 1148, 1153). In fact, paternal citizenship was known and accepted as required in defining citizenship, WKA citing @ 668 the 1343 Statute in the Rolls of Parliament , followed by the 1350 clarification @ 668 of WKA , followed by the 1483 TWO PARENT DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP that by COMMON LAW, “that he who is bn beyond the sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law…” The two parent statute followed Coke’s decision by decades in 1677, 1708, 1731 cited by WKA @ 671, appears to follow the application of fathers and mothers of children whose fathers were presumed natural-born English subjects. Congress and the Founding Fathers of the period appear to have adopted not only John Locke’s second treatise chapter “Of Paternal Power”, but to have ignored British Statutes on the naturalization subject at least past 1731, while accepting works like Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    The Court in WKA concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –
    1) Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.
    Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.
    2) Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
    3) Neither of his parents were employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth.

    Form FS-277, signed and sworn to by Obama’s mother before the required US Consulate, http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10 that Barack lost US residency, that Barack swore allegiance and was naturalized (indefinitely) to the nation of Indonesia as of August 13, 1968. Hence, even by WKA standards @ 652-654 and 704-705, as well as Minor v. Happersett, Obama is NOT a 14th Amendment Citizen, but an illegal office holder of the US Presidency.

    ed. But your argument on Indonesian citizenship is suerpseded by the SCOTUS in Perkins v. Elg which found Ms. Elg to be a natural-born citizen despite her having been transported back to Sweden and gaining citizenship there. – Leo

  12. Joss Brown Says:

    FYI: linking to articles on this blog from Facebook works fine.

    ed. Not for everyone, apparently. – Leo

  13. Leo:

    I have placed this entire article on Facebook. Before I had a chance to share, that ability was taken from me. Again, after returning to Facebook, the entire article is missing. This is really huge. I will keep trying.

    Keep speaking truth…

    ed. Keep us updated. I’m receiving conflicting reports. – Leo

  14. Leo,

    Maybe you’ve covered this already. It seems what Minor says is that children born in the country to parents who are citizens are natural born citizens. In other words:

    If: A child is born in the country to citizen parents
    Then: the child is a natural born citizen.

    But does the converse without a doubt follow from Minor, namely:

    If: A child is a natural born citizen
    Then: the child is born in the country to citizen parents.

    You hint at the same thing when you say “This class of citizens are part of a class defined as ‘natural-born citizens’.” “This class” refers to children born in the country to parents who are citizens. Is there another part of the class of natural born citizens? If not, then why not say “This class of citizens defines the class of ‘natural-born citizens,'” or “This class of citizens is in whole the class of ‘natural-born citizens.’

    When I saw that you wrote “part,” I had to ask. Your help clarifying this point, which has kept me from feeling Minor was an airtight case for ineligibility for a while now, would be much appreciated.

    ed. I meant it only to mean that Minor was part of the class… if it came off another way, it was not intentional. I think I repeated it numerous times, the only class of natural-born citizens are those born in the US to parents who are citizens. – Leo

  15. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    1. After the 14th Amendment: (If allegiance = jurisdiction)
    a. Born in a United State
    (Using the formula (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP):
    i. (USA)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN/US CITIZEN
    ii. (USA)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN/US CITIZEN
    iii. (USA)+(USA)+(USA) = US NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
    iv. (USA)+(ALIEN)+(ALIEN) = US BORN ALIEN

    ed. There is a slight deviation necessary for discussion as to the way you’ve laid this out… that deviation will be the subject of my next report which is actually another follow up to all of this, but it is very important to clarifying the classifications discussed in your comment. I’ve been working on this for a few days now, stay tuned. – Leo

    b. Naturalized in a United State = US CITIZEN.

    2. Post WW2 a A US citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch, but NOT the Executive Branch, is:
    a. any naturalized US Citizen
    b. A US-born US citizen using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
    Thus:
    i. (USA)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
    ii. (USA)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
    c. A foreign-born US citizen using the formula:
    i. (FOREIGN)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN
    ii. (FOREIGN)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN

    3. US Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, AND the Executive Branch, is:
    a. Using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
    Thus:
    i. (USA)+(USA)+(USA) = US NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

  16. Leo: When I tried to type in your url I got this message.

    You cannot share this item
    The provided link has an invalid url.

    .

    ed. from Facebook or in a browser… works fine for me in both Explorer and Firefox. – leo

  17. Leo, Fellow Bloggers, and Patriots,

    Please take a moment to read our legacy in the words of Patrick Henry. Be encouraged and emboldened to strive for the sake of the truth, calling on God to give us the victory!

    God bless America!

    http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

  18. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Martial Law is limited to the extent of the crisis or as long as insurgents are resisting posse comitatus.
    32CFR215
    10USC331
    10USC332
    10USC333
    32CFR501
    US ARMY Field Manual FM 3-28

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

  19. I tried posting several, unrelated, long URLs to Facebook tonight and none would take….I shortened one with TinyUrl and it worked. Seems they were having a general problem related to length.

    ed. Thanks for the update… maybe that’s the problem, url is too long or is it that url has the core url in it for this blog. Try to post only the main url http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com – Keep me updated – Leo

  20. Patriotny Says:

    Regarding your previous response to “Mick”. I agree with you completely. I had a conversation just last week with a friend and I voiced my opinion that I wouldnt be surprised if the 2012 election was at the very least delayed due to either a natural or man made disaster. I do not trust this administration at all. They are capable of anything and everything at any time.

  21. Larry the Grunt Says:

    Leo, you do great work.

    For the first time, I read the Ankeny opinion as you posted it and found something I was not expecting. On page 17 there is a quote from Wong Kim Ark that states the following:

    “The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained herewith the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    Please note the part where it says: “and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    Is that true? Is that really in Wong Kim Ark? If true, would this not set prescient over Minor’s holding you have to be born of two citizen parents to be a natural born Citizen?

    If it is true that the Supremes stated in Wong Kim Ark: “and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”…. Well, to me the humble Grunt, that means all 14th Amendment citizens born on US soil are natural-born Citizens.

    What say you?

    ed. In WKA, Gray cited to a multitude of cases which discussed citizenship. The part you refer to was in a passage which came right after Gray’s discussion of Dred Scott – it specifically follows the part where Gray states “to this extent” which I have proved referred only to citizenship, and not nbc. This is because Gray is citing to the “dissent” in Dred Scott – and Gray doesn’t even mention it is the dissent which is rather creepy considering Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur now known as a British subject usurper of the POTUS – so Gray cites the dissent then states that “to this extent” no other Judge took exception. But one of the Judges in the majority cited to Vattel for nbc and defined it as it should be, born in the US to citizen parents, so Gray’s “to this extent” means “to the extent” of citizenship, not nbc. The very next case cited is US v. Rhodes, not a US Supreme Court case… and in that case it does not discuss what happens when the person is born subject to allegiance to both the US and Great Britain.

    Now, let’s take a look in context to what you refer to:

    In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

    The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

    19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

    In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

    So, we know that a majority Justice’s opinion defined nbc much different than the dissent did in Dred Scott… but only as to citizenship did no other judges take exception. Therefore, Gray was only relying on the dissent’s reference as to citizenship. His “to this extent” limits the reference to citizenship, not nbc. And again, it’s damn CREEPY of Gray not to mention that he is citing to the dissent. That is so very wrong.

    Then Gray’s next reference is to the Rhodes opinion by Swayne… where Swayne states that birth and allegiance go together, but Swayne doesn’t say what happens when one is born with dual allegiance, such is the case with Obama. Such was not the case with Virginia Minor, born of a singular allegiance, hence nbc.

    Neither Justice Swayne nor Justice Gray discussed the implications upon whether a person is a natural born citizen of the US (and therefore POTUS eligible) should the person be born in both the allegiance of the US and the UK simultaneously. Regardless, WKA did no construe A2S1, Minor did. WKA decided the issue of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, an amendment which does not use the words “natural born”. WKA is precedent for citizenship under that amendment, Minor is precedent for the definition of nbc under A2S1.

    – Leo

  22. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Good post Leo,

    I look forward to you discussing the “A = born” or “B = naturalized” when combined with “C = subject to the jurisdiction” equals “D = citizen”. There was a specific reason the court did not venture into the 14th and Waite stated it quite clearly,

    The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men

    If the 14th actually changed the path to citizenship, there would have been discussion, but since the court had already addressed this matter extensively in the Slaughter House case (1872), there was no need as the US Constituton had already address it. Citizen per Congress’s power to naturalize under Article 1 and Natural Born Citizen as stated in Article 2. In the Slaughter House case, all justices, including the dissent, agreed that these were the only 2 paths to citizenship and since the Slaughter House case (1872) was decided 4 years after the 14th was ratified & just a mere 2 years prior to the Minor case (1874), the court did not need to wade into the waters of the 14th to determine Minor’s citizenship. The waters would have produced nothing new, just as the 14th produced no new path to citizenship. They decreed that if “A” or “B” did not meet the citizenship requirement of “C”, then they were not able to attain “D” until such time as “C” was fulfilled.

    ed. The more we study this issue, the more Justice Gray looks like a scared man trying to manipulate things. He cites to the dissent in Dred Scott, but he doesn’t mention that it is the dissent. He then uses the term “to this extent” because he knows damn well that the quote as to nbc in that dissent was countered by a majority Justice’s opinion. Furthermore, Gray refers to Minor as if Minor had construed the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue, when Gray knows that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to citizenship… it was only consulted as to voting rights. When we consider that Gray was appointed by a British subject – Chester Arthur – a man who had something to hide on this very issue, a man who lied to the Brooklyn Eagle on more than occasion about his parents’ citizenship heritage, a man who burned all of his papers – and we look at this opinion by Gray… we see that while Gray knew he could not construe Article 2 Section 1, he could write an opinion which just might keep him safe from scrutiny should Arthur’s lies ever become known. Gray’s appointment to the SCOTUS by a man who got to be President despite being a British subject and via assassination of his predecessor goes down in history as one of the best examples of the fruit of a poisonous tree. Regardless, it is now clear that WKA did not construe A2S1, did not redefine nbc and is strictly limited to “citizenship” issues arising from the 14th Amendment which does not use the words “natural born” and which cannot, according to Marbury v. Madison, render A2S1 meaningless. Minor is standing precedent for A2S1 and the definition of nbc. – Leo

  23. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Also, one must include the court’s definition of “all persons” when determining “A” or “B”

    It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

    This denotes that all children’s citizenship is dependent upon the status of the parents. And as we already know, under Article 1 immigration & naturalization laws, all children of unnaturalized parents could apply for citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. One must also make not that at the time of the WKA decision, the citizenship laws still stated that married women followed the nationality of the husband, therefore, there was no dual allegiance of any household where the parents were married. “ALL” were of but one allegiance. The households were either made up of US citizens or aliens. The extensive & quite historically detailed 100 year census concluded & reported in Congress in 1892 is proof of this fact.

    ed. good point. – leo

  24. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Leo,

    The reason Gray was scared is because of that Collins paper you brought forward many moons ago. Collins had a big voice & the only way to shut him down was for Gray, himself, to write the WKA decision, thereby sanitizing his appointment to the court. It was just a few years later that Gray also wrote another decision, that was ultimately reversed, that saved his inhertance from being lost. Because of that the one decision, he died a very rich man.

    ed. creepy…- leo

  25. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Leo,

    I also do not believe in coincidence. Collins didn’t use the term ipso facto in the title of his law review out of some some great revelation he had. He was merely reiterating the court’s decision in the Slauighter House & Minor cases.

  26. My oh my, every time I come back to this blog I am both astounded by the educational quality of it and the fact that even though we are probably political opposites the one common theme is that we are American to the core and believe in the sanctity of the founding document. As to what you said about both political parties and the continual erosion of our constitutional form of govt.; I couldn’t agree more. In my opinion both parties and the people running them are mostly scum. As an idea to show our displeasure with these racketeers, here’s what I suggest. For a number of years now, every time I get a piece of mail from any of these political organizations that is asking for money( with a postage pd. return envelope) I attach a note telling them that I will be glad to donate to their purse as soon as they begin upholding our constitutional principles and then I tape a penny to the request as my way of showing what I think of their efforts up till this point. My hope is that if enough people were to do what I do, the cost of all that mail,administration and marketing will affect the bottom line of all these organizations and they will finally get the message. If through this suggestion a number of your readers would begin to do the same thing and maybe in the mean time send any real donation they might have made to your fund, then we as a group of lovers of our constitution might begin to hit them where they notice. In the mean time, keep up the patriotic messages flowing and God bless you and this special nation.

    ed. they bank on the apathy and confusion of the people. – leo

  27. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    I also forgot to mention Hinman’s book that was published prior to the WKA decision & after the Elk decision. Collin’s paper along with Hinman’s book was devistating to Gray & the legitimacy of his appointment.

    As Waite stated, the 14th made no change in citizenship status of “any person”.

    ed. I don’t think he said exactly that. He said it didn’t grant anybody extra rights under the Constitution, it just protected the rights they had…as to citizenship he did note that it may have expanded the amount of citizens (…non natural-born). – leo

    Male for female, born or naturalized; therefore Gray had no other option but to write a bloviating opinion based on foreign feudal law & foreign legal precedent based on feudal law. Gray relied on the perogative law of a sovereign King, instead of the law of a sovereign citizenry as adopted by the United States on July 4, 1776.

  28. Larry the Grunt Says:

    Thanks, Leo, for clarifying the issue I had in my earlier question. I had started reading WKA for myself before I read your answer. I found it odd a district court case (US v. Rhoades) was cited.

    After reading your response, I understand better. It was judicial activism on the part of Justice Grey to cover his tail. Now I remember parts of what you wrote when the Indiana case first came out.

    Now I know how to respond if and when the Ankeny case is brought up.

    What happened to Ankeny? Why did they try this case pro se? It didn’t sound like they were well prepared (the electors part). Why didn’t they move the case up to SCOTUS?

  29. Leo,
    The Circuit Court of Appeals, not the US Supreme Court, declared Miss Elg a Natural Born Citizen (@349-350). “The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants Page 307 U. S. 350 (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States…”
    The Court below properly cited thus and thus, but as to the nbc declaration, we have no comment, is what they effectively said, leaving it alone (it seems to me).

    ed. I don’t believe you can parse it that way. One could try, but as an attorney I would not feel that such a construction was accurate, and I wouldn’t make that argument. – Leo

    Unlike Obama, Ms. Elg returned to a Treaty Nation of her parents citizenship, where she would have dual citizenship. Obama was born with a United Kingdoms and Colonies Citizenship through his father, and his minor US (and married into UKC) mother naturalized him through her second husband to alien country with which we had no Treaty, and was no longer Dutch Colonies, but the sovereign nation of Indonesia (with which we still to this day have no naturalization encompassing treaty with). He did not repatriate to Kenya or Britain, but went to a totally alien place NOT covered by 307 US 325 (1939). You should re-review points 3 through 6 of the Syllabus, as Obama’s unique circumstances do NOT apply. @ 329 the operation of Obama’s US Citizenship legally ceased with his adoption into Indonesia, his mother’s declaration on FS-277 to the US Consulate of new naturalization-allegiance and intention of indefinite residency in Indonesia on August 13, 1968.
    At NO TIME in a Court of Law, has the Obama defense team EVER introduced into evidence a United States Certification of Live Birth. Only once in Hememway, Bauer flippantly referred in a footnote to Factcheck.org (a front for a former Obama employer, the Annenburg Foundation, an organization with known alleged Communist and Socialist activisms) to be a source of what he claimed vetted Obama. The greater preponderance of evidence suggests that Obama is what the NATION OF KENYA claims of Barack in 2008 and 2010, that he was born in Kenya http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-fec-audited-in-2011-little-bit.html
    (likely at Lady Griggs Hospital in Mombasa, but we are not allowed to ascertain it with finality). We do know that because Barack uses an Identity Theft Social Security Number issued to someone born in 1890, and has multiple SS#s (which is illegal), and because Bauer will not dare introduce any Obama Birth Certificate into evidence (because both his Long and Short forms are forged), it is likely that Barack was NOT born in the United States, and that his actual birth may have been just as he claimed in 2009, to be 3 months prior to the Bay of Pigs or January 1961. Since Bauer refuses to offer a genuine birth certificate in a Court of Law per legal requirements (333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 per 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), or any pre-Brennan stolen Obama passports http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/10/greta-van-susteren-and-others-in-media.html
    And since Obama’s mother was not either of Statute age 19, and certainly NOT of voting age (21) at the time of his birth, Obama not only has no legality as President now, but can still be legally challenged in Court for running for 2012, even in the primary stage.

  30. Leo,

    I emailed Glenn Beck and told him to man up, get some testosterone and publish your legal research and analysis of
    US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT …Glenn Beck is in the lame stream media as the obot propagandists. My email was rejected with the lame excuse that his email box was full and could not be accepted. That is the same bull—t I have been getting whenever I send him mail. I’m on Beck’s s–t list. So much for Beck’s love of the Constitution—NOT! However, to be fair, http://www.yourcomments@foxnews.com has not returned my mail and have mailed them your followup, MINOR V. HAPPERSETT and gave Judge Napolitano a headsup.

    I don’t have much hope they will take the challenge. I’ll keep trying and want to contact Fox Business, Neil Cavuto who represented the old Chrysler dealers on his show, who said he had Leo Donofrio, a world class lawyer, to bring their case to the courts. So sorry for the way that turned out for you Leo. You are always in my prayers God will bless you and support you in your sufferings in this “nightmare”. Thank you Leo for all brilliant work and your courage in the face of overwhelming forces which are intent on the destruction of our beloved America.

  31. Dear Leo,

    Just to cover all the bases, The Cousrt in Minor used A2S1 to establish Mrs. Minor as a citizen, and the 14th Amendment to establish equality of citizenship between and men and women

    I am not sure what impact, if any, that may have on the issue of precedent, but it seems to me in reading Minor, that is what they did?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. As I said in my report, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment on the voting issue, not the citizenship issue. – Leo

  32. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    ed. I don’t think he said exactly that

    Minor v Happersett

    Page 88 U. S. 170

    Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect, men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship

    Leo, I do see where one could supposedly assume that Waite left the door open for Gray’s erroneous opinion in which Chief Justice Field took him to the woodshed over. The fact that Waite brought up & left doubts on the table as to children born to aliens in my humble opinion was a wreckles statement in light of the laws established that he covered in depth.

    ed. He cited “other authorities”… and there are some other authorities which view jus soli as granting citizenship. That doesn’t mean he would have agreed with Gray on the 14th Amendment. But it doesn’t matter as to potus eligibility since Minor is standing precedent on defining nbc under A2S1… WKA changes nothing on that issue. I have another follow up planned which makes this even tighter. – Leo

  33. Logic says Obama is Ineligible

    The Founders feared “Foreign Influence” ( G ).

    They knew “naturalized” ( H ) “citizens” ( F ) could have “divided allegiance” ( I ) therefore they made it a requirement that the “President” ( J ) be a “natural born” ( K ) citizen.

    The U.S. State Dept. defines a person with “Dual Nationality” ( L ) as a person who has divided allegiance

    I = G
    I = H or L
    K = F AND NOT I
    J = K

    Which logically concludes: A natural born citizen is a person that is born owing sole Allegiance to the United States.

  34. dang..

    Leo,

    the second I in the code above should be :

    ( G = H or L )

    and not

    ( I = H or L )

    Could you please make the edit for me?

  35. The above code should read:

    G = I
    I = H or L
    K = F AND NOT I
    J = K

    Sorry Leo, It was a long night…

    ed. just repost it entirely… I am confused now. – Leo

  36. John Jaye Says:

    THIS IS VERY RECENT.
    To post,anything in Leos’ website, to Facebook you have to open another window and enter the Facebook url and go to your page then copy and paste Leos’ url. The share button is not accepting links to this website. This could just be a glitch as, periodically, Facebook has many glitches.

    ed. Keep me updated on this…thanks. Is anyone else having similar problems posting links to Facebook from here? – Leo

  37. Philo-Publius Says:

    Leo it looks like the opposition …

    ed. snip… like I told another reader, if you read some point that makes you question something that I wrote, please state that quote and I will respond. Do not post links to propaganda pieces which spew gobbldey gook of deception. If my readers read something that truly resonates with them… then my readers are welcome to specifically quote a point and I will address it. But this forum is my classroom. I don’t teach lies. I leave that to propagandists. – Leo

  38. Leo,

    I always read and appreciate your analyses.

    On the point raised above, however, I must respectfully disagree. After reading it all over again, I don’t agree with the part of your analysis which suggests that natural born citizen was defined by Minor. It seems to me, after going over the wording multiple times looking for it to say otherwise, that what is said is that a person born in the country to parents who are citizens are natural born citizens. It does not say that everyone else is not a natural born citizen. Nor does it say that natural born citizens are exclusively those born in the country to parents who are citizens. It just says that the class of natural born citizens includes those born in the country to parents who are citizens. As you pointed out, they were being conservative… only citing what they needed to in order to establish Minor’s citizenship. I don’t believe they went beyond these simple facts:

    A: Minor was born in the country to parents who are citizens.
    B: If a person is born in the country to parents who are citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
    C: A natural born citizen is a citizen.

    A and B imply D: Minor is a natural born citizen.
    C and D imply E: Minor is a citizen.

    Respectfully, if I am missing something, please let me know what it is. I would prefer to believe your analysis, but preference is not what decides any of this for me, as I know it does not for you.

    Thanks.

    ed. You are missing the whole enchilada. You did not quote Minor correctly, specifically this:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    What part of the word “these” do you not understand? These were… natural-born citizens. These are a class of citizens whose “citizenship” was never in doubt. “Those” others are not natural-born citizens, and therefore their citizenship was in doubt. Here is a very simple statement in English, “These were…natural-born citizens.” Those weren’t. But there’s more on this coming in my follow up. – Leo

  39. Mr. Donofrio,

    I find it horrifyingly galling that the last two plus years have been wasted with birth certificates, social security numbers, and whether Malcolm-X was the President’s father. WKA was effectively used to obfuscate the eligibility of the POTUS while nary a soul considered the earlier and applicable binding legal opinion(s) of the highest court. Some in uniform have a principled and vested interest in the legitimacy of the office holder…in fact, the integrity by which good order and discipline is maintained within the Armed Forces is sorely jeopardized due to our lack of focused concern.

    “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

    Field Manual (FM) 6-22: ARMY LEADERSHIP

    “4-8. All Soldiers and government civilians swear a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution established the legal basis for the existence of our Army.”

    MILITARY OATHS OF ENLISTMENT (Enlisted and Commissioned Officer)

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    FM 7-22.7: THE NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER GUIDE

    “2-19. As a noncommissioned officer, you must know what authority you have and where it comes from. You are also expected to use good judgment when exercising your authority.

    2-20. Authority is defined as the right to direct soldiers to do certain things. Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers”

    Army Regulation (AR) 600-20: COMMAND POLICY

    4–1. Military discipline
    a. Military discipline is founded upon self-discipline, respect for properly constituted authority, and the embracing of the professional Army ethic with its supporting individual values. Military discipline will be developed by individual and group training to create a mental attitude resulting in proper conduct and prompt obedience to lawful military authority.
    b. While military discipline is the result of effective training, it is affected by every feature of military life. It is manifested in individuals and units by cohesion, bonding, and a spirit of teamwork; by smartness of appearance and action; by cleanliness and maintenance of dress, equipment, and quarters; by deference to seniors and mutual respect between senior and subordinate personnel; by the prompt and willing execution of both the letter and the spirit of the legal orders of their lawful commanders; and by fairness, justice, and equity for all Soldiers, regardless of race, religion, color, gender, and national origin.
    c. Commanders and other leaders will maintain discipline according to the policies of this chapter, applicable laws and regulations, and the orders of seniors.

    4–2. Obedience to orders
    All persons in the military service are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.”

  40. Leo,

    Can you delete the top three post by me and replace them with :

    Logic says Obama is Ineligible

    The Founders feared “Foreign Influence” (G).

    They knew “naturalized” (H) “citizens” (F) could have “divided allegiance” (I) therefore they made it a requirement that the “President” (J) be a “natural born” (K) citizen.
    The U.S. State Dept. defines a person with “Dual Nationality” (L) as a person who has divided allegiance.

    G = I
    I = H or L
    K = F AND NOT I
    J = K

    This logically concludes, A natural born citizen is a person that is born owing sole Allegiance to the United States.

  41. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Do you find “standing” from the holding in Minor v Happersett to sue Obama over his controversial citizenships?
    “Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed. ”

    And wasn’t Elg a case of controversies?

    ed. Mario Apuzzo made the best possible argument on the federal level, but standing was not granted. The best way to approach this is through State Courts… but the people will probably never have their day in Court over this issue in either the fed or state courts. But, like in my case, standing isnt the issue when you have a statute which requires the Secretary of State to ascertain the qualifications of the candidates… and you also have statutes for writs of mandamus or complaints in lieu of prerogative writs (as was my case)… which allow citizens to sue when the SOS doesn’t do their job. Standing was granted in my case. The NJ App Division judge knew that, so he lied and tried to make it look like I didnt file a Complaint…even though I filed a pre-case statement saying that I was filing a Complaint, and even though they accepted my $200 check which is the fee for a complaint… later they returned the check and tried to make it seem as if I filed a motion… They don’t return checks, only to me does the Court return a check. Hilarious. Not. – Leo

  42. I’m sorry if I am missing the boat here, but let me respond to your comment above.

    Why does “these were” imply “those weren’t”?

    These plums have pits. These are pit-bearing fruits.

    Are there other pit-bearing fruits?

    Now if I had said: These are the pit-bearing fruits., then the meaning would be definitional. But the the is not there in Minor.

    I wanted to see a the, but it wasn’t there.

    ed. If the others were natural-born citizens then the Court would have said that. Got news for you, it didn’t. The Court also distinguished aliens and foreigners from the class of nbc. The court also said that nbc were a “class” and it said those with non-citizen parents weren’t in that class. You weren’t looking for the “the”. Your argument is nonsense. It’s Seussian gazingridgy. The Court stated “these are natural born citizens”… the citizenship of this class was never in doubt… those with non-citizen parents are a separate class, separate from the nbc class… and as to that “class” there were doubts as to their “citizenship”. The doubts were there because they were not in the class defined as “nbc”. If they were nbc, then they would have been mentioned as part of the nbc class.

    Furthermore, the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark only reached the 14th Amendment because WKA was not nbc. Had WKA been nbc, then, like the Court in Minor, it would not have reached the 14th Amendment issue. – Leo

  43. My thoughts…

    “No person except a natural born Citizen…”

    Each word has meaning.

    “Citizen” has meaning.

    “born Citizen” has meaning, and is a subset of “Citizen”.

    “natural born Citizen” has meaning, and is a subset of “born Citizen”.

    Our Founders founded this country on:

    “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”

    The “Laws of Nature” is Natural Law.

    When the Founders considered how to apply the Laws of Nature to the conduct and affairs of nations, they looked to the work of Emmerich de Vattel:

    “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”

    George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

    In MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” and made it a binding precedent.

    In Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the definition of “born citizen” using the 14th Amendment, but it did not redefine “natural born citizen”. So, those who are “born citizens” include both natural born citizens and 14th Amendment born citizens.

    But only natural born citizens, not 14th Amendment born citizens (and certainly not those born subject to the jurisdiction of another country – Obama is a natural born subject of the British crown), are eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief of our entire Armed Forces.

  44. Leo, I have really enjoyed this eye opener. I am worried about the statement:

    “But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:

    “1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.” (Emphasis added.)

    That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.”

    I want to make sure your readers understand the syllabus is not holding. Only the text in the decision is.

    United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/200/321/case.html

    Your argument is sound and I am passing it along as fast as I can. Anyone else who is doing the same, be sure to quote from the opinion and point out, as Leo does, that the syllabus reflects the importance of the direct holding, while not quoting the syllabus as the holding.

    Thanks man.

    ed. The syllabus is not a holding, it is a summary of the holding and its very wording must be approved by the Justices who examine the proposed syllabus and then suggest revisions and then approve the revisions. The holding states the same points as the syllabus. Propagandists are arguing that the citizenship issue was not a holding… but the syllabus proves that it was. The syllabus lists the points of the holding… the holding is the holding. But the syllabus is direct proof that the points summarized were held by the Court. – Leo

  45. If he wishes to be a true statesman to this nation, President Obama ought to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to his eligibility rather than let the asterisk fester.

    Question: Could a member of Congress directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to Obama’s eligibility?

    ed. They could petition, but I doubt it would be allowed by the Court. They would have to craft standing. Obama has standing to request a dec judg. An elector might have standing. – Leo

  46. I think it’s possible that the Supreme Court has not granted certiori in prior eligibility cases because they believe that section 3 of the 20th Amendment leaves the qualification process for the President-elect and Vice President-elect up to the Congress.

    If a member of Congress, however, were to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to Obama’s eligibility, the Court might respond to that direct request from a member of the Legislative Branch.

    I.E., I think it’s possible that the Supreme Court has been keeping the Judicial Branch out of what is Constitutionally a Legislative responsibility. But if the Legislative Branch were to ask for clarification (by way of a declaratory judgment), then the Supreme Court might respond to that request. (Perhaps this has been a separation of powers issue, where the Court doesn’t think they should get involved until asked to by the Legislative branch?)

  47. Leo: “appointed by a British subject – Chester Arthur – a man who had something to hide on this very issue, a man who lied to the Brooklyn Eagle on more than occasion about his parents’ citizenship heritage”

    Leo, didn’t you find William Arthur’s formal naturalization certificate? Naturalization of a father naturalized all of his minor children. Chester Arthur was 14 when his father formally naturalized and thus at the very least a naturalized US citizen at his vice presidential nomination in 1880. He couldn’t have been a British subject when President and appointing Supreme Court Justices.

    ed. The Constitution requires that the President be a natural “born” citizen. One must have that status at birth, not gain it at the age of 14. The word “born” matters. So does the word “natural”. He was, at best, a dual national. Furthermore, unlike most naturalized citizens, it does not appear that he ever renounced loyalty to the monarchy. Perhaps this is why he ordered the US military to salute the British flag, which is kind of bordering on misprision of treason. – Leo

    Chester Arthur had much to hide in his machine politics past and he didn’t want his father’s citizenship history to be examined.

    The official campaign bio for Chester Arthur stated that his father, William Arthur, entered in the United States at the age of 18 (as a minor) through the Port of New York, implying that William could naturalize more quickly without filing an intent to naturalize. His father’s age of entry and place of entry (and Chester’s birth year) were the only explicit published lies. There were however omissions. There was no mention in the press about his father’s naturalization, and no mention about the family’s Canadian past. Chester Arthur’s mother was a natural born US citizen.

    In the published interviews with Arthur following Hinman’s first challenge, there were some minor lies, misstatements, and possibly misquotes included with the explicit lies. Hinman pointed out that the family history dates didn’t make sense, but the problem with the dates was considered by the Brooklyn Eagle as insignificant. His father’s citizenship history was not discussed. When no proof that Chester was born overseas could be found, Chester never publicly addressed the citizenship/birthplace issue again.

    It might be interesting to look into Gray’s background and past connections. Arthur had initially offered his machine boss and friend, Roscoe Conkling, the appointment.

    ed. Good points, KJ. – Leo

  48. Mr. Donofrio,

    Sorry about the earlier rant…please feel free to delete the wailing of a scorned citizen-soldier.

    I have read and reread the opinion and the syllabus for the Minor decision and am left with the mindset of the blog author that the court desired to define the woman’s citizenship in the context of the constitution and not the later amendment. Perhaps due to the fact that the amendment authors failed to clearly define the terms “born” and “naturalized” (likely the discussions of the day as to what it meant were contentious). The jurists obviously had no doubt as to what NbC meant.

    A couple observations by a layman, neither mutually exclusive regarding MvH;

    1. The opinion by Justice Waite used the definition of NbC as found in the eligibility criteria for POTUS to establish unquestionable citizenship and noted the applicability of the 14th except for the doubts (with reference to the citizenship of parents). MvH clearly defined NbC in the opinion.

    2. The 14th stipulates citizenship by birth or naturalization. But what does naturalization mean? For some such as me, it clearly means a process by which the equivalent citizenship of one natural born can be attained. So, semantically, there are those that are natural born and those that are not born as such but granted statutorily the rights and privileges. Can someone be merely born in this country or abroad to American parents and require naturalization? Yes, it should be obvious. The Naturalization Act of 1790 till ones to this day statutorily allows citizenship without requiring intent to domicile, residency, oath or test.

    There is citizenship based on natural law and everything else must be through the artifice of statute. WKA was terrible case law that complicated a rather straightforward concept. Mr. Ark should of only been considered a citizen if the naturalization laws allowed and not merely because he was born within the United States as presumed per the 14th .

    If someone is born requiring a naturalization law (statute) to provide citizenship than they are naturalized, it makes no sense per the amendment to include those born with caveat redundantly to be included in both classes.

  49. Leo: When I tried to type in your url I got this message.

    You cannot share this item
    The provided link has an invalid url.

    ed. from Facebook or in a browser… works fine for me in both Explorer and Firefox. – leo

    Answer: I was in Facebook at the time.

  50. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Before it gets away from me, I want to thank you for this article. I hadn’t been looking at Minor v Happersett much if at all, but yesterday I did a full reading of the holding, and will make a YouTube video on it, so there is some more “buzz” over it.

    I can’t duplicate or use what you have placed in this article, and publish in my channel, but if I do create a separate video, I’d like for you to have a YouTube channel, and then I could email the video to you, for upload to your channel.

    ed. You can quote from this article. Just credit appropriately. – Leo

  51. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I’ll mention Luria for those reading this post.

    Obama is a US Citizen, and he “has all the rights of a NBC, except to be a US President.”
    See Supreme Court case LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

    “It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’ ” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.

    IOW — All citizens of the US share equal rights, but only the nbc may become president.

  52. borderraven Says:

    John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?
    “All persons born within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

  53. If I read this right, it appears that the argument that the Minor statement is dicta not precedent, would be based on the fact that this case was about womens right to vote not the issue of citizenship and a defintion of dicta is defined as opinions not necessarily related to the ruling of the actual case and in this case it was about voting, not whether she was a citizen.

    Does the dicta argument have any leg to stand on? Seems like a loophole.

    ed. Read my article again… the dicta contention has no leg to stand on. Before the Court could get to voting rights, they had to establish that she was a US citizen. In doing so (which the first two points of the syllabus does focus on), they made precedent. The case is famously known for holding that she (and all women) are equal citizens to men. – Leo

  54. Dear Leo,
    re: Open letter to Sec. of State

    Now that you have firmly established that, in fact, the SCOTUS has established a legally binding precedent as to the meaning of an A2S1 natural born citizen, it now becomes necessary to discuss just exactly what should be done with such a finding.

    Below, please find a letter I propose sending to the Sec of State of Georgia:

    Dear Sec. Kemp;

    I have been advised by the Federal Election Commission that they have no jurisdiction in the matter of confirming potential Executive
    Office Candidates conformity to the Constitutional prerequisite imperative of being an Art. II natural born Citizen to be
    Constitutionally eligible to hold the offices of either POTUS and or V-POTUS.

    In view of the legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), that being a child
    born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens, I am requesting that you provide me with the “legal” definition
    of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by which the state of Georgia makes the determination that a potential
    Executive Office Candidate conforms in order to be “Certified” as eligible by the State of Georgia.

    My source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

    Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated and aid me in determining whether further actions in the Federal Courts are necessary in a timely fashion.

    This information will also aid me in informing Georgia constituents as to the standards their leaders have chosen to follow in this regard.

    Email response is acceptable.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Leo: Please advise if you think it necessary.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. Anything each citizen can do within the law is necessary. The letter is well written. – Leo

  55. Leo,

    Here it is by Fox News, the corrupted and corrupting judicial system which has denied you and your clients a just and true hearing on the merits, and has persecuted you from day one, is none other than by: Billionaire George Soros Trying To Stack the Courts,

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/27/critics-say-soros-trying-to-stack-courts/#ixzz1QUm9Hdm2

    Soros has spent billions on stacking the courts with leftist judges by having the states choose their judges by the “merit” system rather than election by the people. You can be certain that the judges in your clients, Chrysler dealers who lost their living, were bought and paid for by Soros’ money. And, I am certain, Soros is the one who manipulated the market crash through the middle east during the election 2008 to ensure obummer would win. Soros is buying his way into controlling the whole judicial system to turn America into a third world impotent, marxist country.

  56. The Gardening book does not, in words, say what shall be Plums. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Gardening book were familiar, it was never doubted that Fruit from trees, in which the shoots have a terminal bud and solitary side buds (not clustered), the flowers in groups of one to five together on short stems, and the fruit having a groove running down one side and a smooth stone (or pit), were Pit Bearing. These were Plums, as distinguished from Apples and Oranges. Some authorities go further and include as Pit Bearing the Fruits of trees with no reference to the genus of the tree. .As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    ed. Classic. – Leo

  57. Round up all the Pit Bearing Fruit you want, Apricot, Peach, Cherry, Nectarine… There is only one description for a Plum. The others will never be a Plum even if they qualify as a Pit Bearing Fruit.

  58. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I’ve heard that due to separation of powers some members of Congress are “hands off” Obama’s eligibility until it it finished in the courts.

    I find the Congress to be irresponsible and culpable as Oboma continues to usurp the POTUS, while digging a deeper hole.

  59. Leo:

    Below is a response from a NJ Attorney I’ve been corresponding with. Not being a lawyer, I can not fully assess the merits of his observations. I wondered if you find any merit here or find any response or clarification useful to your readers. Bill G

    “Minor is an 1875 case which stands for the proposition that the Constitution did not confer the right to vote, therefore, a state statute denying women the right to vote was constitutional. The decision has been rendered moot by the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. There was no allegation in Minor that Virginia Minor was not a citizen. The Court states she was born in the United States to two citizens. The Court finds her to be a natural born citizen but does not rule that being born in the
    United States to two citizen parents are the necessary requirements which must be met before a person can be a natural-born citizen. The discussion of natural born citizen by Chief Justice Waite is a discussion of a matter which the Court does not need to decide, which is the citizenship status of persons born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and, as such, the discussion is not precedent but dicta, notwithstanding D’Onofrio’s attempts to argue otherwise. The Court inquired into the citizenship of Minor because her argument was that all citizens, male or female, had a Constitutional right to vote. If the Court were to find she was not a citizen, it would not have to reach the constitutional issue presented it concerning the supposed Constitutional right of citizens to vote. Somehow D’Onofrio forgets to quote Waite who, after determining Minor to be a citizen prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, when discussing various theories on the meaning of “natural born citizen” prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, says, “For the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Waite specifically acknowledges the Court does not intend to render a decision determining the only way to be a natural born citizen of the US was to be born to two citizens in the US.

    ed. Is your friend dyslexic? I quoted Wait exactly on this very point. The “doubts” were as to the “citizenship” of the other class. Whether persons born of non-citizen parents were “citizens” need not be resolved because Minor was a natural-born citizen… The Court was dealing with a natural born citizen and so they restrained themselves from construing the citizenship issues not before the Court. If persons born of non-citizen parents were nbc, then there would have been no doubts whatsoever. The Court in Minor was determining “citizenship. But they construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 so they could place Virginia Minor in that class of natural-born citizens so they could establish her “citizenship” without looking to the 14th Amendment. Since she was nbc, her citizenship was not in doubt. Stop there is what they did. The doubts upon the “citizenship” of those in the non-citizen parents class were just that, doubts as to their “citizenship”. Here is the quote from Waite:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

    Some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born of non-citizen parents. What part of “include as citizens” is hard to udnerstand? The words “natural-born” are not in the sentence.

    Listen up people, they are going to lie through their teeth to protect their man. The US Supreme Court is quite clear in Minor. And I’ve got more on this to come. But you don’t need more. You know the case states Obama is not a natural-born citizen and they know it too. You can feel the weight of truth flowing. This realization has been a game changer. And that’s why it’s gone viral. – Leo

    Indeed, Waite acknowledges there may be other ways. Instead the Court determines it can assume she is a citizen for the purpose of its decision which is that the Constitution does not create a right to vote even for citizens of the US. The decision does not establish the legal requirements which must be met to be either a natural born or naturalized citizen.

    “Minor was born prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. Obama was born subsequent to its passage. You and D’Onofrio, ignore the Fourteenth Amendment which states:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, (emphasis added)
    and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.”

    ed. I don’t see how the 14th Amendment being adopted after Minor was born changed anything. It was enacted to give citizenship to former slaves who were also born before it was adopted. He appears to be suggesting that the 14th didn’t apply to persons born before it was enacted. That’s just whack. I doubt this person’s credentials as a lawyer. And do me a favor, next time you post here, make the question your own and do not attribute it to somebody else. If you hear or read something which makes you want to ask a question, then ask a question. Don’t use phantom lawyers to make it appear as if the question is from somebody with legal experience. No lawyer would make such a ridiculous assertion. Regardless, the Court in Minor avoided the 14th Amendment as to the issue of her citizenship. – Leo

  60. Greetings Mr. Donofrio
    I asked my live-in attorney (wife) to have a look at your work and give me her thoughts on it this morning. I hope she is wrong and that you can straighten her out on this issue, as we have so much at stake. I look forward to your reply. All the Best, Ray

    Minor vs. Happesett involved a challenge to the denial of a woman’s right to vote in 1875. The Court first noted that Minor was no doubt a citizen. First, she was a “person” and by the 14th Amendment, “all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ‘are expressly declared to be “citizens….” The Court went on to say that the 14th Amendment did not affect the citizenship of either women or men. Therefore, her rights do not depend on the 14th Amendment. The 14th simply prohibited the state from denying her all the privileges and immunities as a citizen…it did not confer citizenship on her. The direct question was whether all citizens are voters. And the Court ruled that they are not. (This led to the 19th Amendment which declared that all citizens are entitled to vote- i.e. women.)

    As to her citizenship, the Court noted that the Constitution accorded citizenship by birth or by naturalization. Noting that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural born citizen, it went on to say that at common law, it was never doubted that children born in a country of parents who were citizens became citizens at birth. These persons were natural born, as distinguished from foreigners or aliens. “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts…. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Thus, contrary to what Mr. Donofrio contends, the citizenship issue in Minor merely held that she, who was born of citizen parents, was a citizen. It specifically reserved the issue as to whether one born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents is also a citizen. The Court does not rule (and cannot rule) on facts not before it. Even if the Court, rather than specifically reserving the issue of non-citizen parents (remember that in 1875, the citizenship of the mother automatically followed the citizenship of her husband) and certainly did not specifically address the issue of the citizenship of one, but not both parents- as that could not have been an issue at that time in the history of our country.

    Mr. Donofrio makes a gross mistake in his analysis in assuming the Court’s ruling was broader than it was. He assumes the Court to have said that persons born of citizen parents, “and only such persons,” could be “natural born citizens” – in fact, the court only said there was no doubt she was a “citizen”.

    ed. No, it said much more. It said that persons born in the US of citizen parents were natural born citizens, and it also said as to this “class” – the Court used the word “class” – their citizenship had never been in doubt. The Court held that since Minor was a member of the nbc class, they need not look to the 14th Amendment.

    Furthermore, if your wife wants to post a question, have her post a question. If you have a question then state your question. This is the second time today I have seen this type of tactic. It’s going on all over the web, instead of people asking questions about my work, they are attributing their questions to phantom attorneys. I am rather flattered, but I will ask you to refrain from doing this in the future. Just make your point and be done with it. – Leo

    He seems to find confirmation that only she could be considered a “natural born citizen” because the Minor Court construed Article 2 Section 1, whereas the Wong Kim Ark case construed the 14th Amendment alone.

    The issue presented to the Court in Wong Kim Ark was whether the fact that his parents (neither of them) weren’t U.S. citizens, rendered him “not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore “not a citizen at birth”, under the 14th Amendment. The Court held he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. The Court did not need to, and therefore did not, go further and decide whether he was also citizen, natural born, under Article 2 Section 1. The court can only decide issues presented to it by the parties and by the facts.
    Again, Mr. Donofrio attempts to expand the ruling of the Court to that which it did not hold.
    The Court has never been asked to determine whether a person born on U.S. soil of alien parents, or having only one parent who is a citizen is an Article 2 Section 1 citizen.

    There is therefore NO PRECEDENT on that issue or those issues.

    ed. Had Wong Kim Ark been a natural born citizen, the Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment, just as the Court in Minor never reached it. Because Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen, the Court needed to construe the 14th Amendment in such a way that they could find WKA a citizen. This would not have been necessary if he was natural-born, just as it wasn’t necessary as to Minor. – Leo

  61. Lisa C. Says:

    Leo,
    An article on a conservative-leaning website considers that the Supreme Court has just opened the door to a much-broader interpretation of “standing” that can, by extension, allow many to sue with respect to Obama’s status re: eligibility to be President who were formerly disallowed as lacking “standing”.

    One can only hope…but what do you think?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/27/do-citizens-now-have-standing-to-challenge-obamas-eligibility/

    ed. This is all very well and good, and in a perfect world everyone of us could challenge the POTUS eligibility in federal Court. But Mario Apuzzo made just this argument on behalf of his client and he could not get standing according to the lower courts. We don’t know why the SCOTUS denied cert in his case, but I think this decision discussed at P&E mail still requires an “injury in fact” that is different than anything common to all citizens, a unique injury. This is the stumbling block, not that citizens can’t sue concerning federal statutes, etc, but that in order to do so they must have a unique injury different than the same kind of injury suffered by the population at large. Now, recall, Mario Apuzzo argued that not all the citizens lived in fear of having their liberties denied them as a result of a non-eligible POTUS occupying the White House… while his client did live under that fear and this disturbed his pursuit of happiness and peace. That was a novel argument, but the Courts did not accept it. And I doubt they are going to start giving standing out to citizens over this issue now. – Leo

  62. leo, I been arguing in a couple of wnd articles- first let me say I seen alot of people who quote your blog- it was great.
    but there is 3 or 4 major obama bots there. one was saying that wka was ruled a nbc cuz of a earlier ruling of arks said he was so that winning confirmed the lower court. and also that nbc only meant born- no parents needed like nbs. that vattel was not followed only common law. could you go there and whip some bot a**? cindy, bran and openid

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314297

    stuff like this :
    Bran Mak Morn
    No, it doesn’t. Indeed, the translation only came AFTER the Constitution was written. English Common Law is what they used, which is quite different. Plus, even if you use de Vattel, he doesn’t say dual-citizenship makes one not a natural born citizen. Suggestion: actually READ instead of repeat birther crap.

    I directed people here
    i just dont enjoy typing enough to put them in there place they repeat over and over the twisted facts and lies. last night i reread wka and posted long note but cant find it now there.

    i think your argument is sound and your best but am looking for an honest rebuttal not these dogged hounds of obama.

    they refuse the duel argument – no such thing besides ridiculously say jefferson was given french citizenship or that since nbc means only born that parents alegience dont matter so cant be duel ect ect
    then say duel not in constitution blah blah blah

    anyways you should be getting alot of new people reading you and the basic arguments should be easy for them to find if you repost some- sorry I have spent hours and hours on your site, not many will have the patience.

    ed. I have refuted it in the posts. Quote freely therefrom. – Leo

  63. Thalightguy Says:

    ed. They could petition, but I doubt it would be allowed by the Court. They would have to craft standing. Obama has standing to request a dec judg. An elector might have standing. – Leo

    ……………………………………………………………………………

    Leo,

    What if the elector did not believe the Candidate to be a nbc but was required by State law under penalty of misdemeanor/felony to cast their vote for him because he was the winner of the populous vote?

    or

    If the elector found out after casting their vote that the candidate was not a nbc?

    We spent 41 days in 2008 focusing on the electors, the day after the election up until they met in December to cast their votes at this point we moved on to Congress, not even giving the electors a second thought.

    I reside in the State of Oklahoma and as required by law all seven of our electors had to vote for McCain or be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $1000.

    ed. Well, if you can find an elector who will petition for declaratory judgment, then perhaps the issue would be heard. – Leo

    Oklahoma Certificate of Vote:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/vote-oklahoma-01.html

    Oklahoma Law see my comments here:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/natural-borntruth/

    Now lets take a look at the State of New Mexico and as required by law all five of their electors voted for Obama or be Guilty of a fourth degree felony and subject to eighteen months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5000

    New Mexico Certificate of Vote

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/vote-new-mexico-01.html

    New Mexico Elector Law

    http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0

    New Mexico Penalty for Fourth Degree Felony:

    http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0

    If we…as a whole, would of just focused on the electors of New Mexico, maybe things could of turned out different. What if someone were to convince one of them today that Obama is not a nbc, would they have standing?

  64. Larry the Grunt Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Right now I need to be working many hours a day in my small business, yet, I can’t get enough of this stuff.

    You used to have a archive by month on the side of the page. It made it easier to look up stuff and re-read, and do research.

    How do I get access to that info? I may need it if I sue my state. We have had no less than three eligibility bills shot down since 2008. I can understand a Demo gov. doing that, but now we have a Repub. gov. and she is making sure bills do not go to full vote on the floor.

    We have one legislative session left before the next election. I may sue to force their hand. I feel now would be the time to do so. Your research would be very helpful if I do.

    ed. I will fix that soon. – Leo

  65. Leo,

    A comment I made on June 26, 2011 at 9:20 PM is still awaiting moderation. Two comments that I made after that (June 26, 2011 at 11:48 PM and at 11:55 PM) have been released from moderation. Is there something wrong with the 9:20 PM comment that made you decide to keep it in moderation, or was this just an oversight?

    I made some points about Natural Law being referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”.

    Clearly, the Court in the Minor case stated the Common Law definition of “natural born citizen”, which is identical to the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”.

    ed. I have over 500 comments backlogged awaiting moderation… I generally skip to the most recent ones and then try to catch up when I can. I am swamped right now so sorry about that. I’ll get to it when I can. – Leo

  66. Heh, heh. Jerome Corsi has a new article up where he says you totally misunderstood WND’s reporting and Obama WAS born in Kenya. You really need to work on reading comprehension if you’re going to cite WND for anything, Leo.

    ed. WND published documents retrieved from the Government. The documents are authentic. Why wouldn’t I cite to the journal which obtained them? Furthermore, I do not want the following response to Mr. Corsi to take attention away from the current articles on the front page of my blog… so this will be my official reply.

    Corsi’s article is not on point. It doesn’t focus on what is truly important and instead mixes up a stew of gossip with actual facts. I wish he would have stayed on the issues I brought forth to which he appears to be replying, rather than to have thrown every conspiracy theory known to the birther universe into the mix. So much of what he published is irrelevant to my article. No disrespect intended to Mr. Corsi, but there’s a ton of stuff to which I never reported on.

    For example, the sub-title of Corsi’s report (“WND.COMMENTARY Does WND’s reporting rule out an Obama Kenya birth? WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi replies to eligibility attorney Leo Donofrio”) mentions my previous report on this, and he appears to be publishing this new article as a retort to mine. But Corsi completely skips over the part in my article where I suggest WND make a proper FOIA request for “passport issue cards” for Dunham, which – according to law – must be saved, and must be made available to anyone. If WND did such a FOIA and worded it as I suggested (and that is crucially important so the Govt has no wiggle room), then WND will have an answer as to whether Obama’s mother had a US passport in 1961. If she did not have a passport, she was almost certainly not in Kenya.

    This question can be answered with certainty if there is a properly worded FOIA. WND ought to take my suggestion and do such a FOIA and keep its readers updated. In the monolithic article Corsi just published, he skips over that part of my article entirely. Corsi also makes a series of weird conjectures trying to come up with reasons why Obama’s mother would be in Kenya, while pregnant, at the age of 18, while Obama Sr. remains behind in the US.

    Corsi also states:


    The memo is written pursuant “to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouses’ child by a former marriage.” (sic)

    The next paragraph reads as follows, presented without correction, except for inserting the number “1” where the document itself types a bracket character, possibly because of a faulty typewriter:

    “The person in question [Barack Obama, Jr.] is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu. He is considered the applicants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the childs’ mother on March 15, 1965.”

    The person writing the document does not reference having examined any birth document in the attempt to establish Barack Obama Jr.’s citizenship.

    Instead, the document suggests the memorandum is written as a result of a conversation, possibly with Barack Obama’s mother, in which the information was conveyed by her and simply accepted as offered, without documentary verification.

    What part of that memo suggests it was written as a result of a “conversation”…? Where does Corsi get this from? I am reading it, and I see nothing at all to suggest the memo was as a result of a “conversation”. I don’t understand the double standard of analysis he’s using here. Corsi points out that the memo doesn’t state where the agent came by this info, but then Corsi states that the memo suggests it’s from a conversation. What evidence does he have of that? Is there any evidence at all in this memo which indicates where the info regarding Obama’s birth in Honolulu came from? No, there is not.

    Then Corsi states that it “possibly” (anything is possible) came from a conversation with Obama’s mother. But there’s nothing in the memo to suggest that either. So, Corsi points out that the memo doesn’t state where the info came from, and then he does an about face to argue that it came from a “conversation” as opposed to a genuine investigation involving records etc. It is pure conjecture.

    So what are the facts? We have two federal agents who looked into this back in the 60’s – two agents doing two separate investigations five or so years apart. And we know Obama Sr. was not in Kenya on or about August 4, 1961, when Obama was born. Corsi admits that fact. These facts indicate President Obama was probably not born in Kenya. I never said his birth in Hawaii was certain, but I do believe that is the case. The presumption is in his favor all things considered. His mother could have been in Kenya without the father, and the agents could have been flamboozled… six years apart in two separate investigations, but I’m not buying that. If you are, fine. But there is no verifiable evidence to counter these facts.

    Corsi also fails to address another one of my most important arguments… that with all of this investigating of Dunham’s husbands… and all of the allegations listed by Corsi regarding whether the marriage to Obama Sr. was a sham (which was being investigated by the Government)… why does Corsi not discuss the fact that these agents would almost certainly have looked into her travel records… and whether she had a passport. I think common sense indicates that’s one of the first things they would have checked.

    Had Dunham been in Kenya on August 4, 1961, then the INS would have known Obama was born there and not in Kenya… any suggestion that he would have been born in Hawaii, if she had been in Kenya (which they would have known) would have raised a big red flag with agent Mix and others.

    It doesn’t make any sense at all that she could have been in Kenya on August 4 1961 if agent MIX accepted Obama was born in Hawaii on that date. If she had been in Kenya, they would almost certainly have known about it. Add that argument to the rest of the info available. – Leo

  67. thinkwell Says:

    boderraven very aptly quotes John Bingham:

    John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?

    “All persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born Citizens.”

    Please carefully note that the logically strict application of Mr. Bingham’s definition of “natural born Citizen” would exclude from that class the children born within the USA to US citizen parents, one or both who are also recognized by our government as being co-citizens of another country (i.e., dual citizens).

    In other words, by John Bingham’s own clear statement, it is not sufficient to just be born in the Republic to citizen parents in order to qualify as a natural born Citizen. One must also be born “of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.”

    Who are natural born citizens?” Evidently NOT the children of dual citizens. To this I wholeheartedly agree.

  68. Michael Wassil Says:

    Hugh Says:
    June 27, 2011 at 4:46 AM

    Leo: When I tried to type in your url I got this message.

    You cannot share this item
    The provided link has an invalid url.

    ed. from Facebook or in a browser… works fine for me in both
    Explorer and Firefox. – leo

    Answer: I was in Facebook at the time.

    The significant thing here is: invalid url. Either you are not entering the URL correctly, OR the correct URL has something in it that Facebook cannot interpret correctly. Two things come to mind: either the URL is too long OR the #com at the end is causing the problem. In either case, I think if you create a “Tiny URL” and post that you will be successful.

    http://tinyurl.com/

    Hope this helps.

  69. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Here is a 2002 SURVEY OF THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm

    It is pre-Obama, but under 10-years old, so maybe worth a look.

  70. Leo, Dean Haskins has posted a video on Youtube citing you and “binding precedent” from Minor v Happersett. I know you don’t like links in here, so if you’re interested, it’s entitled “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies” as posted by user: deanhaskins.

    ed. I don’t mind links… it’s just those who use a ruse of tactics to promote propaganda. Feel free to post the link. – Leo

  71. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    On the subject of standing, it is the US Constitution which has suffered a particularized injury. I once saw a sum of money represented in a case, so surely the US Constitution can find standing as it has suffered specific injury by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and numerous others.

  72. Thinkwell,

    “Who are natural born citizens?” Evidently NOT the children of dual citizens. To this I wholeheartedly agree.

    I think you are in error as to this point of view. The children born to naturalized Americans are NbCs regardless of the modern acceptance of dual nationality.

    A child born within the jurisdiction to American parents is a natural born citizen. Many of our Presidents were born and later eligible under this consideration.

    ed. Agreed. – Leo

  73. June 28, 2011 at 8:35 AM
    Larry the Grunt Said:

    You used to have a archive by month on the side of the page. It made it easier to look up stuff and re-read, and do research.

    How do I get access to that info?

    Until Leo has a chance to reinstate the search box and calendar functions, you can use the following URL to search…

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=bingham

    Just substitute your search term for “bingham” and you’ll get back the relevant posts. For a multiple word search, just separate the words in the URL with a plus sign, like this…

    Searching for “natural born citizen”:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?s=natural+born+citizen

    If you are looking for a particular year/month, you can use the following URL, just replace the year and month with the one of your choosing:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/

  74. True American Patriot Natural Born Citizen Says:

    Leo,

    Can you please take the time to read the information in the article entitled, “…go in peace…,” by Dr. Kate?

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/go-from-us-in-peace/#comments

    Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s and your works are mentioned in the excellent video here:

    “drkate
    June 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Natural Born Citizen for Dummies: spread it far and wide!”

    “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN FOR DUMMIES”

    In the article above, “…go in peace…,” there is a reference from this article here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/petition/news.aspx?id=18636

    that written by an attorney. The Supreme Court passed down a decision in 1984 that said,

    “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”

    Commenter Heather said under the “…go in peace…” article a comment regarding this referenced 1984 Supreme Court decision that I’d like to share with you:

    “heather
    June 28, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    Dr Kate–

    This statement is troubling–I have never heard of this until now. This is why the SCOTUS has told everyone that they do not have standing. This statement explains everything plain and simple as to what they have done and are doing.

    This statement does not stand with me–it is foreign to all of us…who gave them this right to decide that we the people have no say so.

    This statement also needs to go viral and get posted everywhere–it will wake the rest of the deadheads up and piss them off enough to join forces with us.

    OMG–this statement devastates my very soul.

    Thank you for finding it and posting it.

    The Supreme Court passed down a decision in 1984 that said,

    “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues”.

    * * *

    I am sending to you and to others this information here that I think is important to spread far and wide!!

    Leo would you care to explain what your legal take is on the 1984 Supreme Court statement above? I realize that this 1984 SCOTUS decision & statement can be interpreted in various ways, depending on who is doing the reading & who is interpreting the laws.

    ed. I need a citation. – Leo

  75. Leo: “appointed by a British subject – Chester Arthur ”

    Chester Arthur’s status at birth can never be considered “natural born” in the strictest sense. Was Chester Arthur *Legally A British Subject* when he was serving as president?

    ed. He can never be “natural born” in any sense unless his father was a US citizen when he was born. His father wasn’t a US citizen until 14 years later. As to whether he was a British citizen while he was President, that is a different set of analysis. – Leo

    Chester Arthur’s *father naturalized when Chester was 14.* Quoting Bayard in Hinman **”The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.”** His father would have renounced allegiance to the British Crown at naturalization on behalf of his children, although in 1843 and even in 1829, Britain would have continued to claim William and his sons as subjects (but not his grandsons).

    ed. Just like under our law, I believe a minor can’t be stripped of his status as a UK subject by the act of the parents.- Leo

    Britain finally recognized the right of its subjects to expatriate and accept American citizenship in 1870, a decade before Chester Arthur was elected as Vice President.

    Arthur was criticized for ordering the salute to the British flag at the Centennial Celebration at Yorktown (location of final Revolutionary War battle in 1781) soon after he took office. *Because Arthur had never revealed his father’s citizenship history to the public, some, especially the Irish, accused him of British sympathies and more.* The salute of the British flag by the US was answered by a British salute of the US flag in London within the week. Both sides agreed that after a century of occasional armed conflict, it was time to bury the hatchet. The US and Britain indicated the desire for future peace and cooperation by saluting each other’s flags in October 1881. Arthur extended his hand for peace and Victoria accepted it.

    Did burying the hatchet prepare the way for the US to build the Panama Canal? The British were also interested in building a water route across the Isthmus of Panama.

    Arthur’s allegiance was primarily to himself and the Stalwart New York Machine. He was careful to appear to behave himself as President and made some key concessions, although he never really abandoned machine politics.

  76. Really happy about the piece on Canada free press by Lawrence Sellin and video mentioning you and Mario. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    http://deanhaskins.wordpress.com

  77. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    … “Americans have always believed they are entitled to an answer when they exercise their right to petition the government for redress of a grievance; however, the United States Supreme Court has held otherwise. In 1984 the Supreme Court held in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) that:

    “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”

    Justice John Paul Stevens stressed in his dissent in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges, “The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.” Indeed. The right to petition the government at any level to right a wrong or correct a problem is meaningless if that right can be ignored by our public officials with the apparent sanction of the Supreme Court.” …

    http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2011/02/04/perkasie_news_herald/opinion/doc4d49e85b52042455977704.txt

    ed. I agree with Stevens. Here is the exact quote from the Knight case:

    “The public employee surely can associate, and speak freely and petition openly, and he is protected by the First Amendment from retaliation for doing so. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 391 U. S. 574-575 (1968); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960). But the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it.”

    Id. at 364 U. S. 465 (footnote omitted).

    I don’t like it, but there it is. – Leo

    ed. UPDATED July 1 8:57 AM… see my update here. – Leo

  78. Leo,

    I know how much you would like to put the COLB issue completely to rest so that all focus can be put on the Supreme Court precedent in Minor v. Happersett.

    In order to do so, is there any reason why you can’t invoke [§338-18] (g) (4) right now, to obtain a “Letter of Verification” “for purposes of legal proceedings”?

    A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings

    Let’s see if they will verify the information in every single field of the Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth that Obama made public in PDF form on April 27, 2011. (also note that the recently created/updated HDOH “Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II” page mentions HRS §338-18(b), and HRS §338-18(d), but chooses not to mention anything about HRS § 338-18(g).

    Interesting, is it not?

    ed. I’ve been down this road before regarding the UIPA. I will leave that to somebody else. – Leo

  79. Charles H Irwin Says:

    Your opinion that “he (Obama) hasn’t done anymore damage to the Constitution and the nation as was done by W. Bush’s administration (and those prior)” is wrong.

    Every president since Coolidge has been worse than his predecessor in this regard. Bush was absolutely awful but Obama is worse.

    Remember that Bush at least sought congressional approval for his wars. Obama is flagrantly in violation of the war powers act and in contempt of congress. Even if he were eligible to be president he should be impeached for this reason alone.

  80. “ed. I don’t mind links… it’s just those who use a ruse of tactics to promote propaganda. Feel free to post the link. – Leo”

    Here ya go. Your very own copy of “Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.” I wonder who does the voice overs for Dean?


    ed. I think Dean did a very good job with the video. – Leo

  81. thinkwell Says:

    Pieter Nosworthy Says:

    The children born to naturalized Americans are nbCs regardless of the modern acceptance of dual nationality.

    A child born within the jurisdiction to American parents is a natural born citizen.

    While your first statement above is always true (assuming native birth), your second statement is NOT always true (at least according to none other than John Bingham). By John Bingham’s own clear statement, it is not sufficient to just be born within the Republic to citizen parents in order to qualify as a natural born Citizen. One must also be born “of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.”

    ed. We can argue all day long what Bingham meant, and I have quoted him many times, and I have stated the Congressional definition of nbc from his mouth in a previous post. But now that we have an identified US Supreme Court precedent from Minor v. Happersett, the holding in that case as to the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is national law. It supersedes all other sources. The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen, as stated by the Court in Minor, is a person born in the US of citizen parents. Done. Held. Law.- Leo

    Note that we require that naturalized-as-an-adult citizens must first officially renounce any other citizenship and then freely swear an oath of sole allegiance to the USA, thereby breaking all bonds to any other country. Our government does not recognize dual citizenship for any such naturalized citizen. Their freely-sworn exclusive loyalty is also why they may produce and raise children who then themselves are natural born Citizens. Naturalization-as-an-adult and dual citizenship are mutually exclusive (and is why your first statement is true).

    However, US-government-recognized dual citizens may occur by birth and apparently in some cases by the free choice of a former exclusively American citizen (something that should never be allowed, in my opinion – either you are in or you are out). This unwise loophole leads to a gray area with regard to natural born Citizenship where citizens may be born on native soil, but to parents, one or both of whom may be dual citizens. Such children clearly may be born and raised with divided allegiance (in fact, quite plausibly with a stronger loyalty to their “other” country, especially if they are predominantly raised in the other country – for example, a situation quite likely for the children of two “citizens” who themselves were born as anchor babies).

    That these children of “duals” could ever be classified as natural born Citizens is an anathema to the Constitution, the security and protection of our country and the intent of the Founders. I believe this debased sort of hybrid “natural born Citizen” was neither possible nor ever envisioned as being possible in the time of the Founders, which is why it may not have been directly addressed. But one only need look to the guidance of the clearly expressed intent to protect the nation from foreign interest and influence to see that such a mixed classification of “natural born Citizen” should never be allowed.

    Yet, today we suffer under a usurper president whose citizenship does not even rise to this questionable hybrid standard. Obama is a man whose father never was himself a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, his entire presidency is one big spin cycle). Is it any wonder that he is a self-proclaimed citizen of the world?

    That our once great nation would ever let such a man become its Commander-in-Chief is a disgrace to us all. May we have the courage not to grant this fraud the legitimacy of a full term and have the resolve not only to remove him, but serve him with the full and fair course of justice that his crime demands. (Such action would also serve as a much needed “inspiration” to the many other scoundrels in Washington.)

    As President Thomas Jefferson famously said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

  82. True American Patriot Natural Born Citizen Says:

    Leo,

    You stated, “ed. I need a citation. – Leo.” Thank you for answering my question. I sent to you the citation immediately preceding my question for you.

    Here again is a referenced citation of a 1984 Supreme Court decision and statement for you to look at. I am asking you to please comment on what you think this cited and referenced SCOTUS statement in the 1984 Supreme Court case cited below legally means:

    Legal Case Citation: “We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, decided May 8, the court relied on two Supreme Court cases, Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) and Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984). Both concerned public-employee grievances.”

    In the cited and referenced SCOTUS statement and decision from the 1984 Minnesota case (above), SCOTUS held that:

    **”[N]othing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”**

    This SCOTUS statement is referenced and cited in this article:

    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/petition/news.aspx?id=18636

    that is written by fellow attorney, Julie P. Samuels, that is excerpted for you to read below:

    “YOU CAN PETITION, BUT GOVERNMENT NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY”

    By Julie P. Samuels
    Special to the First Amendment Center Online

    06.06.07

    Excerpt:

    “The right to petition under the First Amendment does not impose an obligation on the federal government to respond to citizens, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled.

    In We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, decided May 8, the court relied on two Supreme Court cases, Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) and Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984). Both concerned public-employee grievances.

    In the Minnesota case, the high court held that “[N]othing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”

    The justices added that the First Amendment does not confer on individuals a “constitutional right as members of the public to a governmental audience for their policy views.”

    We the People Foundation, a nonprofit, liberal advocacy organization, and numerous individuals filed a suit in 2004 against the federal government, charging that the president, attorney general, treasury secretary, Internal Revenue Service commissioner and Congress did not properly respond to the plaintiffs’ petitions of grievance. The plaintiffs had submitted four petitions in November 2002 to each member of Congress on subjects such as war powers, privacy issues, the Federal Reserve System and the tax code. The plaintiffs also petitioned the executive branch.

    In response to their petitions, We the People and the individual plaintiffs received nothing: “total silence and a lack of acknowledgement,” according to their complaint. In protest, some of the individual plaintiffs stopped paying their taxes.”

    Read More Here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/petition/news.aspx?id=18636

    Leo would you care to comment about and state what your legal understanding and legal opinion is about the 1984 Supreme Court decision and statement/holding is as follows:

    “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”

    That came from this citation: “We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States, decided May 8, the court relied on two Supreme Court cases, Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979) and Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984).”

    That came from this cited and referenced article here:

    ww.firstamendmentcenter.com/petition/news.aspx?id=18636

    In other simple words Leo, what do you think of the SCOTUS’ 1984 statement/holding between here: ** “Nothing in the First Amendment …** I just want to know what your opinion is of this statement and holding. Thank you!

    ed. I commented previously here. But let me expand on that for you, since you asked the question first. I agree with Stevens on this one. A right to a grievance is nothing if there is no reciprocal obligation to respond. The Constitution says that we are entitled to petition the Government for a “redress of grievances”… I think that clearly means we are entitled to a response. Our right to simply petition must be part of our right to freedom of speech, whereas this is a separate enumerated right and therefore it must give us something besides the ability to speak, otherwise it’s superfluous. If the right to petition for a redress of grievances does nothing more than allow us freedom of speech (to the Government), then it most definitely is superfluous. As Justice Marshal stated in Marbury v. Madison, no provision of the Constitution may render any other provision meaningless. The Supreme Court’s holding that the right to petition does not call for a right to have a response renders the right to petition clause as superfluous to the freedom of speech clause. In their view, the rights granted therefore appear to be exactly the same… the right to speak. If all the redress of grievances clause does it allow us to speak to the Government… then it gives us nothing more than the prior clause regarding freedom of speech. I do not think the Supreme Court’s holding is proper and it ought to be overturned.

    I have not seen this argument stated elsewhere. Is it new? If anyone can address whether this is a new argument on this issue, please do so. Your question prompted the response at this very moment. I must now update the other response to link back here. – Leo

  83. Two questions on Chester Arthur. Was dual citizenship/allegiance recognized in the nineteenth century?

    Ed. Yes. – Leo

    If so, consider the following:

    Chester Arthur was considered a British subject at birth by the Crown even if born to a father naturalized according to the process prescribed by Congress. So *no matter what his father’s status at his birth*, couldn’t Chester have chosen to act as a British subject at any time during his life?

    ed. I suppose. – Leo

    Wouldn’t Chester Arthur have had to personally renounce allegiance to the Crown to be solely a US citizen no matter when William Arthur formally naturalized?

    ed. For POTUS eligibility, the only time that matters is his status “at birth”, which was clearly British and “perhaps or perhaps not” a US citizen at birth, since WKA had not been written by his own appointed Justice Gray until 1898. – Leo

    Sons of natural born British subjects like William Arthur were automatically considered subjects without the individual’s consent. Grandsons were not automatically considered subjects, but could declare allegiance to the Crown and become a subject. Until the Convention of 1870, an act of Parliament was required to allow a subject to expatriate.

  84. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    The case about the right to be heard and represented for redress of wrongs, was reversed.

  85. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Quoting Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
    Page 88 U. S. 168
    parents.”

    Paraphrasing, The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens, so we look somewhere else. Using language familiar to the framers of the Constitution, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The natives were born of at least one citizen parent, and the natural-born citizens were born of two citizen parents.
    Some people go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction to parents who are permanent resident aliens legally domiciled in the US.

    ed. No. “Natives” = nbc. “Native born” or “Native citizen” means something different…more to come on this soon. – Leo

  86. “The case about the right to be heard and represented for redress of wrongs, was reversed.”
    ——————————

    A cite for that reversal would be helpful, Borderraven?

  87. Leo, thank you for your exhaustive and extensive work. Just a quick question…what would happen if a few (several) state attorney generals refused to place o’bama on their ballots, claiming ineligibility? Would that not force the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on this?

    ed. It probably would. – Leo

  88. Common sense should define what a natural born citizen is. Common sense would confirm both of a child’s parents must be American citizens.

    Otherwise, being born in the US would only allow the child to be a native born citizen.

  89. borderraven Says:

    1855
    – Act XXII of Congress February 10, naturalization.

    Act XXII of the US Congress on February 10, 1955

    1874
    – Minor v Happersett set precedent of child born to two US citizens is a natural born citizen.

    1898
    – USA v Wong Kim Ark (erroneously) set precedent a child born in the US to legal permanent resident aliens legally domiciled in USA, is a US citizen.

    1939
    – Perkins v Elg affirmed precedent of child born in USA to two US Citizens is a natural born citizen.

  90. From your comment that at one point you had a backlog of 500 comments to review and multiple comments that you have more to do than review comments, it is my conclusion that you need to delegate part of your work load. You have a number of comments that show competence sufficient to be useful helpers, if they will.
    To continue your work in law research is your first priority. Reviewing comments and answering many is secondary and is interfering with your primary work. Delegate … Delegate … Delegate …

  91. If you check the ‘old rules & laws of Inheritance’ back when the Constitution is written–it becomes very simple to see-!#1–You have a Legally Married man & wife–
    #2–The Legal Husband is a U.S. Citizen–
    #3–The Legal Wife is also a U.S. Citizen–
    #4–Any Legal Sons or Daughters are Natural-Born Heirs
    of this married Couple & their children are Legal Heirs
    to any physical belongings or Property, which their
    parents may own-!
    #5–Both, the Husband & Wife have U.S. Citizenship Rights,
    Because both have these Rights–they wish for their
    “Legally Natural-Born Heirs to Inherit these Rights from
    Them–in the same Rights that the married Couple had

  92. In the above posting–these Children were born within U.S.
    Lands as Native-born–but they are also Natural-Born
    Citizens & are not ‘Adopted’ foreign-born, nor Naturalized
    (Federal Adopted) persons. Since both parents are Citizens
    & the children were born on U.S. Land–There isn’t any
    Questions about them being eligible as Natural-Born kids
    to be ‘certified-as eligible’ for any political-office, including that as President-! Substitute the word of Heir–in the place of Citizen–they received also full Political Power rights!

  93. davidfarrar Says:

    Was the Gey Court trying to tell us something? The Gey Court, it is my understanding in Wong, went to extraordinary lengths to see Wong’s parents as “domiciled, permanent residents and local business owners; in other words: “Citizens.” And if the law DID NOT ALLOW Wong’s parents to become naturalized citizens, they would have been, and in all respects were Citizens. Then these are the only kind of “alien” parents who can gain 14th Amendment citizenship of their offspring born within the jurisdiction.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  94. davidfarrar Says:

    Leo,

    I thought at one earlier time that a “native citizen” was a 14th Amendment citizen. But I now believe CJ Waite was correct when he stated that “native born” were natural born. In fact, I am quickly getting to a point where I don’t believe anyone can obtain citizen at birth except natives or natural born Citizens according to Wong and Minor.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  95. davidfarrar Says:

    Correction: I don’t believe anyone can obtain US citizen at birth except from Citizen parents, according to Wong and Minor.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  96. davidfarrar Says:

    Just an update on my intention of filing a challenge to placing Barack Obama name on the ballot of Georgia using O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications.

    I had a telephone call today with Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp’s General Counsel Vincent Russo. He explained to me that even though O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (b) states that “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate”, O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (a) states: “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the ‘state executive committee’ …which pretty much excludes presidential candidates since they are qualified through their national party’s executive committee.

    I knew this was too easy.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  97. Good work.

  98. That’s not a definition of NBC by any stretch. It is a sufficient and not a necessary condition for citizenship. Basic logic my dude.

    ed. I don’t know what part of “these are natives or natural-born citizens” you don’t understand. Basic English dude. – Leo

  99. davidfarrar Says:

    Of course, I am going to file a challenge to Obama being placed on the Georgia ballot in any case. All they can do us overrule my challenge. If they overrule my challenge due to standing, I will appeal to the state Supreme Curt, where this issue properly resides anyway — if I can?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    ps: It may be different in each state, but the deadline to place your name as a “Presidential Elector” on the “primary” ballot is fast approaching. In my state it is the 3rd week of December, THIS December, 2011.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  100. Water cooler stuff: Isn’t it illegal to solicit money for a political office that you are not qualified to hold? Because Obama is not eligible for the Office he is seeking, isn’t he breaking the law by accepting money for an office that he is not eligible to hold?

  101. The Court’s language that you quote above states a sufficient condition for NBC and not a definition. It expressly limits it’s holding so that it does not preclude other defintions/other grounds sufficient for finding a person a NBC.

    [ed. The Court separated those born of citizen parents into one class and those born without regard to the citizenship of their parents into another… the first class was deemed to be citizens. the second class was deemed to have doubts attached to their citizenship. The Court did not need to resolve those doubts in Minor… BECAUSE the first class were identified as natural born citizens. The second class, had they been deemed nbc, would have also not required the 14th Amendment. The name “natural-born citizens” was given by the court to the first class… but the second class, although they might be citizens, were not in the nbc class. Two classes… both might be citizens as the court noted, but only one class was for sure and that class was given the name “natural-born citizens” by the Court. Had the second class also been deemed nbc, there would NEVER have been a need for the 14th Amendment to have been construed in Wong Kim Ark. If WKA was nbc, the Court would not have needed the 14th Amendment to justify his citizenship just as the Court asserted that Minor did not need the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, as the Court noted in Minor, the 14th Amendment did not add any new privileges or immunities:

    “The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 171

    POTUS eligibility is a privilege of every natural born citizen of the US. If a person was not eligible to be POTUS before the 14th Amendment, he will never be eligible since, as the Court noted, the Amendment did not add any new privileges. The class (and “class” is the exact word used by the court) which was not born in the US to citizen parents had a citizenship status that was in doubt even after adoption of the 14th Amendment. Those “citizenship” doubts were, to a certain degree erased by the Wong Kim Ark opinion (for only those born in the US to parents legally and permanently domiciled here).

    The court noted that the first class, those born of citizen parents in the US were “natives or natural-born citizens”… They had the privilege of being POTUS before the 14th Amendment. The other class required the 14th Amendment to erase doubt as to their citizenship… but the Court held in Minor that the Amendment did not create any new privileges or immunities. So, as to nbc status and POTUS eligibility, the 14th Amendment changes nothing. And furthermore, had the Amendment intended to deem all persons born in the US as POTUS eligible, then the words “natural born” would have been added to the Amendment. – Leo]

  102. I just hit upon this realization as I was answering a question about the grandfather clause. . .

    ———-
    It would be helpful if you and Dan would read the Constitution, Scott. The founding fathers knew that none would be natural born so none would be eligible to be the POTUS under the Constitution; therefore they added a grandfather clause as follows:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CO0NSTITUTION, shall be. . .”

    Note that even in the Constitution they differentiated between a ‘natural born citizen’ and a ‘citizen’. They are NOT the same thing. Also note that ‘naturalized citizen’ was addressed in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 to wit:

    “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and. . .” so they were not simply distinguishing between ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘naturalized citizen’, ***they were making a distinction between themselves, ‘citizens’, and ‘natural born citizens’***.
    ———–

    That might not be a revelation to y’all but it sure was to me!

  103. Leo,

    “BECAUSE the first class were identified as natural born citizens”…you said.

    But as I understand this statement, it says: BECAUSE the first class were identified as citizens , because ‘citizens’ is all the Minor Court required — and you will be the first to admit: this Court wasn’t in the habit of overextending its judicial reach.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    [ed. They didn’t over extend their reach. They needed to separate those of the first class from those of the second so they could avoid the 14th amendment and not over extend their reach. They construed A2 S1 and that’s why they decided Minor didn’t need the 14th cause she was nbc and the second class was not. The second class were not A2 S1 citzens. A2 S1 was the basis for that determination. Look, the court labeled this class nbc and not the other… the court noted one class was definitely citizens, and the other class might be citizens or might not. The first class they stated were nbc. The second class were not in the first class and the 14th Amendment added no new privileges or immunities… the Court stated that it didnt add any new privileges. If the second class weren’t nbc before the 14th then the 14th didnt add that privilege of POTUS eligibility. If the second class was POTUS eligible before the 14th then they wouldnt have need the 14th… but they did. Slam dunk = second class not nbc. Done and dusted. That’s why Justia sabotaged 25 case whic cite Minor. – Leo]

  104. Leo,

    Thanks you for your response, but I am afraid I didn’t express my point of view clearly.

    The only point the Minor court was concerned with was establishing “citizenship”. True, they used A2S1 to do this, but since this case didn’t involved Mrs. Minor qualifying for the presidency, establishing her “citizenship” was the only goal the Minor court had in this regard. As a consequence, the court’s nbC statement is merely a part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory, dicta.

    [ed. That the US Supreme Court in Minor was not directly deciding who could be President makes no difference here. The Court defined nbc for a different purpose… but they did define it. The Court used A2S1 for the basis of determining whether Minor was a citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. They defined her class of citizens by construing A2 S1 and in doing so they were able to avoid the 14th Amendment… they separated all citizens into two classes, those born with citizen parents in one class and everyone else in another… the first class they determined derived their citizenship according to A2 S1, and they defined that class as natural-born citizens. Had Minor not been a natural-born citizen, the Court would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment as it did with Wong Kim Ark. The Court also noted that the 14th Amendment did not add any new privileges or immunities to anyone. Therefore, if one wasn’t POTUS eligible prior to adoption of the 14th Amendment, then one could never be POTUS eligible because the Court in Minor held that the amendment did not add any new privileges. The others might be citizens, but they need the 14th since they were not in the class defined by Minor as nbc. If Wong Kim Ark had been nbc like Minor, the Court would not have reached for the 14th Amendment to find him a citizen.

    Now that we have conclusively established that Minor was a citizenship case as much as it was a voting rights case, and that it was not overruled at all by the 19th Amendment, the Obama supporters are now deprived of those arguments and so they are finally acknowledging that the Court did define nbc but that it was dicta and not precedent. But since the Court relied on A2 S1 they needed to define those who were nbc… which they did clearly.

    In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

    “Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

    How is that for some freaky synchronicity, Minor v. Happersett supported more than 100 years later by Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States. Nice coincidence. Their definition of A2 S1 was an independent ground for determining Minor was a citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Hence, it’s precedent.

    – Leo]

    Again, Leo, I am not trying to pull your chain here — not intentionally anyway — if I have misread your response; I apologize. I, as a layman, am simply trying to insure I am on solid legal ground here because, like you — but certainly not to your extent –I am facing rather heated responses over this issue on the blogs at participate on.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    [ed. The Supreme Court may one day overrule either Wong Kim Ark and/or Minor… that’s their prerogative. But as the Justia sabotage makes perfectly clear, somebody was worried about Minor before I was and that somebody was busy scrubbing the hell out 25 cases. Somebody with a sharp understanding of the Constitution was very worried and rightly so. The scrubbing has done more for my credibility than anything I have ever written or said. Justia was very messed up… as you will see when Mario Apuzzo publishes his analysis of the multiple instances of scrubbing in Wong Kim Ark, the scrubbing included not just erasure of the case name, and false numerical citations, it includes whole sentences of text erased (as was done in Pope v. Williams too). That subversive activity is very telling. The Supreme Court may be heard on this eventually… and they can do what they like.

    But seriously folks, If Obama doesn’t declare martial law or suspend the election… this will all fade away without resolution. And since the conditions necessary for it to be adjudicated are virtually nuclear, I hope it does fade away. If Obama doesn’t want this issue in the Courts, all he has to do is not suspend the elections or declare martial law. If he just leaves office quietly when voted out in 2012 or after two terms in 2016 if he wins in ’12, he will never have to face the issue in Court. Simple… otherwise… it’s going to SCOTUS. That’s my prediction. No martial law and not suspension of elections… he probably doesn’t have to worry about it. Whoever did the scrubbing at Justia though… they may be in legal jeopardy should there ever be a genuine investigation. – Leo]

  105. The problem is, we have Marco (Marquito) Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada, and Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, all waiting in the wings to help secure the Hispanic vote for the Republicans. They are not going to let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  106. By the way, I ran across a very good defense of an nbC the other day and I thought I’d share it here:

    Naturalization at birth by positive law, act of congress or constitutional amendment is not the same as inheriting one’s
    citizenship naturally from one’s parent. The reason Barack Obama was born a British subject as well as a US citizen at birth is because his father was one. He inherited the condition from has father “naturally”. If you have a child abroad, it will inherit US citizenship from you “naturally”, despite the foreign jurisdiction you may happen to find yourself in.

    Just as a child is born into a family via a person who marries into the family legally, Obama, Jindal and Rubio were legally born citizens, but they were not “naturally” born citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  107. Matt Simon Says:

    Any input on this scenario? Feel free to throw your two cents in.

    My Father is a Natural-Born Citizen, and my Mother (at the time of my birth in San Francisco) was a Permanent Resident, originally from Guatemala. She came here LEGALLY at the age of 18. I was never eligible to get Dual Citizenship to both the U.S. and Guatemala.

    The reason I mention the dual-citizenship issue is because 1.) I was born on U.S. soil, and 2.) I was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Laws only. I never had any legal claim of Citizenship to Guatemala, allegiance to, or under any sort of jurisdiction to Guatemala. I was totally under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and my total allegiance has always been to the U.S.

    My Mother eventually relinquished her Guatemalan Citizenship and became U.S. Citizen after I became an adult. At the time of my birth in 1970, she was living and working here permanently as a LEGAL U.S. Resident, married to my Father, who is a Natural-Born Citizen.

    Okay, so all that being said, am I a Natural-Born Citizen? Is it possible that I am classified as something else? I have read elsewhere that I would be considered a “Native-Born Citizen” because only one of my parents was a U.S. Citizen at the time of my birth. I’m not sure where the “native-born” definition would be found to contrast with the “natural-born” definition. Even though I have no aspirations at all to run for POTUS, would an individual like myself even be considered “eligible” to hold that office???

    By the way, I have a legitimate birth certificate, unlike some people. :)

    [ed. You are not eligible according to US Supreme Court precedent of Minor v Happersett. – Leo]

  108. Matt Simon Says:

    The BIGGER question that I have asked is not so much if I am eligible to be POTUS. I’m asking more about how I should consider myself or someone with my similar circumstances.

    For someone who has done so much extensive research on this subject matter, I would like to know how I am supposed to classify myself. I am in NO way, shape, or form to be considered a “naturalized citizen”. I know I don’t fall into that category….that’s a no-brainer.

    What type of citizen would you call me if I’m not a Naturalized or Natural-Born Citizen ? Do you have any references to support whatever answer you are about to give me?

    [ed. You are a native-born citizen according to the 14th Amendment, not a natural-born citizen under A2 S1.- Leo]

  109. Matt Simon Says:

    I guess I’ll thoroughly brush-up on my 14th Amendment to see how it applies to me. I did, and it does not use the word “native”, but I understand where you are coming from.

    [ed. It doesn’t use the words “natural born” either. You asked how to describe your citizenship. I said you were a native-born citizen under the 14th Amendment, as opposed to a naturalized citizen under the 14th Amendment.- Leo]

    It is an interesting Blog that you have here. I have seen some of your other articles, and I notice that too often the discussions of Citizenship classification is either if someone has both parents as U.S. Citizens, or if neither their parents are U.S. Citizens, like in Marco Rubio’s case.

    I understand that had my Mother been a naturalized U.S. Citizen at the time of my birth, then I would undoubtedly be considered “Natural-Born”. You have touched upon elsewhere the issue of allegiance, and to me, as a Native-Born that you say I am, I have never been under the jurisdiction, allegiance, or any obligation to the country of Guatemala. It is a situation which is not that uncommon for millions of other Americans that were born here of at least 1 Natural-Born Citizen and who have had allegiance only for America. I can only wonder if the SCOTUS will ever definitely address this once and for all, especially in terms of the Natural-Born definition.

    [ed. I understand the question and the issue of allegiance. But according to the definition in Minor, you are not eligible. – Leo]

  110. Note that this subsequent definition (1875) of both “native” and “natural-born” as the same also makes the 14th Amendment (1868) apply only to the US-born children of slaves or other stateless persons as being “natives” by birth…but not to the children of ‘aliens or foreigners’ born in-country to aliens (illegal or not) or foreigners.
    Supression of publication of this binding prededent from Justia.com was clearly intended not only to hide Obama’s ineligibility, but to also make the case for “anchor babies” seem valid, when it’s not!
    This also explains why in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), even though the court ruled his U.S. citizenship as valid based on his U.S. birth and parental permanent residence (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), the government denied him re-entry after his parents returned to China. (i.e., His parents reverted to being ‘aliens or foreigners’, making him no longer a “native”.)

    [ed. He was never a “native”, he was simply born here. Native, as defined by the court in Minor, is born in the country of citizen parents.- Leo]

  111. Leo,

    The Wong court did not bestow citizenship purely on jus soli grounds, as many suppose. The Wong court took judicial notice that Wong’s parents were domiciled within the jurisdiction (over five years), had no intention of ever leaving the jurisdiction, and were legally prohibited from naturalizing. In other words: the Wong court recognized Wong’s parents as naturalized citizens, and thus awarded Ark his citizenship.

    [ed. Ark’s parents could not naturalize because of a treaty with China. The Court factored in that as well, as you point out, that the parents were permanently domiciled here, and that they were engaged in business here with no intention of ever returning to China… those facts indicate the holding should be limited to persons with similar facts. This is why Scalia noted that Hamdi was a “presumed citizen” even though he was born in the US. Cindy Simpson’s recent American Thinker articlem “Citizenship Jeopardy” has more on that issue. Wong Kim Ark applies some kind of presumed naturalization upon the parents, but obviously they were not naturalized… but the Court noted these facts in the holding and they must therefore restrict the holding. And one day the Supreme Court must define in more clear terms the boundaries of 14th Amendment citizenship. It’s just a mess that needs to be cleaned up.- Leo]

    Again, the Wong court recognized a hitherto unrecognized legal precedent (in my view) set in the Minor Court when that court stated “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. The legal precedent established here is that citizenship by birth can only be obtained by a person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  112. Ref:”ed. … Makes me wonder about martial law… “I didn’t want to stay as President, but due to the emergency before us, I am called to duty to remain President indefinitely.” It’s just something floating around my consciousness at the moment. – Leo ”

    Exactly my thoughts on January 21, 2009

    [ed. IMHO martial law and/or suspension of elections are the only conditions under which the nbc issue will ever be heard in open court before SCOTUS or perhaps the DC District Court via Quo Warranto. I pray that never happens. I don’t want it adjudicated that badly. – Leo]

  113. Leo,

    Quick, look at this website….http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

    •Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn’t have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.”

    I hope this says: person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  114. Leo,

    I have been trying to track down Mitt Romney’s nbC status when I ran across a little ditty in Forbes back in April, 2011, that seems to suggest that as of 1934 Congress change the law so that citizenship automatically passed through one’s mother as well.

    My question is: Is there anything in this legislation that would affect the Obama’s case in terms of his US citizenship?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    [ed. Only if he weren’t born in US. – leo]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: