THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY.

**RED ALERT UPDATE**

UPDATED 11:16 AMJustia.com is censoring references to US Supreme Court cases which cite Minor v. Happersett as precedent for the citizenship issue.  I have briefed this issue in full in my comments to this report.  I have include links and screenshots.  Please archive the information and images before Justia.com can fix it.

_______________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.  Below, I will make this crystal clear with stealth to reduce the complexities of the issue into a refined exposition and mantra the average citizen will easily comprehend.

NATURAL BORN CLARITY

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen.  Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1.  The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens.  They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.  (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)

The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt.  Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved.  The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.

Such avoidance and restraint were called for.  In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question.  Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1.

Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark.  In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”.  In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment.  And here lies the rub of clarity:

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

That statement is a perfectly true mantra.  Read it again… and again, until it sinks in.  Then share the mantra.  There is no antidote for it.  There is never an antidote for truth.

THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED OR REPEALED.

Minor and Wong Kim Ark were both decided years after the 14th Amendment had been adopted.  Minor avoided construing the 14th Amendment, while Wong Kim Ark required it.  Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen under Article 2 Section 1, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him citizenship.

The 14th Amendment did not repeal or amend Article 2 Section 1 (but it did repeal part of Article 1 Section 2).  Furthermore, while other parts of Article 2 Section 1 have been amended (by the 12th and 25th Amendments), the natural-born citizen clause has never been amended.

The official US Constitution is hosted at archive.gov where it highlights those sections of the Constitution which have been repealed or modified.  The archive.gov site states:

“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form.  Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded.”

Go to the link provided for the official Constitution and you will see that the natural-born citizen clause is not hyperlinked because it has not been amended or superseded.

Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1.  If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment.

In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the US District Attorney argued that Ark was not a citizen because his parents were aliens.  Ark was a person from the other “class” discussed in Minor whose citizenship was in doubt.  Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen, his citizenship could not be determined by Article 2 Section 1.  Therefore,  the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant Wong Kim Ark US citizenship.

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

The Court determined Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, but in doing so the Court did not expand the “class” of persons who were eligible to be President.  This is because the Court specified clearly that it was only construing the 14th Amendment, not Article 2 Section 1.  Article 2 Section 1 and the 14th Amendment are mutually exclusive sections of the US Constitution.

ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.

The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor is not common law, natural law, or international law.  Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor.  And Vattel does not make US law.  The Court’s holding in Minor is national law.  It is United States law.

Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law.  Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point.  It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.

The other sources are not necessary.  Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor.  There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.

On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:

“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism.  I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s.  I don’t enforce natural law.  I suppose God enforces natural law.  I enforce United States law.  United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ”   (Emphasis added.)

Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:

“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”  

Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources.  We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens.  Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition.  Neither are eligible to be President.

While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor.  To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.

Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible.  I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility.  I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people.  And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

71 Responses to “THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY.”

  1. “And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for themselves than they did for the nation.”

    Actually, both of the candidates put their own egos ahead of the nation, as have all of the courts before which this issue has been brought, as has the Supreme Court in refusing to hear it, and as has Congress, in refusing to give it the scrutiny and investigation it both deserves and requires. I am disgusted. One ray of light, however: apparently one Congressman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), is willing to keep an open mind about it, according to a memo he sent to Dean Haskins – who by the way has a great video presentation of this explanation on YouTube. In his video, he makes the point that the officials who have the power and the duty to prosecute this are scared of the repercussions, and that’s why they steadfastly refuse to do nothing, hoping that the next election will make it all go away. Dreaming fools is what they are.

  2. Brilliant. Simply BRILLIANT. This shall be shared everywhere! Thank you, Leo!

  3. Truth is a crucifix branded into the forehead of the devil. Truth is permanent. There is no escape from truth.

  4. Dear Leo,

    Fabulous work indeed: Your analysis of Minor has a sound legal basis and you make it crystal clear even for us non-lawyers. No small task.

    Now I know you touched on my next question in one of your recent comments, but I am hoping you might elaborate. Why has your exceptional insight into Minor so eluded (you and) others for so long? Over the years I have had my personal “ah-Ha!” moments when some long held “truth” is seen anew, even when it’s there amongst my passionate pursuit of the time; hence I know this is difficult to define. Nevertheless, I feel your explanation will aid in my discussions as to The Why the truth within Minor has languished unknown (or ignored) by so many for so long.

    Also, doesn’t the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins v. Elg add a huge exclamation to your insight on Minor? Wouldn’t it help strengthen your position if you were to cite it here? Or did Elg not mention the Minor ruling/perspective?

    Again, it continues to be an honor to be your student since October 2008. Thank you!! I look forward to your other lessons yet to come.

    Respectfully,
    Robare

    ed. When Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark failed to state that he was citing the dissent from Dred Scott… a big red flag went up. Another big red flag went up when I noticed that Gray wrongfully attributed Justice Waite’s analysis of the citizenship issue in Minor to a construction of the 14th Amendment, but Waite construed Article 2 Section 1 to define Minor’s citizenship, not the 14th Amendment. That Gray was trying to obscure that fact made me very suspicious and then the light just went on. It was a very big AHA moment for me. Gray’s obfuscation triggered my BS detector and then I realized that he was blowing smoke on precedent from Minor. You have to recall that Chester Arthur became President not long after Minor was decided… and he would have known that the Minor decision held him ineligible. He then goes on to obscure his parental heritage via lies, especially to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper. Gray is then appointed by Arthur. This requires us to scrutinize every word written by Gray. – Leo

  5. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    BRAVO!

    In 2008 I kept thinking about MLK Jr’s “I have a dream” and how he was being ignored by those who strongly desired a black man as president. At first I mourned the loss of the Republic, but later I laughed at those who caused the loss. Because when they finally have an epiphany, and realize the blood it will cost to regain the Republic it will be their children who will fight the war.

  6. Publius Says:

    Thanks once again, Leo, for this essential ammunition.

    Please keep up the great work.

    Publius

  7. Great job, Leo.

    If Obama had been born a natural born Citizen of the United States, under Article II Section 1, then he never would have needed the 14th Amendment to claim U.S. citizenship.

    … And yet he did claim his citizenship was based on the 14th Amendment!

    The Obama campaign initially claimed Obama:
    “became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”:

    The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

    Lie:
    Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

    Truth:
    Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment

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

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

    But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

    The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

    Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    Why did the Obama campaign take a “14th Amendment” defense, but then scrub all references to the 14th Amendment?

    Perhaps because they realized that claiming “Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment” OUTED HIM AS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

    ed. Their scrubbing is very telling. At the very least, you have to take notice that so called “Factcheck” seems to change their facts quite a bit. – Leo

    I quote the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett:

    “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.”

    Someone who is a “natural born citizen” does not need the 14th amendment to claim U.S. citizenship.

    The only reason for the Obama campaign to claim that “Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment” is because he was not, and is not, a natural born citizen.

  8. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Typo -

    “as a result of neither having more concern for themselves than they did for the nation”.

    I think you meant to delete ‘neither’ or replace ‘neither’ with ‘both of them’.

    ed. Thanks, I fixed it. – Leo

  9. Bill Cutting Says:

    Leo

    Have you read (USC) Boyd v Nebraska?
    Weren’t citizens of US Territories that became States considered on the same footing as NBC once they joined the Union?

    Clearly they were not Naturalized Citizens.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html

    (In Desbois’ Case, 2 Martin 185, decided in 1812, one Desbois, of French birth, applied for a license to practice as a counselor and attorney at law in the superior courts of Louisiana, and by one of the rules of the court the applicant could not be admitted unless he was a citizen of the United States. Desbois conceded that he had no claim to citizenship by birth nor by naturalization under the acts of Congress to establish a uniform rule on that subject, but he contended that there was a third mode of acquiring citizenship of the United States — namely the admission into the union of a state of which he was a citizen.)

    ed. **!RED ALERT!**

    It appears “Justia.com US SUPREME COURT CENTER” is now censoring various references to Minor v. Happersett. They are removing the case name “Minor v. Happersett” from other cases which quote Minor…AS TO THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE.

    For example, in Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) we see the US Supreme Court, in a case on citizenship, quoting Justice Waite in Minor directly as precedent for his holding regarding US citizenship:


    “As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in @ 88 U. S. 167:

    ‘Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.’ “


    Notice how Justia has removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from the citation in the case. They have actually re-written a Supreme Court case by leaving the case name out. I uploaded a current screenshot of the Justia Page for the BOYD case here. This is Orwellian in the extreme.

    Now look at the same exact passage from the same exact case, but from a different link at the Find Law site:


    “As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice WAITE in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167: ‘Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen,-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.’”


    Here is the case hosted by the Open Juror site, http://openjurist.org/143/us/135/boyd-v-state-of-nebraska-thayer It also has the correct citation.

    In Boyd, the Court lists another case which refers to Waite, but this one is properly cited to include the case name, whereas the case name is omitted from the citation pointing to Minor :


    “In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 549, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, delivering the opinion of the Court, said:

    ‘Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.’

    This 1892 US Supreme Court Case directly relies upon, and cites as precedent, the citizenship issues discussed by Chief Justice Waite in Minor. Such reliance is further Supreme Court proof that Minor is precedent. Justia appears to be attempting to rewrite history. I have screengrabbed this garbage and so should you. This is wrong, America. They are trying to wipe Minor off the books in order to protect Obama.

    The Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive has a snapshot of the Justia page for Boyd from Feb. 19, 2008 which contains the full reference to Minor v. Happersett. And all prior snapshots at the Way Back Machine prior to Feb. 19, 2008 have the same correct reference. But then on October 2, 2008 the Justia page was edited to remove the reference to Minor v. Happersett.

    So here we see evidence that the Obama ineligibility support squad was way out in front of us on this issue.

    Here is a screenshot of the Way Back Machine’s snapshot of the Justia page for Boyd with the full citation from Feb. 19. 2008.

    Here is a screenshot of the Way Back Machine’s snapshot of the Justia page for Boyd with the hatched job edit from October 2, 2008.

    This is now the second example I have seen in the last 24 hours where Justia is scratching out the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, and simply leaving a link. There is another, yet more egregious instance which I picked up on last night. Before I bring that to your attention, here is the complete passage – not deceptively edited in any way – from POPE v. WILLIAMS, 193 U.S. 621 (1904), hosted by Find Law where Justice Waite and Minor v. Happersett are mentioned as to citizenship issues:

    The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution. The state might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Miner v. Happersett, 21 Wall, 162, 22 L. ed. 627, such persons were allowed to vote in several of the [193 U.S. 621, 633] states upon having declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some states permit women to vote; others refuse them that privilege. A state, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the Federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the states alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the Federal Constitution, already stated; although it may be observed that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not derived exclusively from the state law. See Fed. Const. art. 1, 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 , 45 L. ed. 84, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17. But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the state statute. Id., Id. See also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U.S. 487, 491 , 46 S. L. ed. 1005, 1007, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 783. In this case no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a Federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.

    Now look at the same exact passage from Justia which edits out the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” and it edits out more than half of the damn paragraph including that part which mentions Chief Justice Waite’s statements concerning citizenship from Minor:


    The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.

    What the hell is going on? Where did the rest of the paragraph go? Here is a link to the current screenshot of the Justia page for the Pope case. This is actually frightening. And it is more proof than anyone needs to see that Minor v. Happersett is scaring the crap out of Obama supporters. These are United States Supreme Court cases being edited/revised to protect Obama.

    The history of these revisions is also documented at the Way Back Machine which contains a snapshot of the Pope case at Justia dating from November 13, 2006… and guess what – that snapshot contains the entire passage. Then on July 25, 2008, the Way Back machine shows that Justia.com edited the page for the Pope case again.

    Justia.com edited their page for the Pope case to erase the references to MInor and citizenship. So, again, it appears that the Obama team were way ahead of us on this. This is direct evidence that somebody with a very sharp legal mind ordered these revisions at Justia… ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2008.

    Justia.com is the main resource on the web for all things related to United States Supreme Court holdings. And this may, in fact, be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It’s the cover up that tends to bring down tyrants more often than not. These revisions did not happen – just prior to the 2008 election – by accident.

    THIS MUST BE INVESTIGATED.

    Here is the screenshot for the November 13, 2006 snapshot of Justia’s Pope page at the Way Back Machine.

    Here is the screenshot for the July 25, 2008 hatchet job revision of the Pope page by Justia from the snapshot at the Way Back Machine.

    This is scary, but it’s also very encouraging. It confirms that Minor is precedent on the citizenship issue and that an attempt is being made to manage that precedent, marginalize it, erase it, ignore it and run cover for it. This is huge. This is traction.

    Look at the case at the Open Jurist cite, http://openjurist.org/193/us/621/william-pope-v That has the correct citation as well.

    Earlier in the Pope case, when Minor v. Happersett is cited as to only voting rights (the citizenship issue is not mentioned), the case name appears with the citation:

    “While the privilege to vote may not be abridged by a state on account of race, color and previous condition of servitude, the privilege is not given by the federal Constitution or by any of its amendments, nor is it a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.”

    The other reference to Minor in Pope is – as I discussed above – edited in the extreme. This makes it obvious that there is an attempt to sway public opinion, at all costs, from understanding that Minor v. Happersett is precedent on more than just voting rights. Minor is precedent as to the issue of US citizenship as enumerated in Article 2 Section 1 with regard to the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen.

    I have so much more to publish on this issue. But for now, chew on this gross deviation of truth being perpetrated on the nation this 4th of July weekend. This is not American. This is censoring our very own Supreme Court.

    Bill, the merits of your comment as to the Boyd case are very important. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that the making of citizens of those in the territories was an act of naturalization. Read it carefully and you will see this to be true. I will go into this in greater detail in a later post. It is a case ripe with importance and it deserves a proper focus.

    But right now I need people to document the fraud being perpetrated upon US Supreme Court cases mentioning Minor as to citizenship as reported by Justia.com. This is too important to ignore. It is a red alert moment for our nation. I have many comments coming in, but I need to leave this here for a while… I’m sure you understand, all of you. This needs attention. This comment right here, needs attention. I expect Justia will correct their deception soon after being notified they’ve been caught, so please spread this around as much as possible.

    Leo

  10. It’s a shame, actually a tragedy, that there isn’t anybody in a position of power to do anything with this information.

    Congress and the Courts will no doubt continue to evade this greatest of issues. They are simply too far invested into this fallacy now.

    I doubt Obama will win the next election. Meaning, his “precedent” will have been set paving the way for the next non-natural born Citizen. Just as Senator Durbin apparently wishes.

    Great work Leo. Thanks.

  11. Tony Stark Says:

    Nice summary, Leo, clear and straight to the point. However, there always will be those with true-believer syndrome, who continue to believe in Obama’s fairy tales about his past even when presented with all the facts that you have presented and continue to find all sorts of ways to twist your words and that of the Supreme Court’s decisions to support their agenda.

  12. Thank you. Briliant exposition. You probably would not be surprised to learn that many faculty members of left-leaning universities are following your arguments.

    I believe you reversed the orfer of “themselves” and “the nation” in your very last sentence. No need to pay your editors more! Your meaning is otherwise concisely conveyed.

  13. Won’t the healthcare law create alot of people with standing for QW, if they refuse to pay, and are fined?

  14. Thank you, again, Leo, for your tireless efforts in this matter. Many of us have been here from the beginning, have prayed for you when you attempted to file your case, gasped at the story you told about what happened when you did. We were at a great loss when you became discouraged and relieved when you came back fighting.

    You are a great American.

    Nothing could be clearer…

  15. Leo.
    I think you need to change the wording of your last sentence:

    “And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for themselves than they did for the nation.”

    ed. It was a typo… it’s fixed. Thanks. – Leo

  16. Excuse me, I should have asked if you would clarify the last sentence of your report for me.
    Thanks

  17. Mr. Donofrio,

    You have noted the level of discussion and the tendency of most to grasp at the extraneous. Some will persist in the arguments that have little or no focus in the law, it seems to be in the nature of our times (i.e. international law). I for one have always appreciated your maturity and balance with regard to a matter that appeared straightforward but for the layman still required the analysis of someone such as yourself. Great contrast on the key citizenship elements of the two national law precedents.Thanks.

  18. It seems to me that the next question is how do we get this clown out of office using this case.

    Since a court cannot remove him directly and to date, the courts have side-stepped the issue, it appears to me that the only avenue open is to challenge the constitutionality of congressional legislation he signed into law or an executive order.

    Obamacare would be a great one to use.

    Not eligible equals not constitutional.

  19. Mr. Donofrio,

    I think it bears mentioning that judicial affirmation is important factor in understanding our constitution (i.e. the defining of which class of person eligible for the presidency and relative citizenship with respect to US and the respective States). The former is obvious and defined in MvH; the latter, in my opinion, manipulated by the 1898 court for purposes perhaps nefarious. The 14th opened with a “declaratory” statement synonymous with what is found in the original document but closes with something new (US citizenship = state citizenship). Again, in my opinion, the 14th stipulated two classes of citizen in which there are natural born and those naturalized (i.e. through statute given the status and privilege of natural born). Your analysis concludes with the important point that all other cases after MvH do not change the impact and clarity of that opinion. Mine and whoever else’s opinion of the WKA ruling is irrelevant. The 1874 case is indeed the national law of this land regarding NbC.

  20. The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to “complete” the intent of what lay in the term “natural born citizen” as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution’s Article 2.1.5 clause, and should be cited as Original Intent and “in pari materia.”

    That in 1795, the naturalization neo-clarification of 1790, instructed us that “natural born citizens of the United States” were:
    1) only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child’s birth;
    2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other legience than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave (it seems to me).

    In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to “forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever.”
    This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever”. He was also to be “a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”

    In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to “support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever”.

    Just one year after the above-cited Act of 1795,
    in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
    we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context.
    @240
    “When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use.”
    @245
    “…This principle is recognized by the Constitution….”

    “The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
    The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

    “…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was … a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

  21. Charles H Irwin Says:

    I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the Scalia quote is a bit of pedantic hand waving that does nothing to strengthen your case.

    After all the very opinion from the Minor case that you build your case on contains the following words:

    ““The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law …”

    Scalia on the other hand says:

    “… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law”

    Aren’t these two in direct contradiction? Either the Supreme Court can resort to common law or it cannot. Right?

    I understand that YOUR case is built on precedent, and that this has greater legal standing than common law. But to dismiss belief in common law as “naive” seems arrogant and short sighted to me. After all doesn’t precedent have to come from somewhere?

  22. Andy Wolodkin Says:

    Leo,

    Perhaps you should lobby the keepers of the official Constitution to embolden A2S1 and reference Minor v. Happersat since it’s holding clearly states that though the Constitution did not define NBC, it was never in doubt what that definition was.

    Minor should be referenced in A2S1.

    Andy

  23. Again, I am in awe of the concise, brilliant clarity and logical progression through the mine field of legal interpretation you have lead us on. Leo, as a member of the laity I am forever in your debt as you continue to give my arguments against the legitimacy of this regime a rock on which to stand and cast my slings and arrows.
    I salute you sir.

  24. naturalborncitizen Says:

    ed. There is an argument I’ve been asked about which claims that the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett condoned Presidential eligibility for those born abroad to US citizen parents by the Court’s discussion of the “Act To Establish A Uniform Rule of Naturalization” in 1790, the nation’s first naturalization act. The contention is false.

    Justice Waite cited Article 2 Section 1, affirming the clear language that none but a natural-born citizen may be President. Waite pointed to that clause as well as the Naturalization clause empowering Congress as evidence that new citizens may be created by birth or naturalization. Clearly, persons who gain their citizenship from a naturalization statute are thereby NATURALIZED.

    At the time of their birth, naturalized persons under the Naturalization Act of 1790 were entitled to US citizenship BECAUSE they were simultaneously naturalized by the statute at the time of their birth.

    Hence, they are not natural born. They require a statute to grant them citizenship.

    see it here

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

    In 1795, Congress repealed the words “natural born” from that statute and those words never returned. So, in 1875 when Minor was decided, the current naturalization act did not contain the words “natural born”, which had been previously repealed in 1795. It simply made those born abroad “citizens”.

    Justice Waite also stated:


    “These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

    The key words here are, “in substance”. While the words, “natural born” were repealed in 1795, the following naturalization statutes granted “citizenship”, and “citizenship” is the “substance” of all naturalization acts of the US, not Presidential eligibility.

    That was the only time in our national history where a federal statute contained the words “natural born citizen”.

    On this issue, the current Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2 states:


    “c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

    d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    Even the Obama administration State Department recognizes that there is a big difference between statutory citizens and Constitutional citizens. Recognizing that difference is not a new concept created by those who understand Obama is not eligible.

    Also note that the Obama administration has altered other passages of the Foreign Affairs Manual, but not this one: see for example, my previous report, entitled: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION QUIETLY SCRUBBED THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL IN AUGUST 2009 TO EXPAND THE HOLDING OF WONG KIM ARK.

    Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution or to define any term therein by statute. This may only be done by an Amendment, and, as the official US Constitution indicates, the natural-born citizen clause has never been amended, modified or repealed.

    Justice Waite stated that citizens may be born, citing Article 2 Section 1 for that authority. Chief Justice Waite also noted that new citizens may be naturalized by federal statute. Persons, who at their birth, require a naturalization statute are not natural born, but they are “born citizens” due to their naturalization at birth. Therefore, while there are only two paths to citizenship, birth or naturalization… some persons who are not “natural-born citizens” are “born citizens” due to having received their citizenship by virtue of a statute such as the naturalization statute of 1790, 1795, etc.

    So, under the 1790 act, while those persons might be “considered as” natural born citizens, such consideration derives via statue, not from the Constitution. Hence, regardless of the statutory terminology, those persons are naturalized and therefore do not meet the qualifications to be President. Justice Waite did not say that naturalized persons were eligible to be President. He noted that the Constitution provided citizenship to natural-born citizens and to naturalized citizens, but in his opinion he states directly that only natural-born citizens may be President.

    This is a very important point we take from Minor v. Happersett, that some “born citizens” are not “natural born”.

    I have seen an even more ridiculous argument on this point where it is claimed, “Just because the statute states in the title that it is a naturalization statute doesn’t mean the title has any effect.”

    I don’t need to explain that one to you. It’s a classic example of Seussian hooplah, the native tongue of desperation. Seriously, folks, be prepared for all sorts of Seussian hooplah (a form of argument which makes absolutely no sense by entangling the reader in semantical physiognominious correlative conjunctifisionography) by the other side now that the fact of US Supreme Court precedent stating Obama (and McCain) are not eligible for POTUS has been clearly identifed.

    Justice Waite made it clear, by recognizing the naturalization statute – that even though citizens may only be born or naturalized, not all born citizens are natural born. Some born citizens, like those who received their citizenship from naturalization statutes, are not natural born.

    Naturalization is a process by which those who would not otherwise be US citizens, may become US citizens by an act of Congress.

    Leo

  25. Steve Langford Says:

    Very interesting, Leo!

    I had decided not to bother correcting your statement:

    “Neither are eligible to be President”

    by pointing out that the word “neither” carries with it the implied word “one” and is singular. That’s nitpicking, I know … so I was going to keep silent on it.

    But when you conclude by saying:

    “And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for themselves than they did for the nation”, I must point out that you have said exactly the opposite of what I believe you intended to say. In fact, I believe that BOTH had more concern for themselves than they did for our nation. Do you agree?

    Otherwise: Sincere thanks for your good work!

    -Steve-

  26. Leo,
    In Corsi book, he discussed McCain and his birth. He provided evidence, though research, that McCain was born in the American Hospital inside the Panama Canal Zone. The reason I bring this up, is not to justify McCain, but to ask a question how this relates legally, and to give the people of this blog the chance to hear your opinion again.

    McCain was born of a Military officer, regional commander of the Canal zone, and a citizen mother. He was born in the canal zone, which at the time was ‘rented US territory’ although Panama soil. He was clearly born under the jurisdiction of the United States, of two citizen parents, one of which was military officer/director/diplomat (Commander of the Canal Zone). The law of nations would suggest, that he had no claim to citizenship of Panama (father was military on foriegn soil-in a military and diplomatic role) in an area that was ‘rented’ and under the jurisdiction of the United States. To my knowledge, McCain has never claimed Panama citizenship or rights.

    When I expand this process, I considered Hong Kong, when it was ‘rented’ by the British, and if those persons born there with British Families, were Natural Born British Subjects. My non-legal opinion was that they were. The question is, if a country rents land for military purposes from another country, like Gitmo for instance in Cuba, people whom are born on that rented land of Citizen parents, to which country can they claim Citizenship?

    Pete

    ed. Birth on a US military base does not make one a US citizen… that is not US law and never has been. See the FAM. – Leo

  27. Leo,
    If I may, would you please add a reference to court cases and rulings you cite. In the above re Waite, e.g., simply insert (Supreme Court Chief Justice in Minor v. Happersett, 1875).

    I had to Google Waite to learn this, and have done likewise numerous other times in the cases you cite. I seriously doubt many others do so; hence they do not see it within its important context. Hey, we non-lawyers need some (lots) hand-holding. Thank you for considering this.
    One of your struggling students,
    Robare

  28. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    It’s the 4th of July weekend, so what? (pun intended)

    I’ll be invited to another 4 hour party where I’ll start a discussion on eligibility, but nobody cares what it means or appreciates the significance of what happened on January 20, 2009.

    The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire.

    Then, on September 17, 1787, some 11 years, 2 months after Declaration of Independence was adopted, the United States Constitution Adopted. On that date all present became the first US citizens, and those future presidents not yet natural born became eligible, all future presidents born after this date, must be a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Of the future presidents not yet natural born, their parents became the first US citizens, who would give birth to the natural born citizens.

    On January 20, 2009, the former United States of America, through a technicality, silently dissolved the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 and surrendered to British rule, under Barack Hussein Obama II.

  29. wyzwurd Says:

    Excellent article? Yes!
    Important Information? Yes!
    Matters to every American? Yes!
    Important for Law? Yes!
    Should courts or congress listen? Yes!
    Will courts or congress listen? No!
    Why? Because they’re effin’ morons.

    Being under the rule of morons is like being stuck in between two walls of concrete that are too high to climb over and moving at you slow enough that you have time to think of ways out but at the same time you realize there’s no way out. Just like the two walls, they’re not intelligent, they don’t care, and they’re controlled by other forces.

  30. Leo,

    When you state,

    “In 1795, Congress repealed the words “natural born” from that statute and those words never returned. So, in 1875 when Minor was decided, the current naturalization act did not contain the words “natural born”, which had been previously repealed in 1795. It simply made those born abroad “citizens”.

    Since McCain was “born abroad” in Panama of US citizen parents, he was “made a citizen” and, therefore, is not an NBC, ineligible to be POTUS. McCain’s ego beclouded his patriotism and love for his country. As you said long ago, McCain should have fallen on his sword and ended his campaign to be POTUS. In obama’s lust for the presidency is an agenda to fundamentally change America into an impotent marxist state. God have mercy on America!

  31. Notice how Justia has removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from the citation in the case. They have actually re-written a Supreme Court case by leaving the case name out… This is Orwellian in the extreme…

    This is scary, but it’s also very encouraging. It confirms that Minor is precedent on the citizenship issue and that an attempt is being made to manage that precedent, marginalize it, erase it, ignore it and run cover for it. This is huge. This is traction.

    Orwellian, indeed!

    It is absolutely amazing what they are doing to obfuscate the truth!

    But despite these attempts at obfuscation, the American poeple will know the truth, and the truth shall set us free!

  32. E Glenn harcsar Says:

    Hi Leo,
    Only from your research do I expand my interest in Chester Arthur, his early career as a citizenship expansionist, his advocacy of a third term for U Grant, his association as a stalwart with NYC boss Roscoe Conking and that his ascendency to the presidency
    came at action of man who favored him over Garfield.

    While right now you are rightly focused on simplifying and promoting the message, later when you write this all up in a book I hope you can explore the complexities of these characters that make up a history before it gets burned ( or justia scrubbed.)

    The link below to me is a helpful start.
    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAarthurC.htm

    It was a close election and James Garfield defeated Winfield S. Hancock, the Democratic Party candidate, by 4,449,053 votes to 4,442,030.Garfield attempted to select a Cabinet that would retain the unity of the Republican Party. However, Roscoe Conking, the leader of the Stalwart group, was unhappy with some of Garfield’s choices and refused to serve in his administration.

    On 2nd July, 1881, James Garfield was waiting for a train in Washington with Robert Lincoln, his Secretary of War, when Charles J. Guiteau, shot him in the back. A supporter of Roscoe Conking, Guiteau, surrendered to the police with the words: “I am a Stalwart. Chester Arthur is now the president of the United States.” After a four month struggle Garfield died on 19th September, 1881 and Arthur became president.

    With my continued respect,

  33. Frank95054 Says:

    Leo, I just want to extend to you my sincere thanks for exposing the traitors. Perhaps it time, or beyond time, that we the people rise up and take our country back.

  34. Have you located any books that clearly say the President must have two citizen parents?

    Because here are three that say otherwise, with no mention of a parental citizenship requirement:

    http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/710/photo4bf.jpg
    http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/181/photo6tr.jpg
    http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4816/photo5jf.jpg

    ed. There are various references in publications, but they don’t really matter when there is US Supreme Court precedent stating the definition of nbc to include two citizen parents, as was stated in Minor. That is national law. The books aren’t. – Leo

  35. My question is this: Does the legal precendent regarding natural born citizenship established by the decision in Minor v. Happersett stand if Obama is not legally removed from office before the end of his first term?

    Up until recently, the precendent set by that decision was not recognized and the conclusion was that Obama would set a precedent redefining what it means to be a natural born citizen if he was not removed from office. In light of this realization, is Obama able to set precendent or is he just violating the law with no potential to set precendent?

    ed. His Presidency as well as Chester Artur’s could be made void at any time. – Leo

  36. Sorry for the misspelling. Somehow I typed “precendent” four times instead of “precedent.” Got it right once though! Must be something about typing “n” before “d.”

  37. Kevin J Says:

    Leo,
    I did get the screen-shots of Justia’s Boyd case but already it seems that Justia.com has corrected the problem you documented with their edits of the Pope case. In fact, this is also very curious there are three total references to Minor on the justia’s Pope page, one in the 1st paragraph of the syllabus and one about 2/3 the way down the article, but curiously the 3rd references mis-spells “Minor” as “Miner”. Was somebody in a rush maybe? Do a search for “Happersett” and you will find all three references.

    Meanwhile I have the Wayback Machine before/after-edit screen shots for both Pope and Boyd cases.

    Keep it coming!

    ed. I have news for them… many people saw it and took screen grabs. It should also remain at the internet archive but I have screenshots of everything. I have done my work for the 4th of July and am getting ready to have some fun… but Justia better know that this is not going away and I am on a mission as will the American people be after the 4th. Everything has been saved. – Leo

  38. JustiaMyFoot Says:

    Be sure that Jerome Corsi hears about this.

  39. Just checked Justia and the references to Minor are now present in both cases.

  40. db cliff Says:

    May God be with you and protect you….BRAVO ZULU

  41. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    In DYNES V. HOOVER (1857) I find, “Footnote 10
    “that the President of the United States, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and in virtue of his
    Page 61 U. S. 84
    constitutional obligation that “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” violated no law ”
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/61/65/case.html

    If the Supreme Court can rule the President violated no laws, then can SCOTUS rule if the POTUS was an ineligible candidate or if the person in office, being ineligible, is breaking the law?

    ed. They can rule he’s ineligible and then I think a Quo Warranto might have to follow up on that ruling. We would certainly be in unchartered waters… but we are already in such aqua now. – Leo

  42. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    The FAM was updated in 2009 by the Obama regime.
    Prior to 2009, Panama could have been sovereign US territory when McCain was born, but is wasn’t a formal United State. But, it’s government (US military) had adopted the US constitution. Hohum

    ed. Nope. I did searches in the Way Back machine and there are notations in the FAM itself to the dates each section was last edited. Furthermore, I consulted that part of the FAM in my briefs before the election for prep for my case… when Bush was President. It has not been changed. – Leo

  43. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    For nbc precedent I looked at US Constitution and the presidents.

    On September 17, 1787, some 11 years, 2 months after Declaration of Independence was adopted, the United States Constitution Adopted. On that date all present became the first US citizens, and those future presidents not yet natural born became eligible, all born after this date, must be a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Future US Presidents:
    #1 George Washington was age 55;
    #2 John Adams was age 52;
    #3 Thomas Jefferson was age 44;
    #4 James Madison was age 36;
    #5 James Monroe was age 29;
    #6 John Quincy Adams was age 19;
    #7 Andrew Jackson was age 19;
    #8 Martin Van Buren was age 5;
    #9 William Henry Harrison was age 14;
    #12 Zachary Taylor was age 3.

    Of the future presidents not yet natural born, their parents became the first US citizens, who would give birth to the natural born citizens.

    Natural Born Citizens who became US Presidents:
    #10 John Tyler
    #11 James K. Polk
    #13 Millard Fillmore
    #14 Franklin Pierce
    #15 James Buchanan
    #16 Abraham Lincoln
    #17 Andrew Johnson
    #18 Ulysses S. Grant
    #19 Rutherford B. Hayes
    #20 James A. Garfield
    #22 & #24 Grover Cleveland
    #23 Benjamin Harrison
    #25 William McKinley
    #26 Theodore Roosevelt
    #27 William Howard Taft
    #28 Woodrow Wilson
    #29 Warren G. Harding
    #30 Calvin Coolidge
    #31 Herbert Hoover
    #32 Franklin D. Roosevelt
    #33 Harry S. Truman
    #34 Dwight D. Eisenhower
    #35 John F. Kennedy
    #36 Lyndon B. Johnson
    #37 Richard Nixon
    #38 Gerald Ford
    #39 Jimmy Carter
    #40 Ronald Reagan
    #41 George H. W. Bush
    #42 Bill Clinton
    #43 George W. Bush

    Anomallies
    #21 Chester A. Arthur
    Chester Alan Arthur was born on October 5, 1829, fouteen (14) years before his father William Arthur was naturalized as a US citizen, and therefore Chester A. Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen, and not eligible to serve as a US president, a secret he kept during his usurpation of office.

    #44 Barack Obama
    Obama was born August 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii the son of Barack Obama, Sr., in Hawaii on a student visa, under consular jurisdiction of the British embassy and consulate, and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham, age 18.

    Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya British Protectorate.
    Obama, Sr. was born in Rachuonyo District on the shores of Lake Victoria just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya Colony, at the time a colony of the British Empire.
    At the age of 23, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. On 2 February 1961, Obama Sr. married fellow student Stanley Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii, though she would not find out that her new husband was already married until much later.

  44. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I forgot to add the Act of Congress of February 10, 1855(Repealed by Act of September 22, 1922 (Cable Act) ) to the above list, as many of the fathers and mothers were derivative naturalized.

    http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/74/74.US.496.html
    On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled ”An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,’ the second section of which provides, ‘that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.”


    So, the 1855 Act was only effective from citizen father to alien mother and did not benefit Chester Alan Arthur’s citizenship. He remained a US Citizen, but never was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Actual page
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60F1FF63859157493C4A91788D85F418584F9

  45. I, too, in the Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 case see same passage marked as: “As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167:

    Leo, keep those screenshots because somebody is doing some fast retro-editing.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. Butterdezillion pointed out at Freeper that the Google cache still has the edited page….here

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMSJBi5RW2cJ:supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html+%E2%80%9CAs+remarked+by+Mr.+Chief+Justice+Waite+in+%40+88+U.+S.+167%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    see BZ’s analysis in the thread at FR here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2742925/posts?page=32#32

    ed. We are now officially in a deep Constituional crisis. – leo

  46. It is obvious that SCOTUS and Congress will not lift a finger with the eligibility issue. If you want Obama out the only way is to vote him out. Become active in this election to the extent that you can.

  47. 1dragon Says:

    I’m not a Lawyer and I don’t play one on TV but why is it the Supreme Court is getting ready to go on vacation and not settle this matter now?

  48. Well I may be wrong about that trick working at justia.com, it seems to be returning the current date an time. ???

  49. stand up and fight Says:

    Leo everyone should watch this video http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

  50. Leo’
    Don’t have to publish this, just wanted you to know your remarks to KevinJ

    ”…but Justia better know that this is not going away and I am on a mission as will the American people be after the 4th. Everything has been saved.-Leo…”

    gave me a great big rush and I started to clap and shout praises to God for you and your “declaration of war” vs obummer, his stooges and hacks! I pray that God will inspire you with great wisdom, fortitude, courage and strength in the forthcoming battle to save our beloved America from those who would destroy her very existence. God’s blessings be with you!

  51. Leo,
    Are you going to be sending copies of your screenshots, with a cover letter, to the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary? I should think they would want to investigate this, regardless of trheir reluctance to touch the eligibility issue.

    ed. Others can do that across the land. I dont write to “them”. – Leo

  52. Craig Pemberton Says:

    Leo: You barely know the length and breadth of what is going on. I filed a criminal complaint with the FBI and Justice Department, BEFORE the election against Obama. My article: A Mater of Standing ” has been published at http://www.CitizensForTruthInGovernment.org since before the election farce, it can be found in Topic 1 articles and research papers. It specifically addresses the criminal aspects of what happened, and succinctly adresses why nothing will happen. Read it. Thanks for your good research. Craig Pemberton, Citizen Patriot.

  53. @Pete

    Your reference to the Panama Canal Zone being “rented US territory” is correct, and that is what makes McCain not a natural born citizen. Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Canal Zone. If we were the sovereign, we would not have been paying Panama an annual rent. Furthermore, the treaty with Panama said that the US was to administer the Canal Zone as if it were sovereign.

    Now, it can be argued that McCain was born free of a foreign allegiance, which is the same condition as a natural born citizen (born in the US to US citizen parents), since Panama did not give citizenship to children born in Panama to foreigners. Now, Panamanian law does give these children the option of becoming Panamanian citizens at the age of majority, but it can be argued that this does not constitute a foreign allegiance at birth.

    So, if the question of McCain’s eligibility had gone to the US Supreme Court, and if the court were to have ruled as to the intent of the natural born citizen clause (having Presidents who were born free of foreign allegiance), McCain could have been ruled eligible to be President, despite not being a natural born citizen. But I don’t think McCain wanted to take a chance that the US Supreme Court would rule per the intent of the Founding Fathers (where he could be ruled eligible) as opposed to the letter of the law (where he would be ruled ineligible).

    Leo is right about McCain. McCain knew he was not a natural born citizen and he did not want to chance his eligibility. He put his own interests ahead of that of our nation, and by so doing, he shut off the public scrutiny that would have exposed Obama’s ineligibility.

    ed. Regardless, SCOTUS in order to find for McCain being eligible, would have been required to expand the “class” of those defined as nbc in Minor, they would have had to expressly overrule Minor on that point because in that case the definition was set to be nbc= born in US to citizen parents… and McCain does not fit that description. – Leo

  54. LadyPatriotNaturalBornCitizen Says:

    A MUST READ ARTICLE!!

    “HEALTH CARE LAWSUIT AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN:
    A NEXUS? – WHICH JUDGE WILL HEAR THE CASE?”

    By Sharon Rondeau

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/30/health-care-lawsuit-and-natural-born-citizen-a-nexus/

  55. Jahbalon Says:

    The time has come to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Obama

  56. oldsalt79 Says:

    Leo……………
    Have you had a chance to view the verbally altered COE of Hawaii that Pelosi signed. The verbalengineer is alleged to now be the Lt,governor of Hawii. It seems that twisting and otherwise rewording of national documents is the only way that our potus and his GOON SQUAD can temporarily survive. I am confident that Soetoro will NOT be reelected.

  57. What a July 4th! The fireworks show I saw with my daughters was spectacular, yet there were no patriotic speeches, nothing to distinguish the day from any other, except for some patriotic music and songs containing the word `America` among the pop culture morass. Will it be our last 4th as a Republic – or has our republic already ended?

  58. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Reading Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Vol3 in Google Books, I found an interesting subject: “Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto”

    I wrote a letter to my Representative.
    Uploaded and pending processing:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59367346/Information-in-the-Nature-of-Quo-Warranto

  59. borderraven Says:

    Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59382906/Information-in-the-Nature-of-Quo-Warranto

    Bouvier’s law dictionary and concise encyclopedia, Volume 3
    Quo Warranto
    Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto
    page 2787 – 2790

  60. Leo, if this weren’t so disturbing it would be sexy. Thank you for exposing it!

    Who had the ability to edit Justia in 2008? That’s the first dot.

    ed. I know, it’s truly amazing. Your question is spot on. – Leo

  61. “HEALTH CARE LAWSUIT AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN:
    A NEXUS? – WHICH JUDGE WILL HEAR THE CASE?”

    By Sharon Rondeau

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/30/health-care-lawsuit-and-natural-born-citizen-a-nexus/
    ———————————————

    That is a compelling argument. Sure wish Leo would comment?

    ed. I disagree that being born of citizen parents is enough to make one NBC. This is because we have a SCOTUS precedent in Minor v Happersett which defines nbc as one born on the soil to citizen parents. That is the law of the land. It’s being ignored. – Leo

  62. I looked up “natural born citizen” in Wikipedia and found that they have removed all reference to Minor vs. Happersett in the article, but on the discussion page there is some explanation given. Here it is as of this moment:

    BEGIN WIKI

    Minor vs. Happersett

    Regarding this reverting of material, not only is the source a blog (and not suitable as a reliable source per WP:SPS), but the source misrepresents the context in which Minor v. Happersett discusses the phrase “natural born citizen” — as should be plain if you read the actual text of the opinion (88 U.S. at 167). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Additionally, anything Minor v. Happersett may say about the meaning of “natural born citizen” is obiter dicta, not a holding, and certainly not a “binding precedent”, because the question of anyone’s eligibility to become President or Vice-President was not even remotely at issue in the case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    FWIW: This is the latest birther meme (that Minor is controlling law). I expect other IPs to act in a similar manner. –Weazie (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    END WIKI

    Please refute these people. I get sick at the way these liars are undermining the Constitution.

    ed. Propaganda. They have been refuted, but they won’t admit it. People are changing links in online SCOTUS reporters… BEFORE the 2008 election!!! They knew before we did that M v H was bad news for their plans. The truth is coming out. – Leo

  63. davidfarrar Says:

    Has anybody noticed any changes in the “Syllabus” in the Minor case being changed at Justia:

    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.

    Is that always been there?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  64. Now they are talking about Rubio running for POTUS; he is not eligible and neither is Bobby Jindal. Both of their parentage fails the test for eligibility. Both are great men, but not NBC, and should speak out now and bring this issue to the forefront so that BHO, Jr., knows we are onto him. Congress has violated Our Constitution…they need to be held accountable–both Houses. Pelosi should be put in prison for “False Certification” of his Eligibility. Voting is a State issue; that’s why the House of Reps has to Certify. The Senate used to be appointed…we should change that back to the “old ways” so those morons don’t stay so long.

  65. I would not use Justica…go to West Law publications; I do not think they can tamper with that, at least not yet. The Clerk’s Office at the SC had a “published” copy on file and can release it upon request. If they got to that, well…its over, and “We, the People,” are “f’d” to say the least.

  66. davidfarrar Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Listen, it’s late and I have got to go to bed…but I have just had an epiphany…the 14th Amendment phrase “within the jurisdiction” doesn’t mean within the boundaries of the United States, it means within the jurisdiction of our Constitution.

    Unless a person ( a sovereign citizen, of their own free will) swears out their allegiance and fidelity — not to this country — but to its Constitution, they will never be completely within the jurisdiction. Thus lays the foundation of American exceptionalism.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  67. davidfarrar Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Okay, it’s morning. I have rested, and I am ready to summarize: Birthright citizenship can only occur naturally if both parents are citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  68. The difference between presumptive and conclusive presumption is what we are speaking of here especially the difference of defacto and dejure when Dejure = De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means “concerning law”, as contrasted with de facto, which means “concerning fact”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure

    “born a citizen” is defacto presumptive fact requiring additional evidence of proof while “natural born citizen” is a conclusive presumption as a dejure matter of law.

  69. And yet and still the dems keep trying to steer us’uns toward a VP candidate such as Jindal and Rubio, which were both born to residents, not citizens. The Govt wants to destroy our individual Rights and make everything they do for the “Common Good” and socialize us–we even had Gov Perdue suggesting “putting-off” Congressional Election until the ruination is completed by BHO, Jr., the Usurper In Chief.

  70. Joyce Perkins Says:

    Leo, I just want to “Thank You” for all the research you have done on this. We have to come up with a way to get Obama removed before he destroys America. He has already done so much damage that I am afraid if we wait any longer, it will be too late. What amazes me the most is that the American people are falling for this charade…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: