Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.

Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person “born a citizen”.  (Please review Pixel Patriot’s excellent analysis on this issue, “New York State BOE Web Site Cover Up“.)  The Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being “born a citizen”.  This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution).  The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible.  (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)

Other instances of gross intellectual dishonesty documented at this blog include the recent attempt by Justia.com to rewrite American history by scrubbing links in subsequent cases which establish that Minor v. Happersett has been cited multiple times as precedent on citizenship issues as well as voting rights.

Another instance of this misleading practice was the revision of a Michigan Law Review article by well-known legal scholar, Professor Lawrence Solum, wherein his original analysis – that only a person born in the US of citizen parents was beyond question eligible for POTUS – was scrubbed to include as eligible those born of only one citizen parent.

The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.  (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v. Happersett, here and here.) Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.  That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.  My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.

We turn now to an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law.  He will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.

FREDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The source in question is Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.

Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment.  But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens.  In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”.   (See Van Dyne’s treatise at pgs. 6-7.)

Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element.  As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.

In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents.  However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory.  But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases  is dictum.  

He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases.  Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases.  In doing so, Van Dyne quotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:

Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question.  Examine the last paragraph again:

“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”  (Emphasis added.)

The “decision” in Minor is twofold:

1) woman are equal citizens to men;

2) voting is not a right of citizenship.

The first point is still good law.  This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t.  Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship.  She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.

The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men.  The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens”.

The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female.  This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today.  Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.

Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are native-born citizens.  In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case.  He then points to the “decision” on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum, and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor.

Note the following crucial passage from Justice Waite’s opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:

“[T]he Constitution…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 [88 U.S. 162, 168]   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. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”  (Emphasis added.)

Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court.  But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”  So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.

Also consider the name of Van Dyne’s treatise, “Citizenship In The United States”.  As to the soundness of Van Dyne’s treatise, the following review appears in The American Journal Of International Law:

“The author of this work now occupies an important post in the American Consular Service.  Three years ago, while holding the position of assistant solicitor of the Department of State, he published a work on citizenship of the United States, a work which was at the time highly commended by competent critics and which those who have since used it have found to be an excellent manual.”

Van Dyne stressed that the decision in Minor contradicted the earlier dictum in the Slaughter-House Cases.  And Van Dyne specifically quoted the natural-born citizen definition from Minor (taking no issue with it) just before announcing the Court’s “decision” that women born in the US to citizen parents were citizens.

Again, the 14th Amendment was not necessary in determining Virginia Minor’s citizenship since the Court was able to rely upon a direct construction of Article 2 Section 1 instead.  The Court held that Minor was in the “class” of persons who were designated as natural-born citizens, whereas those whose citizenship faced doubt due to alien parentage required help from the 14th Amendment.

And such help came in 1898 when the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment.  Since Minor was a natural-born citizen, the 14th Amendment need not be construed.  But Wong Kim Ark was not in the class of natural-born citizens (previously defined in Minor), and therefore the Supreme Court was forced to directly construe the 14th Amendment to resolve citizenship doubts pertaining to the “class” of persons born in the US to alien parents.

It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen.  If he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.

THE MINORS’ HALFWAY CITIZENSHIP ISSUE

Virginia Minor’s briefs (prepared by her husband, attorney Francis Minor) refused to blindly accept lower court holdings which stated that women were equal citizens to men.  The Minors argued that if women were not allowed to vote, then their citizenship was not equal to men.  The exact wording of Minor’s argument stated (see pg. 59):

“There can be no division of citizenship, either of its rights or its duties.  There can be no half way citizenship.  Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none.”

Justice Waite spent so much time analyzing Minor’s citizenship – and federal citizenship in general –  because Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to do so.  Her “whole argument” depended on it.  And since her citizenship was an issue before the Court, it issued a “decision” that she was a citizen, whereas the Court’s citizenship statement in the Slaughter-House Cases was dictum since no citizenship issue was before the Court in that case.  And here we have – literally – a textbook example illustrating the difference between dictum and precedent.

The citizenship of Minor, and of all women, is so ingrained in the history of Minor v. Happersett, that multiple sources besides Van Dyne have also documented the citizenship precedent set by the Supreme Court therein.  For example, please review “Inventing Citizens, Imagining Gender Justice: The Suffrage Rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor”, Quarterly Journal of Speech Vol. 93, No. 4, November 2007, pp. 375-402, by Angela G. Ray & Cindy Koenig RichardNote the title, “Inventing Citizens”.  Indeed, the entire case, as stressed by Justice Waite, revolves around the issue of citizenship.  Here are some relevant quotes from this peer-reviewed article:

“In this milieu, woman’s rights activists, seeking to fulfill revolutionary promises for themselves, pressed the courts to define the privileges of citizenship as applying to all citizens regardless of sex… The Minor decision… acknowledged women’s status as citizens but denied that citizenship entailed voting rights…” (PDF at pg. 2).

“This essay demonstrates the ingenuity, the complexity, and the challenges of litigating a nineteenth-century test case that sought to expand the legal definition and performative parameters of citizenship.” (PDF at pg. 3).

“On March 29, the Court’s unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett, written by first-term Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, accepted that women were citizens but disconnected citizenship from the franchise, supported the authority of states to deny voting rights, and ensured the necessity of a federal amendment for women’s enfranchisement.  The Minors’ rhetoric addressed not only judicial authorities but also women citizens.  The arguments that they espoused and performed asked how citizenship should be conceptualized and how it should be enacted.” (PDF at pg. 7).

“For the Minors, citizenship could not be partial, and any exclusions from federal citizenship rights had to be made explicit in federal law. The Minors insisted that the definition of citizenship required that its privileges be applied equally and fully. In 1869 Virginia Minor told the Missouri Woman Suffrage Association that if women ‘are entitled to two or three privileges [of citizenship], we are entitled to all.’ The Minors’ argument to the U.S. Supreme Court elaborated this point: ‘There can be no half-way citizenship. Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none.’ ”  (PDF at pg. 8).

“Inventing Citizens” was published in 2007, one year before Obama’s dual nationality at birth problem first came to the general public’s attention via the case I brought against the NJ Secretary of State – Donofrio v. Wells - which was referred to the full court by Justice Clarence ThomasThere does not appear to be even one source which alleges that the citizenship issue from Minor was dictum prior to October 2008.  But there are numerous sources which document the citizenship issue as precedent.

For example, the Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States (2d edition, 2005) has this to say about Minor v. Happersett:

“It is notable for its narrow definition of citizenship ‘as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, nothing more’… and for its firm, unanimous rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment as a source either of a substantive federal suffrage right or of a federal limit on state control of the franchise.”  (Image of text.)

The Oxford Companion makes clear that as late as 2005, Minor is “notable” for both its definition of citizenship and voting rights.  Both were precedent until the 19th Amendment nullified the voting rights issue, whereas the citizenship precedent still stands today.

In “The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Woman’s Rights In America”, by Debran Rowland (Sphinx Publishing, 2004), it states that the Supreme Court “held” that women were citizens:

” ‘There is no doubt that woman may be citizens’, the Court held. ” (See pg. 24.)

In “The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia”, by Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, Andrew Cayton (Indiana University Press, 2007), the Supreme Court’s citizenship holding was also acknowledged:

“On March 29, 1875, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states did not violate the Constitution when they denied women the right to vote.  Women were citizens of the United States the court found, but voting was not a right of citizenship.”  (See pg. 1593.)

The tandem issues of citizenship and voting rights were again noted in, “Race, Class and Gender in the United States: an Integrated Study”, by Paula S. Rothenburg (Worth Publishers, 6th Edition, 2004):

“In this case the court held that although women were citizens, the right to vote was not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship before adoption of the 14th Amendment, nor did the amendment add suffrage to the privileges and immunities of national citizenship.” (See pg. 485.) (Emphasis added.)

In “American Citizens and Their Government”, by Kenneth Wallace Colegrove (Abbington Press, 1921), the author noted that the Supreme Court “decided” women were citizens:

“The court decided that while Mrs. Minor was clearly a citizen of the United States, she was not entitled to vote because the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” (See pg. 64.)

Until Obama came along, Minor v. Happersett was always viewed as the precedent ruling that women were equal citizens to men.  I have not seen any resources that pre-date Obama’s 2008 election campaign which state that the Supreme Court’s analysis of Virginia Minor’s citizenship was dictum and not precedent.

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Minor elicited a specific definition of the class of natural-born citizens in order to avoid a tricky interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s nebulous phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court’s definition, Obama is not eligible to be President since the class of natural-born citizens was held to be those born in the US to parents who are citizens.  His father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled here.

That Virginia Minor was not running for President makes no difference at all.  By directly construing Article 2 Section 1 in determining that Minor was a citizen prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are “natives or natural-born citizens.”  These are referred to as a “class” of persons separate from the class of persons born to alien parents.  The Court in Minor acknowledged that, despite existing doubts, the class born to non-citizen parents might be citizens.  But they weren’t natural-born.

This was confirmed in 1898 by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, wherein the Court determined that a child born in the US of alien parents (permanently domiciled here) was a US citizen, but that such a person’s citizenship is determined by operation of the 14th Amendment.

Had Wong Kim Ark been a natural-born citizen like Virginia Minor, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark could have avoided the 14th Amendment as did the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

In construing Article 2 Section 1, the Court in Minor exercised proper judicial restraint by not reaching further than necessary to make an expansive landmark interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The Minor opinion acknowledged that the decision might seem unfair and that the law itself might be unfair, but the Court recognized that their duty was to uphold the law as written, and further stated that if the law was unfair it should be changed.  By exercising such restraint, the Court gave birth to a standing definition which conclusively determined the class of natural-born citizens.

OTHER AUTHORITIES ARE RENDERED MOOT BY THE US SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN MINOR.

In conclusion, I must point out that the holding/definition of a natural-born citizen issued by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett does not mention the Law of Nations or Vattel.  I realize there has been a great deal of scholarship unearthed by both sides of this argument.  But in Minor we have direct Supreme Court precedent for this issue which renders other sources moot.

Vattel does not make national law.  The US Supreme Court and the Congress make national law.  Unless the Supreme Court overrules the citizenship precedent stated in Minor v. Happersett, or the Constitution is amended, the case stands as governing national law.  This is due to the separation of powers determined by the Constitution itself.  It’s important to focus on the Supreme Court’s holding as opposed to allowing the precedent set therein to be hijacked by those who seek to define this definition as “Vattelist” or “foreign”.  The US Supreme Court in Minor failed to mention Vattel, so despite any influence he might have had on the framers, the definition stated is to be referred to as the US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen, and by no other name.

FUTURE CERT AND PROPHECY?

I have been asked many times over the last three years whether I believe this issue will ever reach a decision on the merits in any federal court.  For a long time, I thought the answer was an emphatic “never” since the Supreme Court was twice handed the issue on a silver platter.  Both Donofrio v. Wells, and the petition I prepared in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz were referred to the full Court for conference.  Nobody knows how many votes, if any, were in favor of reviewing the eligibility of Obama.  Regardless, certiorari was refused in both cases.

However, with a recent trial balloon thrown out by the Governor of North Carolina regarding a possible suspension of elections in 2012, the game has changed drastically.

The economy all over the world is scary.  Protests are circling the nation.  The UN is increasing its interference with national sovereignty.  And all currencies could go belly up as the Ponzi scheme of Fiat paper and fractional reserve banking threatens to make the Great Depression seem not so great.  And there is a very strong possibility Obama could lose this election.  I am very concerned that he will not leave office quietly if the people do not invite him to return and that suspension of the 2012 election might be attempted.  This could happen through a national emergency and subsequent martial law.

If Obama were to lose the election and graciously move on, the issue of his eligibility will probably fade away.  However, if Obama attempts to suspend the election or otherwise retain the White House after losing in 2012, then the eligibility issue has an exponentially greater chance of being litigated before the DC District Court by Writ of Quo Warranto, and finally ending up in the US Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, I truly believe we are headed for a national moment of intense Constitutional conflict.  There are provisions of the Patriot Act and various Executive orders which allow for martial law scenarios to unfold.  If there is an emergency (real or imagined), the Obama might invoke such laws to declare martial law, suspend elections, and incarcerate alleged enemies of the state.

If a truly eligible President were operating under any of those dangerous powers, it might be difficult to impeach him.  Should Obama avail himself of such draconian measures, the only argument available to remove him may be that he was never eligible to be POTUS.  Such a determination would render his entire administration void, which is very different from impeachment.  This is why, should the issue ever reach the Supreme Court, it becomes imperative that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves.  Their appointments could be nullified if Obama’s administration is voided which would cause them to have a personal stake in the outcome.  (For a more thorough explanation as to the fallout of voiding a government office, as opposed to removal via impeachment or expulsion, see my previous report on Quo Warranto and comments thereto specifically noting precedent in the Senate.)

Furthermore, I believe there is an unseen force which is already in place, waiting for its moment to take this nation and cash in the change promised by dear leader.  You can feel the rhetoric surfacing against those who have worked hard to achieve success and wealth.  When you hear the consistent mantra that no person is “better” than any other person sung by the masses as they surround your home, you will know that glorious American ideals of success through hard work are being sacrificed on the altar of redistribution of wealth.

Just ask 789 Chrysler dealers where their franchises went.  Their private property was taken and given to others.   And a foreign corporation from a socialist nation was gifted an American institution at the cost of $23 billion to the US taxpayer.  Fiat paid nothing for Chrysler, not one dime.  This was done at the insistence of Obama who demanded that no American company was capable of turning Chrysler around.  I didn’t see one single protestor on that one.

I pray that Chrysler is not a blueprint of things to come… to your door, and inside your house.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Copyright 2011

About these ads

122 Responses to “Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.”

  1. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Is this what we have been waiting for?

    Welcome back.
    :/
    BR

    ed. Yup… – Leo

  2. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication, Leo. Truly masterful.

    With regard to your closing comments, I agree completely.

    I have been saying for more than a year now, the only way dear leader stays in office is to steal the election, or not have one. Things are so bad for him at this point, stealing the election is not going to be that easy. Scary, to say the least.

  3. Denise Miller Says:

    Leo,

    Thank you for your continued work on this issue. I always look forward to your explainations and understanding of the law. Here’s hoping that things don’t get any more scary than they are now! But I’m afraid that may be wishful thinking.

  4. borderraven Says:

    In 1898 SCOTUS set precedent in USA v Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the US to two citizen parents was a natural born citizen, and in 1939 SCOTUS affirmed that precedent in Perkins v Elg.

  5. borderaven’s myopia notwithstanding, your identification of the conclusive distinction between ‘all’ other ‘dicta & rhetoric’ and the nature of the ‘Opinion’ that makes it ‘precedent’ is at once a vindication of what we have known to be true and correct and, on the other hand, affirming of the complexities involved with doing anything about it.

    I take particular delight in the acknowledgement expressed that;

    “…The Minor opinion acknowledged that the decision might seem unfair and that the law itself might be unfair, but the Court recognized that their duty was to uphold the law as written, and further stated that if the law was unfair it should be changed.”

    I have pointed out the same circumstance when citing the Scott v Sandford “dicta cum precedent” ;

    “It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.”

    That was said of the Opinion in whole, but as to “citizenship” this was ‘determined’;

    In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or anyone it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons, yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the [p406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

    And then;

    It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

    The point is to emphasis the fact that remains in spite of the correctness of each of the “Opinions” made, that in order to reach the desired results the Petitioners sought it subsequently required a Constitutional Amendment .

    Which leads to the conundrum that remains in spite of the ‘precedents’ set in the two seminal cases regarding where to look for the definition of NBC and, in Minor, what an NBC is, specifically, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    (When Justice Waite said that ‘the Constitution does not say and it must be looked for elsewhere’ I read into it, given the directness of his ‘no doubt’ declaration, that his expressed definition of circumstances may be considered as the ‘minimum requirement and that other considerations may be needed when determining the ‘fullness’ of A2S1C5 needs.)

    Amendments were made and Legislation codified to ENFORCE the desired results of the original Petitioners, yet no such “legal” mechanisms have been put in place to “acknowledge” the “legal definition” of natural born Citizen that is ‘self-evident” in both Opinions.

    Ultimately only the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to determine and Declare the ‘definition, meaning and intent’ of the Article II idiom of natural born Citizen for “legal” purposes.

    Yet, un-legislated Federal Policy is attempting to “enforce” an alternative definition which ‘enlarges’ the class of persons to, apparently’, any and all ‘persons’ that are determined to be ‘persons’.

    All the while denying Jurisdiction and / or Standing to any that would seek to have the issue ‘adjudicated’ on the merits under the Rules of the Constitutional Rule of Law by evasion and avoidance.

    I have hopes that the Application for Original Jurisdiction before the Chief Justice, Steven Taylor, of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court will produce a ‘determination’ that will propel the issue closer to the pillared Halls of the SCOTUS.

  6. paraleaglenm Says:

    As for the ‘decision’ of citizenship in Minor being precedent, I have suggested in the past that lacking he usual, lengthy, legal analysis one finds in holdings, the declaration of Justice Minor of natural born citizenship being, ‘without doubt’ a child born of two U.S. citizens was Judicial Notice, referencing the language of common law.

    If you recall, I used LexisNexis to Shepardize Minor vs. Happersett, and on the matter of ‘natural born citizenship’ it has never had the occassion to be followed.

    Conversely, under British law (1772 British Nationality Act), a child born on U.S. soil of a British father was a natural born British subject, with all rights and privileges. Blackstone himself cited this very law. This alone should condemn the jus soli worshippers.

    In addition, such a child only became a U.S. citizen under two conditions. 1) Under the Uniform Naturalization Act as legislated through 1855, and up to the Wong Kim Ark case, that child was a citizen only upon naturalization of the father; or, 2) if the child and mother were abandoned and the child nullius fillius due to bigamy, the mother’s maiden U.S. citizenship could be restored to her, and therefore conferred upon the child.

    As to the second set of circumstances (i.e., Obama’s conflicting birth conditions) citizenship conferred by positive law, either by act or the courts in equity, there are several books on Women’s Rights which discuss the Cable Act of 1922, which created an ‘inchoate’ U.S. citizenship for children born of alien fathers.

    Scholars warned that the Cable Act would create a dual citizenship, a condition addressed in provisions of the Aliens and Nationality Act . . . similarly, the Wong Kim Ark case created dual citizenship because the ‘jurisdiction’ ignored by Justice Gray conferred alien citizenship, as it should, while Gray’s contamination of the 14th Amendment created a U.S. citizen at birth in conflict with legislated act and precedent.

  7. P.S.;

    I added the full text of the two determative paragraphs on the status of Citizenship pre 14th from Scott v. in order to show that the Congress does NOT have ‘plenary power’ over ‘immigration’, but rather their ‘power’ is confined to the process of “naturalization”.

    ed. Good point. – Leo

    Another issue needing “adjudication” in light of the fact that the Fed does not have control of the Borders.

  8. Moonlight Says:

    Leo, it is nice to have you re-energized. Now, let’s get back to subject of Marco Rubio. Somehow I believe he is the pivot man in what will come. He has announced that he will not accept candidacy for the VP position. I know he must be well aware that many people suspect his ineligibility and going forward with a VP candidacy would contradict his strong Constitutional man image. But he doesn’t allude to his potential ineligibility, ie. lacking NBC status. The status quo Right see Rubio as a superstar in the making. If the Right sees their America slipping from their grips and need a good case to remove Obama then who better than a U.S. Senator to raise the NBC definition issue to the USSC level. Motive for Rubio would be to propose an amendment to the USC POTUS eligibility constraint to substitute a public right for full subpoena disclosure of any POTUS/VP candidate well prior to the general election. There may be enough sentiment which says the people should decide who they want to be the POTUS or VP, but they should be well aware truthfully of who they would be getting.
    For now I am keeping the faith with Rubio. I pray that he gets the strength he needs to help save America.

    ed. Look, if we do have a Constitutional show down over martial law or suspension of elections…both Rubio and Jindal could end up as big time patriot heroes by declaring themselves not eleigible for POTUS due to the SCOTUS holding in MvH… This is a possible scenario. But it would take an amazing depth of courage and love for country and Constitution. We shall see whether fate provides the clay. – Leo

  9. natrual born citizen party Says:

    CES comment:
    “One way or another I will get discovery!”

  10. The sad truth is that not even Constitutional rule of law is being recognized and honored by a large swath of the US populace.

    Thank you for fighting the good fight, and providing us with legal framework to make the ineligibility case with our circles of influence Leo.

  11. Excellent research and analysis. please contact me.

  12. borderraven Says:

    The Feds (POTUS in COTUS Art 2 Sec 3) claim exclusive Art 4 Sec 4 control over the borders, but the COTUS contains two mandates requiring States to exercise concurrent care to protect the Union of States from harm, and to engage in war if needed.
    — Art 1 Sec 10 Cl 3
    — Art 4 Sec 4
    — 10 USC 331
    — 10 USC 332
    — 10 USC 333
    — 32 CFR 215

  13. paraleaglenm Says:

    slcraig: Naturalization and Immigration are part of the same law; Immigration is one way for an alien to appear on U.S. soil, birth being the other.

    Over time, the Uniform Naturalization Act became the Aliens and Nationality Act, or Immigration and Nationality Act. These statutes describe all the permutations of nationality including types of immigration, limitations on visas, determination of nationality by birth . . .

    In Wong Kim Ark, J. Gray wrote, “The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wheat. 259.” Thus, the Plenary Powers Doctrine applies.

    Gray continues, crediting the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to native-born blacks (once reserved to ‘free white men), and then ignoring the ‘jurisdiction thereof’ reserved, by treaty and exclusionary statute, to China over its citizens.

    The question is, then: ‘Did the 14th Amendment ‘born in the U.S.’ clause trump the Cooley Act and the Burlingame Treaty?’ It depends on how we define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof,’ which by applying legislative history related directly to the 14th Amendment means, ‘not subject to any foreign power.’

  14. borderraven Says:

    Treaties can mutually delegate jurisdictions. As the British Treaty signed by Pres Truman, went into force in 1952, delegated US jurisdiction over US citizens in the UK, as it also delegated UK jurisdiction over UK Citizens in the US, in 1961. Barack Obama was born a dual-citizen, and cannot ever be a natural born citizen.

  15. paraleaglenm Says:
    October 10, 2011 at 7:13 PM “slcraig: Naturalization and Immigration are part of the same law; Immigration is one way for an alien to appear on U.S. soil, birth being the other…

    If Congress has “Plenary Power” over ‘immigration” then WHY are there ’15 million ++++” undocumented aliens within the jurisdictions of the various States…?….(Rhetorical)

    But you are incorrect about the history and ‘actual law’ regarding ‘immigration vs naturalization’. Read Scott v. above, along with other passages in the ‘seminal case’ and then parse the 14th and you’ll find nothing that takes immigration away from the States.

    Now, that said, I will agree that the various States, their Governors and Legislators, have surrendered ‘de facto’ authority to the Congress in whole over immigration. But that has been done with the expectation that they would do the job and enforce the laws they promulgate on the subject.

    They have not and I assert, and have found a number of State Executive Offices that concur, that ‘immigration’ is an issue over which the various individual States possess the “plenary power’ to ‘regulate’ and that the issue of the ‘uniform rule of naturalization’ is a process that is reserved to the Congress.

    Now, a ‘legal immigrant’ that has been processed and carries documentation from the Federal Guv’mnt may enter any of the various States covered by ‘expressed privledges’ while being under ‘expressed obligations’ as a matter of Law.

    Whereas an ‘illegal immigrant’ posses NO RIGHTS within any of the various States except whatever rights the particular States chooses to extend, notwithstanding Federal Laws.

    Of course the ‘argument’ will remain academic until it reaches the SCOTUS but the starting point will hopefully be the dissection and dismemberment of the poorly decided and grossly misinterpreted WKA case.

    And, too, the 14th needs some parsing as well and reigned in to its intent, that being to provide Citizenship to resident and domiciled persons who were previously denied and to insure the the Full Faith and Credit Clause providing certain Civil Liberties was extended to all covered persons, i.e., U.S. Citizens.

  16. thalightguy Says:

    Leo,

    Great article, it truly shows how the Constitution is being trampled upon.

    What do think about the U.S. Government being able to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process?

    ed. It’s against the Constitution and it’s wrong. But there is more to that issue which needs to be discussed… can’t elaborate now as a fellow blogger I know is writing a piece on that which I do not want to throw any spoilers on for now. Stay tuned, I will republish their work here when it’s ready. – Leo

  17. kanbunuechi Says:

    Leo, well done and much appreciated. As I read this, like at least one other commenter I think of Rubio and Jindal. In the back of my mind I think that Jindal might have admitted ineligibility, but Rubio’s spokesman has (very recently) publicly stated that Rubio believes he is NBC. I don’t think for a minute that he will turn down VP if offered. Having said that, there will be no screams from the left because of Barry, and – I think the left would argue that Barry is “more” NBC than Rubio anyway because ‘at least’ he had one citizen parent whereas Rubio has none.

    If Rubio ends up as the VPOTUS nominee, I see no hope to resolve this. Clearly, any POTUS candidate that invites Rubio has no intention of complying with the NBC definition of Vattel or SCOTUS. Where do we go from there? Who carries the ball then? If Rubio is allowed to run or to serve, then quite literally ANYBODY and EVERYBODY is eligible. (BTW, in that connection the Federal Election Commission has approved the candidacy of some loon born in Central America – you can be a candidate but cannot serve if you are foreign born?) All I can say is YIKES!

    ed. I would like to see a link where Jindal stated he was not eligible. I am not aware of any such comment. Rubio’s claim to nbc status IS weaker than Obama’s. If Rubio tries to run or claims he is eligible, he is going to deal this country a severe blow to the Constitutional protections given by the framers. His running would be even worse for the nation than Obama because Rubio doesn’t even have one citizen parent at birth and this would make Obama’s eligibility so much safer, and the nation generally so much more in danger of foreign infleunce, the very thing John Jay warned George Washington about when first suggesting the nbc requirement. If Rubio is on the ticket, be certain he is there to protect Obama. How can Rubio consider himself a conservative if his view of citizenship is so liberal? How can he read the Supreme Court’s words in Minor v Happersett and believe he is a natural-born citizen? Perhaps he is a natural-born politician. We know that species doesn’t care for anything but themselves.

    Rubio’s presence on the ticket as VP would give protection to Obama just as McCain did. Please provide a link to the comment you refer to by Rubio’s spokesperson which claims he is eligible. Until I see evidence, I will give the man benefit of the doubt. – Leo

  18. 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

    The NYS BOE use of “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; however, throws the onus too provide conclusive proof upon the NYS BOE .

  19. Leo, I have this suspicion that you took inspiration for the phrase, ‘…to your door, and inside your house.’ from Cosby’s Chickenheart story.

    ed. Honestly, I have never heard the story to which you refer. – Leo

  20. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Everyone should see Corsi’s piece on our military joining with Canada’s military to subdue civil unrest and other national emergencies.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57228

    This is a very important issue because as I have said many many times… American soldiers are not going to fire on Main street, but I cannot say the same for foreign soldiers. This concept of having foreign military units invited here to serve on US soil to subdue American citizens is absolutely the single most frightening development I have recently been made aware of.

    If the Republic is to truly end, this is the only way it can happen, foreign military being given the right to “control” US citizens on US soil. The framers are literally turning over in their graves today. Imagine what the people who died to start this nation would think. I don’t usually use or allow profanity on this blog, but… THIS IS FUCKING WRONG!

    Good job reporting this, Mr. Corsi.

    Leo

  21. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Check this out, a story from the South Bend Tribune

    “Clinton, Obama Indiana primary petitions tainted by forged signatures”

    http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-10-08/news/30259654_1_ballot-petitions-signatures-primary-ballot

  22. susan elaine Says:

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485 Here is an article which shows Rubio’s press secretary being asked directly if Rubio considers himself to be a natural born citizen and his response is “Yes.” It also quotes Jindal’s press secretary defending his claim to natural born citizenship. As a previous commenter stated though – I, too, recall Jindal admitting to not being such but that was several years ago. I will try to find that. Apparently now, at least through his press secretary, he is claiming to be NBC.

    ed. Thanks for posting that… hopefully, after both Jindal and Rubio review what is written at this blog, they will have some patriotic humility and see that the best thing they can do to protect this nation is declare themselves ineligible and to also state that Obama is ineligible. The fact of the matter is that this issue of eligibility is not going away and all Jindal and Rubio will end up doing is hurting their status by claiming to be eligible. This is because the masses of people who distrust Obama and who are afraid of him and the future of change he promised and has kept good on… those people, ie the tea party, are rallying around ineligibility big time now. Jindal and Rubio, should they defend Obama by claiming eligibility for themselves, will suffer politically for it. Perhaps they will change parties in that case. – Leo

  23. Leo, you wrote, ‘…Please provide a link to the comment you refer to by Rubio’s spokesperson which claims he is eligible. Until I see evidence, I will give the man benefit of the doubt.’ In response, see 16th par. of WND article dated Aug. 24, 2011 titled News media taking stance on Marco Rubio eligibility – http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337385 – which reads, ‘…When asked specifically if Sen. Rubio considered himself to be a natural-born citizen, Burgos responded, “Yes.”‘ The reference to Burgos is Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos.

  24. Leo,
    I think now, most people paying attention understand the consequences of the decisions that were made by those in power to ‘overlook’ the Constitution. The American people have suffered under the current administration, loosing a large amount of wealth, rights, and now are the subject to ‘elimination’ without any due process. Have you considered something like a class action lawsuit against Congress and the Executive branch for failure to enforce rule of law as it pertains to POTUS eligibility, and subsequent consequences. That case could be delivered directly to the SCOTUS, although they could kick it down to a lower court.

    Pete

    ed. Im done entering federal courts willingly. – Leo

  25. Bobby Jindal did release his birth certificate in early May. From the few bits I read it seems that he is convinced that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/bobby-jindal-plays-with-birthers/2011/03/04/AF2uFDZG_blog.html

    Do these politicians (Jindal and Rubio) do any research at all? Do they actually ask themselves the question, “What do the historical documents have to say about the defintion of natural born citizen?”

    Nothing I see in either party gives me any reason for optimism in the future of our country.

    ed. Jindal and Rubio are already facing backlash on this. The recent article where Rubio said he wasn’t gonna be a VP candidate was filled with comments by people familiar with Minor v. Happersett. – Leo

  26. @naturalborncitizen Oct. 11, 8:49 A.M.

    Even though this is not keeping with the theme of this blog, your post prompts me to provide this link to a video from the Ron Paul campaign. The video asks you to “[i]magine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there is a large foreign military base.”

  27. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    As we learned during oral arguments in Drake v Obama, any POTUS or VP candidate can sue any other POTUS or VP candidate to challenge eligibility.

    Wouldn’t that be sweet?

  28. ED said;

    “…The fact of the matter is that this issue of eligibility is not going away…”

    George Washington, who many honor as the Father of our Nation, may not have been the ‘last good man’ this Country has grown, but he did set a standard for Honesty, Integrity and Fidelity.

    It was to that man of prominence in the Constitutional Convention that John Jay addressed his letter of ‘suggestion’, believing it would be a ‘prudent’ measure to insist, (no person except…shall be…), that the POTUS be a ‘natural born Citizen’.

    Whether he rested his thoughts on Vattel or reached back to Aristotle, who provided the shoulders for Vattel to rise upon, may never be known.

    ed. Just refer to me as Leo… :) – Leo

    What is known is that history did not begin with the American Revolution and ‘Political Intrigue’ marks the rise and fall of many Kingdoms, Empires, States and societies throughout the march of time.

    A single bullet has at times changed the course of history and, in this case, it is possible that a single “idiom” will put America back on its true course.

    I am in a point of time in my life where words, deeds and pledges mean what they are intended to mean, so ED., I concur with your statement above and pledge not to suspend my efforts until an acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is Declared by the Controlling legal authority in a manner that provides for the legal basis for the enforcement of Article II Section I Clause V’s INTENT.

    (Still no Docket activity since the States response on 8/19 and my Rebuttal Brief of 8/22….OKSupreme Court 109808)

  29. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_good_news_rubios_eligible.html

    One can only hope this is satire

    ed. If it’s not satire (Chet Arthur perhaps = Chester Arthur reference)… it’s just bull. AT has published some good articles on this issue before so I hope this is some kind of joke, but this author has written other articles in favor of Rubio, so????

    Cindy Simpson’s article at AT is a very good read. This blog is mentioned. ie http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obamas_puddles.html
    The comments to Chet’s article are very encouraging though. People are starting to understand the law, why it was written and the protections it gives. – Leo

  30. Leo, I can only hope that the many hours you must have spent researching this legal precedent will somehow, someday soon, be used as the anvil on which a case for removing the ineligible usurper regime is forged and hammered home. Kudos to you sir, job well done.

  31. Dear Leo, do we know for certain that Virginia Minors parents were citizens when she was born? Outside of their written decision that expresses this, are there other documents or notes confirmining their US citizenship?

    I would think If her parents were born in the USA, born citizens, then she would be a NBC.

    I think evidence of this would be the definitive proof.

    ed. It doesn’t matter if ones parents are “born citizens” only that they are citizens when the child is born. In Perkins v Elg, the child was born in the US to Swedish parents one year after the parents naturalized as US citizens… the court held that the child was a “natural-born citizen” even though her parents weren’t natural born. born in US to citizen parents = nbc. REPEAT … the parents do not have to be nbc, just citizens. The Minor case clearly states that Minor’s parents were citizens when she was born in the US. – Leo

  32. Sally Hill Says:

    I’ve stopped arguing the point with anyone and merely state my opinion – which is all that really matters.

    I do not believe Obama, McCain, Rubio, or Jindal are NBC’s. This is the belief I will carry into the voting booth.

    It really doesn’t matter ‘to me’ what others believe or believe the interpretation of the Constitution is. I’ve written all the candidates and asked that they not ask Rubio (hopefully he is a man of his word when he says he isn’t going to accept) to be their VP. If that were to happen, I simply could not vote – I would stay at home.

    People can argue till they are blue in the face about the issue, but all that really matters is your personal beliefs when you vote.

    ed. if you see Rubio on the ticket, you’ll know that the fix is in and Obama will be a lock to win in 2012… a ticket with Rubio on it would cause many patriotic citizens not to vote because it would be the equivalent of selling ones Constitutional soul. I would not be surprised at all to see this happen since they pulled the same thing in 08 with ineligible Panama John McCain. – Leo

  33. In November 2009, I wrote a letter to Bobby Jindal on this very topic, and also included relevant attachments. The content of that letter is below.
    ~~~~~~~
    November 24, 2009

    The Honorable Bobby Jindal
    Office of the Governor of Louisiana
    O. Box 94004
    Baton Rouge, LA 70804

    Dear Governor Jindal:
    The State of Louisiana is blessed to have you as their Governor. You are clearly the right man for the job, especially after the failures of some who served before you. You have shown yourself to be an effective leader blessed with great intelligence, and the talents needed to bring Louisiana back from the brink of despair. Your conservative principles reflect those of the majority of Americans, including myself. I also sense you are a man of integrity and honesty.

    My question to you, Governor, is “Are you a man who also possesses personal courage?” This question arises because I am about to ask you to do something that takes great courage. If you act on my suggestion, it will negatively impact your candidacy for the presidency, but it would prove that you are, indeed, courageous and honorable. Please allow me to explain the dilemma.

    President Obama’s initiatives with regard to a government takeover of the private sector, including the financial markets, the auto industry, and healthcare, as well as his pursuit of cap-and-trade, his refusal to drill on U.S. soil, and his handling of the war in Afghanistan, not to mention questionable foreign relations, all reflect in my view an attempt to bring America to its knees, both at home and in the eyes of the world. I sometimes believe that Obama has a treasonous intent. Whether or not my instincts are true, if Obama succeeds, America will fail.

    Because of the damage being done to our great country, President Obama must be constitutionally expelled from office before 2012 if America and our Constitution are going to survive as it was intended by our founders. There is a way to remove him which has nothing to do with his place of birth, but has everything to do with his dual citizenship status.

    Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to serve as President. Those three words only appear in the Constitution with respect to the Office of President and his successors. Elsewhere in the Constitution the founders use the generic term “Citizen.” What does the term mean? In “The Law of Nations,” a “natural born Citizen” is someone born on the country’s soil of parents who are both citizens at the moment of the child’s birth. Only Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at his birth. We assume for argument’s sake that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The specific clause, capitalized as it appears in the Constitution, states the following:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    Our founders drew upon the writings of Vattel in “The Law of Nations” to create the Constitution, which is where we find the definition of the term. Vattel’s definition describes a specific means of acquiring citizenship, which is not the same as a right of citizenship.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    The underlining is mine to highlight that there are two kinds of citizens. A person acquires “natural born Citizen” status when he or she is born of parents who are both U.S. citizens. If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, and the child is born on U.S. soil, the child is simply a “citizen” with rights and responsibilities. This is a distinction with a profound difference. Eligibility is not a legal right, it is a means of qualification. See Craig v U.S., pg. 6 (attached).

    Our founders made this distinction in the eligibility clause because they believed that divided citizenship loyalties might become a national security threat. Hence, they added two small but meaningful adjectives in front of the word “citizen” to protect us from that potential problem.

    As we all know, Obama’s father was born in Kenya, and was not a U.S. citizen on the day his son was born, nor did Obama Sr. ever attempt to become an American citizen. What most people don’t realize is that Obama Sr. was a British Subject because Kenya was under the jurisdiction of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus, Obama inherited his father’s British citizenship, and that citizenship never expires.

    This means that Barack Obama is a usurper in the Office of President, and as such, every military order he gives as Commander in Chief, every bill he signs into law, and every executive decision he makes while in that position is unconstitutional, and thus are illegal. The importance of this truth cannot be overstated. America should not have to endure the illegal actions of a usurper, especially in light of what Obama is attempting to do to this country. We can put a stop to this, with your help.

    Here’s where your courage, and love of the Constitution, is needed. From what I’ve written here, you surely realize that you also do not meet the eligibility criteria for the presidency because both of your parents were recent immigrants to the U.S. when you were born. This saddens me immensely.

    However, you can demonstrate to your country, and to the world, that the U.S. Constitution trumps all personal ambitions by publicly discussing your family history, and explaining why you fail the eligibility test. If you do this, the media will undoubtedly report your comments, and they will be forced to compare your dual citizenship status with President Obama’s. Until now, they have successfully slammed the door on anyone who dares to discuss the eligibility issue. By focusing on people who are chasing down the birth certificate, they have made it virtually impossible for us to discuss the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 criteria that would force Obama to step down. Maybe this is their conscious intention. We must not let them succeed. We do so at our country’s peril.

    America’s future depends on what you do next.

    ed. It was good of you to write, but Minor v. Happersett, a US Supreme Court precedent is the law, whereas Vattel is just an influence. Stick to Minor v. Happersett from now on, it says the same thing but from the highest court in the land… Vattel is not law, SCOTUS is. Keep up the good work though! :) – Leo

  34. davidfarrar Says:

    “If Obama were to lose the election and graciously move on, the issue of his eligibility will probably fade away.”

    Leo,

    I can assure you with Sen. Rubio, and others, waiting in the wings, this issue is not going to fade away. We even now have a candidate for the presidency foreign born, who claims he is a natural-born citizen — some communist guy.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  35. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Congratulations on this landmark legal work.

    The person who, in 1787, wrote the original Constitution of The United States of America, in Article II, section 1, clause 5, used the term ‘natural born Citizen’. The word Citizen was written with a capital ‘C’ (capitalizing the nouns was the convention in this original document – although not in every document of this era). Also, there was no hyphen between the words ‘natural’ and ‘born’.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_3.html

    The internet publication by Justia.com http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#F7 of the 1875 Judgement in Minor v Happersett, misquotes The Constitution by using the term ‘natural-born citizen’, which was, presumably, the grammatically correct convention in 1875.

    Page 88 U. S. 165
    THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.
    …….

    Page 88 U. S. 167
    …….

    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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]”
    and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
    …….

    [Footnote 6]
    Article 2, § 1.
    [Footnote 7]
    Article I, § 8.

    Note – The footnotes 6 and 7 are in the wrong place. They should have been inserted two lines lower, at the end of the “quotations” from The Constitution. Is this more muddying of the waters by Justia.com? Also, in the preamble, at syllabus point 6., Justia.com uses the irrelevant term ‘native-born’, when referring to Mrs. Virginia Minor, rather than the term ‘natural-born’, which was relied upon by Chief Justice Waite in his Judgement.

    Page 88 U. S. 163
    ……

    In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native-born free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri over the age of twenty-one years wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States and for a representative in Congress and for other officers at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not
    Page 88 U. S. 164
    a “male citizen of the United States,” but a woman.

    Someone should inspect the original handwritten Judgement, written by Chief Justice Waite in this case, to see if he was misquoted, by the publishers of his Judgement, in their use of the grammatical revision ‘natural-born citizen’. If Chief Justice Waite, in 1875, did modernize the grammar, from ‘natural born Citizen’ to ‘natural-born citizen’, did he have the power to do so?
    Also, someone should search the original Justia.com syllabus of this case to see if it has been modified, for example by changing ‘natural-born’ to ‘native-born’, when referring to Mrs. Virginia Minor. If the syllabus was written, originally, in this way, can you confirm that the writer was wrong to do so? Who wrote the original official syllabus and when did he or she write it?

  36. Back to Sen. Rubio. When he was a candidate for the Senate, I was a lowly Precinct Committeeman for the County Republican Party. [I am no longer!] Candidate Rubio was unable to find time to come speak directly. So, he sent his campaign chief and another staff person to do his bidding. I was by then looking for tell-tale test questions to try to expose the RINO candidates. My two questions were, firstly, “do the recent appearance of RF and visual surveillance devices on our Florida interstates violate our “privacy” as protected by Section 23 of the FSC or various articles of our USC when brought together?” My second question for Candidate Rubio’s representative was, “Would Marco ever seek to become the [POTUS]? But before you answer, this is a trick question.”
    The campaign rep asked what was tricky about it. I replied, “that if either of Marco’s parents had not yet gained their citizenship at the time of his birth in the U.S., then he was probably not a [NBC].” The campaign rep came back with “What, don’t you believe in the 14th Amendment?” I said, “yes, but that only assures his citizenship, not his being a Natural Born Citizen.” No more words were exchanged.

    You know, I went ahead and campaigned for Marco and created an endorsement video on YOUTUBE which I floated across the social networks. And I still will keep the faith with Marco until he directly states that he believes himself to be a NBC. Having others say it may just be his way of either testing the waters or leading the mainstream Republican traitors to believe that he is towing their line. For sure he is no idiot! I suppose only time will tell if he has the courage and the goodness to stand tall for our USC and America. But I have seen his young family, and I see nothing but goodness there. I am betting he will come through as the real deal.

    ed. Let’s hope so. Thanks for the recap. Good stuff. – Leo

  37. Under the attitude of just wanting to “do what’s best for the people” politicians of both stripes just toss the Constitution in the back seat and forget about it unless it furthers their agenda. Only then will they promotes its mandates and limits. They all are in the same mental box infected with the “common knowledge” that “anyone born in the country is eligible to be the President”. They all need to have their eyes opened. To that end I’ve written an extensive number of treatises on citizenship, examining it from every angle conceivable. Allow me to share some of what I’m written in the last month or so.

    JUS SOLI & 500,000 DEAD http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/jus-soli-history/

    OBAMA & A $40,000,000 COMMA http://wp.me/p1vLQT-ec

    A NATURAL BORN NATIVE http://wp.me/p1vLQT-e9

    http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2011/10/06/a-natural-born-native/

    NATIVE-BORN CITIZENSHIP http://wp.me/p1vLQT-e6

    CITIZENSHIP BY STATE LAW http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/2011/10/10/citizenship-by-state-law/

    A PECULIAR RELATIONSHIP http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/a-peculiar-relation/

    OBLIVIOUS TO THE ABSURDITY http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/oblivious-to-the-absurdity/

    WHERE INMATES RUN THE ASYLUM / PRINCIPLES OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP http://wp.me/p1vLQT-dP

    WHEN NATIVE BIRTH CONVEYS NOTHING http://wp.me/p1vLQT-dT

    THE GOLDEN BIRTHRIGHT COMPARISON http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/golden-birthright-comparison/

    U.S. JURISDICTION & FOREIGN VISITORS http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/jurisdiction-and-visitors/

    The 14th Amendment; from WISDOM to DELUSION http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/wisdom-to-delusion/

    WAS JESUS ELIGIBLE ? -an OBAMA COMPARISON http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/jesus-obama-comparison/

    A CITIZENSHIP PRIMER for the COURT http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/citizenship-primer.pdf

    PRESIDENT BY THE RIGHT OF KINGS http://theobamafile.com/bastardized-citizenship

    BIRTHRIGHT & CITIZENSHIP by DESCENT http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/birthright-citizenship-by-descent/

    THE NATURE of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-nature-of-natural-citizenship/

    OBAMA’S ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENCY http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/conclusive-evidence-of-ineligibility/

    Conclusive EVIDENCE of INELIGIBILITY

    I suspect that it’s most wise to not only know WHAT the SCOTUS “decided” in MvH but also the principles behind the simple observation they made. If Rubio were to read some of the things I’ve penned then he would be fully convinced as to his own ineligibility and could be the best spokesman to open they eyes of the country to Obama’s ineligibility. We’re in a war against ignorance, along with knowledge with deceit.

    For my original evidence of PDF birth certificate forgery visit http://photobucket.com/obama_bc or read the Six Smoking Guns articles at http://obama–nation.com A,R. Nash

    ed. If you had to pick only one of these that you’ve written to turn my readers on to, which would it be? I’m just curious which you find to be most informative/educational. – Leo

  38. On its face, I agree that Rubio was not born of U.S. citizens per se. However, to be fair, what effect did the ‘Dry Foot’ citizenship/aslylum provisions have on Marco’s citizenship at birth, outside Gray’s 14th Amendment?

  39. paraleaglenm Says:
    October 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM

    On its face, I agree that Rubio was not born of U.S. citizens per se. However, to be fair, what effect did the ‘Dry Foot’ citizenship/aslylum provisions have on Marco’s citizenship at birth, outside Gray’s 14th Amendment?

    Well, your question defines several elements of the debate;

    1st] Few bother to test conformity with the A2S1C5 ‘idiom’ because there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citiizen that does not require adjudication before it can be “enforced”………..

    2nd] Because of #1 few bother to reseach the various elements of a specific persons birth circumstances that would affect the determination.

    If you had researched the entirety of the “Cuban Refugee” provisions legislated by the various terms of Congress you would find that they were admitted as “Temporary Refugee’s” with the anticipation of their repatriating to their home country and, therefore, were NOT provided with the opportunity to “naturalize”……….that provision did not find its way into the Cuban Refugee Laws until the late 60’s early 70’s with his parents not completing the naturalization process until several years after Marco’s birth……should Rubio, or FOIA requests for records, ever release his parents “immigration records” you would see that his parents took advantage of a “refugee relocation program” legislated to relieve the pressure put on Southern Florida in assimilating the large numbers of peoples fleeing the Socialist cum Communist Caribean stronghold. That is how they made their way to Las Vegas, on the Tax Payers dime.

    The point is, the Cuban Refugee laws were clear. What is NOT clear in the sense of Constitutional Law is the acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as being enforceable is concerned.

  40. Sally Hill Says:

    @paraleaglenm

    My husband brought up the same issue. Didn’t ‘Dry Foot’ only give them sanctuary, i.e. they wouldn’t be deported? I’m not sure it conferred citizenship of any kind.

    If it had, there would have been no need for them to have then naturalized. However, Rubio’s parents did naturalize after he was born. I’m not sure ‘Dry Foot’ has any effect whatsoever on Rubio’s NBC status, IMHO.

  41. Yes,
    I believe this country needs to remove this illegal alien from office, not through impeachment but through the courts. How could one disqualify Mr. O. through impeachment if he is not a legally sitting POTUS anyway?
    Thanks

    ed. I believe he was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen… not natural-born. – Leo

  42. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    I’ll repeat, for the viewers, that In Perkins v Elg, her father naturalized, and under the Act XXII of Congress in 1855, her mother was derivative naturalized, so yes when Marie Elg was born in New York, both parents were US citizens. SCOTUS declared Marie Elg nbc in 1939.

  43. paraleaglenm Says:

    It is in the complexity of overly-complex arguments that the truth is buried by the sophists.

    Minor established that natural born citizenship was WITHOUT DOUBT a native-born child of two citizen parents.

    Therefore, all other circumstances of birth are WITH DOUBT as to natural born citizenship, if not citizenship itself.

    According to the plenary power of congress in legislated act from 1790 through 1855, a minor child born of an alien was an alien until the father naturalized.

    This law was bypassed through the 14th Amendment creation of a birthright citizenship by jus solis per Wong Kim Ark. Back to that in a bit.

    The question in Minor related to this question is two-fold:

    1) Does the definition of ‘citizen’ of a Republic imply equal membership to the polity, i.e., the vote. Minor’s holding was a last attempt to confine property in a capitalist society to free white men . . . in which free black men were eventually included . . . at the cost of 500,000 lives and blood-stained battlefields . . . and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, protected by law through the 14the Amendment. It is not a surprise that Minor demanded the same equal rights of polity, i.e., citizenship through the suffrage vote. Note the replacement of Dowry and Curtesy, the implementation of the Homestead Act, and equal rights to women in succession.

    2) If there are only two avenues to citizenship, ‘born’ or ‘naturalized,’ is a child born of aliens per Wong Kim Ark ‘born,’ or ‘naturalized.’

    This brings us back to the DOUBT Minor reserved for later contemplation. There is DOUBT, and therefore Wong Kim Ark was ‘naturalized’ by force of positive law in the judiciary.

    If one is born a citizen naturally, then no force of law is necessary.

    If one is born a citizen by force of law, then that person is naturalized.

    Obama was born naturalized, per se.

    ed. Interesting idea. – Leo

  44. Thinking4Myself Says:

    Leo, are you aware how easily our elections can (and likely have been) electronically stolen/ remotely hacked without leaving any evidence? (See article & links below)

    I am convinced that is why Obama & all liberal progressive felt confident they’d be re-elected despite ignoring the will of the overwhelming majority of electorate on issues like Obamacare etc. I think Obama only became concerned when his polling dropped to levels that can’t support him coming close to being re-elected. If his approval rating is 19%, going into the election, a win will surely cause a revolt.

    In my opinion, the only reason that House Republicans won the mid-term is because of obvious anti-liberal polling results, public scrutiny leading to cancellation of ACORN’s funding (resulting in it’s inability to pay “volunteers” to commit voter fraud) Their “machinery” will probably be up & running at full capacity by next year’s primaries. 

    Here is the article:

    Researchers Hack Voting Machine for $26
    By Matt Liebowitz September 30, 2011 

    LINK: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/30/researchers-hack-voting-machine-for-26/?test=latestnews

    Campaigning for the 2012 presidential race has already begun, but what the candidates don’t know is that come election day, hackers could be the ones whose votes have the biggest impact.

    Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S.

    The researchers, Salon reported, (LINK: http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/ )
     performed their proof-of-concept hack on a Diebold Accuvote TS electronic voting machine, a type of touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system that is widely used for government elections.

    (Diebold’s voting-machine business is now owned by the Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, whose e-voting machines are used in about 22 states.)

    In a video, Roger Johnston and Jon Warner from Argonne National Laboratory’s Vulnerability Assessment Team demonstrate three different ways an attacker could tamper with, and remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of “alien electronics” into the machine’s circuit board.

    The electronic hacking tool consists of a $1.29 microprocessor and a circuit board that costs about $8. Together with the $15 remote control, which enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away, the whole hack runs about $26.

    Two of the takeovers show the researchers controlling the buttons on the keypad despite what the “real” voter enters. But in what Warner called “probably the most relevant attack for vote tampering,” the researchers were able to blank the e-voting machine’s screen for a split-second after the “vote now” button was pressed. While the screen went dark, they remotely entered their own numbers into the DRE’s keypad.

    Johnston explained in the video: “When the voter hits the ‘vote now’ button to register his votes, we can blank the screen and then go back and vote differently and the voter will be unaware that this has happened.”

    Johnston and Warner say that the ease with which this type of remote hack could be deployed highlights the need for e-voting machines to be designed better, with not just cybersecurity, but physical security in mind.

    “Spend an extra four bucks and get a better lock,” Johnston said. “You don’t have to have state-of-the-art security, but you can do some things were it takes at least a little bit of skill to get in.”  
    =============================================

    Interestingly, a few years back, I stumbled across a blogpost on HuffingtonPost from Nov 7, 2004 where there was a lengthy discussion of why it would be a great idea for George Soros to just buy the voting machine company, Diebold. Afterward I feebly & unsuccessfully  searched to find out if Soros ever did purchase stock in Diebold (NYSE:DBD). After years of looking, today I finally came across a financial website, GuruFocus (Link: http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?symbol=DBD ) that shows Soros did buy stock in Diebold. The activity indicates he sold the last of it on 12-31-2010. Here is an excerpt entitled Gurus Latest Trades DBD: 

    DBD George Soros 2010-12-31 Sold Out History $30.21 – $33.2
    ($31.89) $ 29.27 -8% Sold Out 0
    DBD George Soros 2010-09-30 Buy History $25.94 – $31.03
    ($28.43) $ 29.27 3% New holding, 7600 sh. 7,600 that shows 

    Of course, that info is just what is available in the free area. I tried clicking on the “DBD History” link for Soros, but it is for subscribers only. My suspicion that he had bought DBD stock after the election in 2004 with it’s fiasco of hand counting the “hanging chads” & SCOTUS decision (where the left felt Bush had stolen the election) was confirmed. 

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

    Funny, back then the Al Gore voters were convinced the voting machines were too easily manipulated. Lawsuits ensued, like the one brought by Lynn Landes which went all the way to SCOTUS (Link: http://www.thelandesreport.com/LandesRuling.htm

    “Supreme Court Denies Standing & Allows Costs Against Voting Rights Activist
     
    Washington DC — April 4, 2006:  In an alarming wake-up call to voting rights activists accross the country, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week a decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court ruled (Landes v Tartaglione, et al) that Philadelphia journalist and voting rights activist, Lynn Landes, had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of election laws which Landes claimed deny direct access to a tangible ballot and meaningful transparency to the election process.”

    She has listed 20 Q & A’s (Link: http://www.thelandesreport.com/VotingSecurity.htm ). 
    For example:

    “12) Doesn’t the federal government regulate the voting machine industry?  No. There is no federal agency charged with regulatory oversight of the elections industry. There are no restrictions on who can count our votes. Anyone from anywhere can count our votes. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn’t even publish a complete list of all the voting technology companies whose business it is to count Americans’ votes.   see: voting companies info
     
    13) Can a voting machine company be owned by foreigners and run by felons?  Yes. Sequoia is the third largest voting machine company in America and is owned by a British-based company, De La Rue. Diebold is the second largest voting machine company in the country. It counts about 35% of all votes in America.  Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. Jeff Dean, Diebold’s Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years. see: fraud & irregularities
     
    14) Isn’t that a threat to national security? Yes.

    17) Who, then, certifies the nation’s voting machines? The FEC coordinates with the industry-funded National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a private non-profit group, to have machines inspected certified by industry-funded private contractors.  NASED selects and approves the testing laboratories. Only prototypes of the machines and software are available for a very superficial inspection.  The inspection is conducted by three private companies who are not themselves subject to any regulation.  Technical Issues & Standards  “An unelected person named R. Doug Lewis runs a private non-profit organization called “The Election Center.”  

    Lewis is possibly the most powerful man in the U.S., influencing election procedures and voting systems, yet he is vague about his credentials and no one seems to be quite sure who hired him or how he came to oversee such vast electoral functions. Lewis organized the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS, now heavily funded by voting machine vendors); he also organized the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) and, through them, Lewis told (author Bev) Harris he helps certify the certifiers.”  “Wyle Laboratories is the most talked-about voting machine certifier, probably because it is the biggest, but in fact, Wyle quit certifying voting machine software in 1996. It does test hardware: Can you drop it off a truck? Does it stand up to rain? Software testing and certification is done by Shawn Southworth. When Ciber quit certifying in 1996, it was taken over by Nichols Research, and Southworth was in charge of testing. Nichols Research stopped doing the testing, and it was taken over by PSInet, where Southworth did the testing. PSInet went under, and testing functions were taken over by Metamore, where Southworth did the testing. Metamore dumped it, and it was taken over by Ciber, where Southworth does the testing. Here is a photo of Shawn Southworth:” scoop.co.nz

    [she repeats the #17 here]
     17. But, wouldn’t it take a vast number of people to rig an election?  Not with today’s technology.  One programmer working at either ES&S or Diebold could write code that could manipulate votes across the country.  If a voting machine has computer components, it can be rigged or accessed through the firmware, software, wireless, modem, telephone, and simple electricity.  Main tabulating computers can be rigged in a similar fashion. Lever voting machine are also easily rigged, although it would be more labor intensive. Still, anyone with the keys to the county warehouse where the machines are stored could rig the machines. Labels can be switched, gears shaved, odometers preset, or printouts preprinted.

    18. Can’t we detect vote fraud through exit polls?  Exit polling is conducted by one organization that is hired by the major news networks and the Associated Press.  Since they first started “projecting” election night winners in 1964, the major news networks have never provided any ‘hard’ evidence that they actually conducted any exit polls, at all.  The late authors of the book, VoteScam: The Stealing of America, concluded that some of the major news networks, including the polling organization that they hire for election night reporting, have been complicit in vote fraud. see: exit polls

    19) If someone wins by a large enough margin, isn’t that a sign that the election wasn’t rigged?  No. It only stands to reason that if someone is going to rig an election, it will be done by a sufficient number of votes to avoid triggering a recount. Otherwise, this could happen: In August of 2002, in Clay county Kansas, Jerry Mayo lost a close race for county commissioner, garnering 48% of the vote, but a hand recount revealed May won by a landslide, earning 76% of the vote. http://www.ecotalk.org/BevHarrisBook2.pdf (page 45)”

    So, Leo, I think unless we successfully remove Obama before the election, the fix may be in with the machines. Of course, the low polling would make that harder to pull off than in 2008. Then, if there’s any truth to the chatter that Soros is finished with Obama’s dismal performance, we may well have a primary challenge like Hillary… 

    Thanks for all you’ve done to educate & motivate us to become informed about the Constitution & the history of our great nation. I haven’t given up on Americans pulling together to help eachother (like in the aftermath of 9-11. We could still harness that energy to force necessary changes. The hard part is getting everyone’s attention. That’s already happened.

    Thanks again, Leo. You have remained in my prayers since your 1st blog postings in 2008. God bless America & all those righteously fighting to save her.

    ed. Good points and thank you. Have you seen this story yesterday in Chicago Tribune where the ex-Governor of Indiana’s name was forged to a petition for Obama. – Leo

  45. If parents are not native members of a given group then they cannot produce native children of the group. Their children are only accepted as group members by permission, because they are not natural members by nature. Since his parents were foreigners when he was born, they could not produce a natural member of the American group anymore than American parents can produce natural members of a foreign group. His citizenship was of the naturalized-at-birth variety via the 14th Amendment which, unlike Obama’s father, applied to them because they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They were legal permanent residents and not temporary foreign students whose homeland allegiance was still in effect.
    The fact of his parents being exiles, escapees, refugees from Cuba is evidence that their ties of allegiance to the government of their homeland were non-existent but their ties to their country were still intact and no doubt quite strong. The oath of naturalization severs one allegiance and fidelity to their former government, but doesn’t require such a severing of ties to their former country. So by strict application of the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 along with being subject per the 14th Amendment, an argument that Rubio is a natural citizen could be made even though neither act ventured into the interpretation of all citizenship-at-birth being equal.

    By the simple principle relied on in Minor v Happersett Rubio could not be viewed as matching the description of a natural born citizen, But we’ve seen that the rules of history, natural law, court determinations, and common sense can be completely ignored while bias, indifference, or fear of rocking the boat leave many supporting the status quo jus soli view of citizenship. If the lame-stream media will swallow TWO forged birth certificate images, they are just as unlikely to develop any original curiosity about the nature of Obama’s citizenship. That’s too complicated. Splitting hairs is hard.

    ed. I don’t think it’s even close to splitting hairs. We have a US Supreme Court precedent… that’s the law. He doesn’t match the definition. Now, it is possible the current SCOTUS could overrule Minor… but until they might do that, all other courts, and officials are bound by it. Obama being in the White House goes against current US law, same for Rubio. – Leo

  46. ed. If you had to pick only one of these that you’ve written to turn my readers on to, which would it be? I’m just curious which you find to be most informative/educational. – Leo

    I’ll have to get back to you on that since I have a rather blank memory lately, but I do recall that there was one that was starkly clear and blunt. I’ll review them and figure out which one I’d select.
    But the one that I put into the plainest terms and presentation was “A Citizenship Primer for The Supreme Court” Anyone of any age can follow it without any confusion whatsoever.

    The one I have the most respect for is the one that isn’t on the list nor posted online because it’s 8 pages long. It needs a very serious publisher because it’s so comprehensive in covering human history and principles of natural and human law. It should go into a text book except for the final section on how it all relates to the Obama eligibility issue. It’s titled “The History of Western Citizenship” I’ll email you a copy after I locate your address.

  47. Why is the “Title” of the 1st Congress’ Act so difficult for people to grasp…?

    “United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

    Although “an uniform Rule” is not express as if “i before e except after c”, nevertheless the “uniform Rule” is apparent to any that parse the text to its logical conclusion; “Jus Sanguinis” provides ‘birthright Citizenship” where ever in the world a person born of US Citizens may occur.

    It would be non-sensical to suggest that “jus sanguinis birth-right” only begins at the waters edge as Citizens depart in travels sans any referrence to Jus Soli in any context.

    So it must follow that those persons born abroad being ‘considered’ natural born Citizen share the character of Citizenship with those born upon U.S. soil to Citizen parents.

    Some confusion arises from the fact that Citizenship was determined solely by that Citizenship of the Father, but without any reconciliation in the 14th concerning the requisite circumstances of the birth of a natural born Citizen some assume that only one parents Citizenship is sufficient.

    That is a circumstance that falls within the “doubt” class of Citizens, but sans any reconciliation, Amendments or ‘legislation’ contrary to Minor V findings it would fall short of the needs intended by the subject Clause.

  48. paraleaglenm Says:

    Minor noted that a native-born child of two U.S. citizens was, ‘without doubt,’ a natural born citizen; all other ‘citizens at birth’ were of doubt as to their relative status.

    Ark created a third type of citizen at birth contrary to and in conflict with legislated act, yet the mantra of two types of citizens, ‘born or naturalized,’ conflated native and natural born.

    Because law was required to dealienage Obama’s British citizenship by descent, Obama was naturalized . . . not born, even though the law considers him a ‘citizen at birth.’

    This is a mess Congress has the power to address, however as 99% of them are lawyers they attribute too much authority to the judiciary . . .

  49. Thinking4Myself Says:

    Yes, Leo, I saw the forgery story yesterday. Nothing surprises me anymore. Soros-Obama’s method of desensitizing us has worked well. It reminds me of an old Michelob beer ad campaign designed, over time, to create acceptance (paradigm shift) of daily beer drinking, but in an incremental (desensitizing) way. The 1st ad series stated “Holidays were meant for Michelob” Then next series said, “Weekends were made for Michelob.” Finally the 3rd in the series of ads proclaimed,”The night belongs to Michelob.”  

    Yes, remember in the old days when White House Press Core hammered Pres Bush daily about waterboarding 3 caught-in-the-act terrorists? Now Obama can just blow them to dust with drones and not a peep from WHPC. And as a result of a super secret memo, Obama can now be judge, jury & executioner of American citizens suspected to be terrorists like American-born Anwar al Awlaki… 

    “Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.” 
    (Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/ )

    Or how about the fun times with Cindy Sheehan & the Code Pink-os parked for weeks at Pres Bush’s Texas ranch, D.C. & everywhere, protesting the “illegal” war in Iraq. Despite the facts that Saddam used WMDs to sear the flesh off a village full of Iraqi women & children; despite his shooting daily at our pilots patrolling the “No Fly” zone, even though he had blantantly ignored 17 U.N. Resolutions while stealing the “Oil for Food” money therefore starving millions of Iraqi citizens, they kept up their protests. Shoot, now, Obama can start a war in Libya without any direct threat to our national security, ignore the 60 day limit in The War Powers Act & at a cost of more than a million dollars a day, keep us engaged in this illegal war for over 6 months AND nothing but **chirping crickets** from Code Pink-os, WHPC & the-state-run-media. We’ve become so accustomed to blatant abuses of power & trampling of our Constitution. If Obama can ignore A2S1C5, why not a lesser law? If a person commits a felony in plain view of the cops without consequence, who’s going to get “all wee-weed up”  (as Obama the Teleprompter-In-Chief eloquently says) when that felon is seen robbing an elderly woman? 

    ================================
    Did you take note of this paragraph in my prior text:

    Pt 1) “…Lewis is possibly the most powerful man in the U.S., influencing election procedures and voting systems, yet he is vague about his credentials and no one seems to be quite sure who hired him or how he came to oversee such vast electoral functions. Lewis organized the *****National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS, now heavily funded by voting machine vendors******); he also organized the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) and, through them, Lewis told (author Bev) Harris he helps certify the certifiers…”

    *******BTW:  this NASS was Soros’ project- he’s the voting machine vendor who, it says above, heavily funded the creation of NASS. He wanted to have control over Secretaries of State for obvious reasons (especially to you, Leo, having your initial case against NJ Sec of State)

    Pt 2) ”Wyle Laboratories is the most talked-about voting machine certifier, probably because it is the biggest, but in fact, Wyle quit certifying voting machine software in 1996. It does test hardware: Can you drop it off a truck? Does it stand up to rain? Software testing and certification is done by Shawn SOUTHWORTH. When Ciber quit certifying in 1996, it was taken over by Nichols Research, and SOUTHWORTH was in charge of testing. Nichols Research stopped doing the testing, and it was taken over by PSInet, where SOUTHWORTH did the testing. PSInet went under, and testing functions were taken over by Metamore, where SOUTHWORTH did the testing. Metamore dumped it, and it was taken over by Ciber, where SOUTHWORTH does the testing.” (Here is a photo of Shawn Southworth:” scoop.co.nz)

    Note: FIVE different companies in succession performed testing & certifying of voting machines but they ALL hired the same guy, Shawn SOUTHWORTH. He must BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT TO DO. Move along people, nothing to see here…

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

    Leo, I hope you or someone with more computer know-how can create a cached copy of the links in my last post (to DailyKos suggesting Soros buy Diebold on 11-7-2004, to Soros’ stock in Diebold voting machines, Landes’ SCOTUS case regarding 2004 percieved voting machine fraud against Dems, of course) before they are scrubbed down the memory hole.

  50. The 1783 Treaty of Paris left much to be desired that over the next twenty plus years and the war of 1812 and the Aliens Sedition Acts, that John Jay attempted to circumvent unsuccessfully with the 1795 “Jay Treaty” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty that necessitated the 1795 corrections of the mistakes made in the 1790 INA regarding NBC and naturalization’ however did not solve the slavery / kidnapping problem under George III / Jesuit control using the barbary pirates – not to mention the impressment of US sailors at sea as if they were British subjects.

    The 1790 INA was a disaster in that regard and I especially take umbrage to Justice Ginsbergs continued reference to that 1790 act without the historical correction taken in 1795 and then in 1798 within the context of the Alien Sediution Act. Progressive (Social Justice) ideology has no place in the Judiciary – Judges who are afraid to run for office and instead get appointed to the court to practice politics must be removed from the bench if we are to survive as a Union!

    The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen. The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].”

    The requirement for an oath of allegiance with renunciation of all other allegiances is essential and tests of such are central.

  51. Moonlight Says:

    Re: vote rigging
    Is it possible to develop an online vote verification system, where the voter can check online that his/her vote was in the count without violating the voters anonymity? I believe this can be accomplished without rocket science. Someone or group needs to demonstrate this capability with an online questionnaire, perhaps non-political. The overall goal of the system should include verification of the completeness of the vote count as well. So that the total number of votes in the system matches the registry counts tallied from the polls. Then much will have been accomplished to eliminate “rigging”. Please, someone raise their hand for this task. Otherwise I may have to get off my lazy ….
    Thank you Leo for the fine forum.

  52. Leo, I apparently was thinking of the stories surrounding Jindal’s comments that he would sign the Louisiana “birther bill”, requiring POTUS candidates to produce birth records (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/04/birth_certificate_bill_isnt_be.html) – not an admission on his part that he is not NBC – my apologies for any confusion. In fact, there is a WND article (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485) in which Jindal’s spokesman also claims Jindal is NBC.

    Like Rubio, neither of Jindal’s parents were citizens at his birth. He too is an anchor baby – a citizen by law, not by nature.

    ed. not an anchor baby…his parents were here legally, but they were not citizens and he was dual citizen at birth, like Obama and Rubio. – Leo

    Your comments regarding Rubio in reply to my earlier post, are very interesting. Those of us that have taken the time to study this issue take for granted that those in power MUST know everything we know, e.g., Minor v Happersett. But, I am willing to bet the Rubio has never heard of this case. Regardless, Rubio certainly knows that any claim he makes to NBC is controversial, and he should know everything about it historically and legally. But, I believe that Rubio, like almost every other pol, is about Rubio. That, in my opinion, is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW about Rubio. He could care less about the constitution, he cares only about himself.

    I so much appreciate the work that you and others like you do to expose this issue and the value of having a commander-in-chief that has sole allegiance at birth to our country, that the framers so wisely understood. I really fear that Rubio is the lynchpin to destroying any chance of overcoming the scam that Barry has so far successfully perpetrated on our citizenry. I think our only hope is that the Republican nominee will determine that the politics of a VP will prevent it being offered to Rubio, because I am convinced that none of the Republican candidates will hesitate to choose Rubio if it is determined to be to their political advantage. They will not give Rubio’s constitutional status any consideration and Barry’s success gives them all the cover they need with the media.

  53. As much as I would like to believe [Ed. OK...] that the Supreme Court set a binding precedence on the definition of Natural Born Citizen being that which was described by Vattel and likely intended by the founding fathers, Minor v. Happersett falls short from doing this in my opinion.

    After carefully reading Minor, I’m convinced that the Supreme Court’s precedence set by this case only extends to someone whose parentage and place of birth match that of Virginia Minor but says nothing beyond that.

    ed. You are convinced in error. – Leo

    They determined that whatever the founding fathers intended as the definition of natural born citizen, Virginia Minor fell within that definition. In order to determine the outcome of this case, they weren’t required to opine on whether or not natural born citizenship can be extended to a person with one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner; they had no reason to make such a determination so they didn’t make it. They left that interpretation open for a future court to decide.

    ed. No, they separated those born in the US to citizen parents into one “class”, and this class they stated were “natives or natural born citizens”. The other “class” was described as “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”, and they noted that the citizenship of the other “class” (those who are not natural-born citizens) was subject to doubt. The “class” described as “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” includes those born of one or zero citizen parents. Also, note that when the Court said, “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”, the Court was identifying two opposite ends of the spectrum, on the one side we have natives or natural-born citizens, those whose citizenship was never in doubt (those born of the soil and the blood whose citizenship is not divided by allegiance to another nation), and on the other end we have aliens or foreigners, those who have no claim to citizenship whatsoever. – Leo

    Just as the court exercised judicial restraint by avoiding the 14th amendment issue, it also exercised judicial restraint by not opining on whether or not natural born citizenship can be extended to a person with one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner. Ed. They did decide that issue by expressing that the “class” of persons who did not have two citizen parents were not in the “class” of persons who did, were not in the class specifically defined as “natives or natural-born citizens”. – Leo
    This approach was validated in “Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association”, 1988 – when the Court declared “A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”

    ed. The restraint was shown in that by defining specifically the class of persons who were nbc, they avoided the Constitutional question of just who was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Their restraint required them to define who the class of natural-born citizens were, and they did define it as those born in the US to parents who are citizens. It’s a simple statement written in plain English and it excludes those born without two citizen parents. – Leo

    The Minor case states, “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.”

    Examine each of the six sentences above closely.

    Sentence 1 – “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.” That sentence precisely describes Virginia Minor – a child born in a country of parentS who were citizens. It doesn’t say anything about a child born in a country of one parent who was a citizen and the other parent a foreigner.

    ed. So? The Court addressed those born of one or zero citizen parents just after that statement. – Leo

    Sentence 2 – “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” These (children who were born in a country of parentS who were citizens) were natural born citizens. The opinion doesn’t say that these are the ONLY children who are natural born citizens.

    ed. The Opinion also doesn’t say that only people, as opposed to animals are natural-born citizens. Law is not made by what the Court didn’t say, it’s made by what the Court did say. The Court didn’t say a whole lot of stuff. The Court did separate persons into two classes, those born of citizen parents and “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. The second class are those born with one or zero citizen parents and these were not defined as nbc. – Leo

    The Court didn’t have to determine who all qualifies as a natural born citizen to settle the Minor case;

    ed. The Court did feel the need to define all who qualify as nbc, because otherwise they would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment. Instead, they construed A2 S1 and defined the “class” who fit that definition. This class was set from the time of the adoption of the Constiution and was not subject to change. Had any from the other class been included as nbc, the Court would have included them in that class. But the Court didn’t and no amount of Seussian hooplah is going to change that. But at least you are admitting that Minor is a citizenship precedent and not just a voting rights case. On that we seem to have made progress. – Leo

    it only needed to determine if someone like Virginia Minor with two citizen parents met the definition of natural born citizen.

    ed. I agree they needed to determine if Minor was nbc, but in making that determination, the Court needed to define what a natural born citizen was, which they did define clearly as one born in the US to parents who are citizens. If there were other possible candidates of persons nbc, then the Court would have noted another “class”, but they didn’t. As to the definition of nbc, there were only two classes considered, those born of citizen parents and those “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”, the first class was defined as nbc, the second was not. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, had it sought to convey “citizen” as the same as nbc, it would have included the words “natural born”, but it doesn’t.- Leo

    Therefore they exercised judicial restraint and remained silent on whether any other children might also be natural-born citizens.

    ed. They didn’t remain silent, they made it clear those “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were not in the nbc class. – Leo

    The opinion distinguishes between 1) children who were born in a country of parentS who were citizens and 2) aliens or foreigners. The opinion doesn’t define aliens or foreigners but contrasts children like Virginia Minor with them. Does this opinion consider a child to be an alien or foreigner if he or she was born to one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner? It’s not clear on that point but it’s not relevant to the Minor case.

    Sentence 3 – “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” The children described by this sentence can only refer to A) someone born in the country of one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner or B) someone born in the country of two parents who are foreigners. This notes that some authorities consider anyone born on the soil of a country to be a citizen, althought NOT necessarily a natural-born citizen. That is what creates the doubt.

    Sentence 4 – “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” As to this class – [A) someone born in the country of one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner or B) someone born in the country of two parents who are foreigners] there have been doubts but never as to the first [the class of people who were like Virginia Minor with two citizen parents.]

    Sentence 5 – “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Virginia Minor had two citizen parents and was born in the U.S., therefore the Court didn’t need to look any further at the definition of natural born citizen once they determined she was included. [ed. They defined nbc and she fit in that definition. The other "class" doesn't.- Leo]

    Sentence 6 – “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” This simply says that all those like Virginia Minor with two citizen parents are indeed citiizens. It doesn’t say anything about the citizenship or natural born citizenship of any other class. [ed. It doesn’t say anything about the “citizenship” of the other class, [Ed. but the Court does define nbc and those in that other class do not fit the Court's definition. - Leo]

    This case refers to two “classes”.
    Class 1. Children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.
    Class 2. Children born in the country no matter what their parents’ citizenship – which could be A) someone born of one citizen parent and one parent who is a foreigner or B) someone born of two parents who are foreigners.

  54. The citizenship of the mother alone would not have even entered the minds of the framers of the Constitution since birth outside of wedlock would have been rare and very stigmatized as a disreputable event. Even rarer still would have been birth to a white American woman and a foreign student from Africa. Such rare and odd possibilities would never have entered an author’s mind when painting with a conventional brush. All they had in mind was embracing the normal scenario of birth to parents who are citizens, and barring the presidency from those born to foreigners who were not naturalized immigrants. Also, native birth is negated by the foreign citizenship of a transient foreign father who was not a member of American society.
    And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, an American wife assumed the citizenship of her husband so her American citizenship would have been inactive or replaced by her husband’s. Thus the issue of a nbc child via a single mother is moot unless it can be shown that Obama’s parents were never really married.

    Naturalization Act 1790:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:” This wording is a sort of construence of Art II eligibility because it had two possibilities; use of just the word citizen, or use of the phrase “natural born citizen”. The latter had to be used and was used to avoid disenfranchising from presidential eligibility all Americans born beyond our borders. By connecting “children of citizens of the United States” with the instruction that they be treated as “natural born Citizens” the inference is created that natural born citizens are children of citizens and being born outside should not result in them being considered any differently than if they’d been born inside. A second grader would not be confused. That infers that place of birth was not determinative for natural born citizenship, even though it would be for American children of immigrants.

    ed. This was a “naturalization” statute and hence despite its use of the words “natural born”, Congress had no power to make anyone natural born as the Constitution only gave Congress the power to naturalize and you can only naturalize someone who requires naturalization, those who are nbc dont require a statute. The words “natural born” were rightfully repealed from the statute in 1795.- Leo

    Immigration law does not grant or confer or convey or attribute citizenship to children of Americans born abroad; it merely states that they are, in so many words, to not be treated in any lesser fashion that their American-born fellows. That command as to what they shall be considered served to protect them from dunderheads manning the immigration desks who might treat them the way that Wong Kim Ark was treated (blocked from re-entering his own country), as well as including them in the family of natural-native American citizens eligible to be President some day.

  55. Natives Are The Natural Born / Obama Is Not A Native

    After thinking about how the founders commonly used native born and natural born interchangeably, I had a kind of Eureka moment when it finally dawned on me why that was.

    [ed. They didn't use them interchangeably. "Native born" describes birth on US soil... and being native born is just one element of being nbc, the other element being born of citizen parents. The SCOTUS in Minor made that clear in its use of both terms when it held that being native born was a required element of being natural-born along with having citizen parents. - Leo ]


    I realized that they used the term “native born” in a different context than the technical denotation that I’ve applied to it. And that difference changes everything.

    By Natural Law, in the animal kingdom as well as human society, one is the same as one’s parents. Lions don’t give birth to donkeys, Parental inheritance is an absolute inviolable law of nature. Members/ Citizens do not give birth to non-members/ non-citizens, nor do non-citizens give birth to citizens anymore than donkeys give birth to lions. That principle is 100% true in all cases, except when the group chooses to make an exception by allowing a child born to a non-member who’s living with and among the group and married to a group member to be accepted as a group member from the moment he’s born. He is not a natural member but is a member by permission.

    Place of birth is not an option and hence it’s practically irrelevant as an issue. One is born where one’s parents live.

    ed. Not always. Sometimes a child is born not where the parents live. A child is born where the mother happens to be, not necessarily where she lives, is domiciled. – Leo

    In a natural and normal situation, they live with their group for generation after generation. Leaving one’s group is not a natural situation. Fathering children with a member of another group is not a natural situation either. Such off-spring are not natives of the group because they are not natural members.

    If a pregnant Englishwoman sailed on the first ship to reach North American and she delivered there, her child would not be a native American because there was no America, nor any colony. Only those born of the native indigenous people were natives of America. Before that principle could be naturally applicable to children of Europeans and their descendants, it required many, many generations of births in the new world, to the point that they no longer had European attachments. Certainly after over 100 years of a colonies existence its citizens would fit the description of being native-born Americans. By then they were clearly the new indigenous population. They were the new natives and the new world was their one and only homeland. Their children were native by birth in the homeland to parents who were indigenous members of the colony. They were the new natural natives through natural inheritance via birth to native parents.

    Understand this; No One who was born of a father who was not a native indigenous member would be a native of the group. Only those born to natives would be natives, all others would violate natural law and unwritten human law.

    [ed. I don't like your position. There is nothing in "human law" or "natural law" which prevents or guards against persons of different lands/races/nationalities having children together. That's actually what makes us a beautiful tapestry of love. The more races that mix and breed together the more colors of the rainbow of humanity come to exist. I don't like the tone of your passage. Perhaps you do not mean it the way it sounds, please clarify. - Leo]

    A transient foreign male cannot father a native indigenous child anymore than a native male can father a foreign child.

    Barack Obama was not born of a native father and therefore is not a native born American, but is a hybrid. Only indigenous fathers give birth to native sons. And no non-native person with an unnatural hybrid parentage and citizenship is eligible to be the Chief.
    A.R, Nash

    [ed. Obama was "native-born" but he isn't a "native" as defined by the SCOTUS in Minor, where native is used synonymously with natural-born citizen. But in Minor the Court used both terms "native" and "native born" and the Court did not use them interchangeably. - Leo]

  56. borderraven brings up an interesting point. Since the Elg case was specific to citizenship, then would not the opinion of the case wherein they use A2S1 qualifications to define one born in the US to 2 US citizens parents as one who qualifies as a presidential candidate, be considered as holding and not mere dictum as the Obama supporters claim it to be? Is this not the same result as in Minor? Does this case a half a century later not uphold the ruling in Minor?

    Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

    [ed. In Perkins v. Elg, the Court did not define nbc, it simply noted that Elg was nbc. That's the difference between Minor and Elg, Minor defined nbc in its holding whereas Elg simply noted that the woman was nbc. - Leo]

  57. I should have added that the lower court ruling in Elg that the SCOTUS upheld had specifically ruled that Miss Elg was indeed a “natural born” citizen of the US at birth.

  58. Presidential Candidate Will Challenge Obama’s Eligibility …

    See: http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/13/presidential-candidate-will-challenge-obamas-eligibility/

  59. Constitutionalist[ Says:

    Leo,

    Thanks again for all your time and effort spent researching this issue for the rest of us. Have you ever considered an online debate with a lawyer on the opposite side of this argument? I have one actually harrassing me now via email and would love to see him butt heads with someone who has answers to some of his more intricate arguments. I can come close to providing a good answer, so I assume you probably could do MUCH better.

    If not, maybe help me out with a couple questions?

    [ed. go ahead...]

  60. A Crazy Old Coot Says:

    Leo, I have been posting snips with web address on my pages and hope that you don’t mind. If you do, let me know and I will stop.

    Thanks for all that you do for us!

    Don
    Retired USAF

    ed. That’s cool. And thanks for serving. – Leo

  61. the elephant in the room is that some people think that
    an offspring of hitler, castro, park of n korea, ahmamidgetman the dictator of Iran, chavez of venezuela born from an American, on Amerian soil can then be a NBC and qualify for POTUS. The scenario is no different than obama except different non US citizen father.

    Once that sinks in , then maybe people will finally realize we have a usurper in white house who to date has placed up to five different photoshoped “birth certificates” on the internet, has been using a social security number that doesn’t pass the government’s own e=verify system and is known to belong to someone long gone born in 1890 issued from a state (connecticutt) Obama never lived in, on top of that obama has both an uncle and an aunt here illegally both gaining SSNs. On top of that Indiana has forged documents. IT seems to run in this family’s genes.

  62. Great post. 3 points of discussion:

    1. Leo, what do you think of the claim that Cuba was a U.S. protectorate, and just as Barry Goldwater wasn’t born in a U.S. state, but a territory, Rubio would be eligible?

    [ed. I think it's wrong. Rubio was born in the US but hs parents weren't citizens when he was born. Therefore, Rubio does not meet the definition of nbc stated in Minor. - Leo]

    2. I’ve posted on many conservative blogs and facebook pages that Rubio is ineligible and we shouldn’t support him for V.P. Others have commented favorably and posted in kind.
    This idea is definitely taking hold, because none other than Mark Levin, self described “Mr. Constitution”, took time on his radio program to deride anyone questioning Rubio’s eligibility as a “birther”, and stated emphatically that Rubio was eligible. He didn’t offer any proof. I posted video on his facebook page of Justice Thomas saying they were “ducking the issue”, and telling him that some of us were sticking with principles over party demographics. So the opinion shapers are definitely aware of what is boiling up.

    3. I’ve told friends for 2 years that Obama would not be on the ballot next year. Either he would be ruled ineligible, Hillary would oust him, or he would quit. Earlier this year, he made some noise to the effect that if he was a one termer that would be okay, that Michelle and he had discussed it, etc. The rumors are she hates being First Lady and he’s disconnected from day to day governing.
    Let’s face facts. Obama is a grade A narcissist, and they don’t do work. That’s for other people. He’s also made statements in the past dissing Clinton for selling out his principles to get reelected. In effect, saying that Clinton didn’t “transform” anything and that he wouldn’t sell out.
    Here’s the question. Would a narcissist rather claim victory, take his money and go home…or risk humiliating rejection in a massive rout? I believe this guy is raising money now and watching the polls. He’s also watching the Occupy Wall Street crowd to see if it can be ginned up into some type of depression era protest majority. If his polls drop into the 30s, look for him to parachute out with a bunch of the money he’s raised…and someone else to be on the ballot. And imagine if he could do it by saying “they ruled I’m ineligible”….

    ed. Not gonna happen. He’s not going anywhere without a fight. – Leo

  63. borderraven Says:

    At the time of Barry Goldwater’s birth, the Arizona Territory was “incorporated” within the borders formed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, sign February 2, 1848. John McCain was born in the un-incorporated Panama Territory. Goldwater had a better chance of being defined as nbc, but neither he nor McCain were born within a US. Congress passed a sympathetic, non-binding resolution favoring McCain, and tried to legislate nbc.

    The circumstances of birth are a constant that cannot be changed. Natural born citizenship is defined as born in the US to two US citizen parents. Expressed as a formula:
    (soil) + (father) + (mother) = (child)
    (USA) + (US) + (US) = (nbc) = Marie Elg, Mitt Romney

    (USA) + (UK) + (US) = (dual-citizen) = Barack Obama
    (USA) + (Mexican) + (French) = (Mexican/French)
    (USA) + (Mexican) + (Mexican) = (Mexican)

    Simple, hunh?

  64. I am just catching up on some of the posts and I happened to dig a little deeper into SEO’s post on Oct. 11. One of the posters in the American Thinker article links to this site: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

    The referenced page discusses natural born citizenship and relies on the 14th amendment. This sentence gives you a hint of their constitutional “scholarship.”

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    No. There are no other words. The Constitution distinguishes between citizen and natural born citizen. The definitions cannot be conflated.

    And another “gem” from the ariticle:

    A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way).

    How naive I am. I always thought that a constitutional amendment was required to change the constitution.

    If you think the American Thinker article is satire, are there any printable words that would express your opinion of the uscontstitution.net article?

    ed. Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change A2 S1. Simply take notice that the 14th Amendment, as was held in Minor v. Happersett, didn’t add new rights to those of any citizen. And thee 14th Amendment does not contain the words “natural born” so it does not affect who is natural born. If the Amendment sought to determine who is nbc, it would contain the words “natural born”, but it doesn’t. – Leo

  65. I’ve also seen the argument made that Rubio’s parents were political refugees. As such, they are afforded all the rights of citizens on landing in Florida. Further, when the state department grants their citizenship requests, they typically backdate them to the time of arrival.
    I think its just wishful thinking. Rubio’s dad probably thought some day he’d be able to return to Cuba, and just gave up in 1975.

  66. “If Obama were to lose the election and graciously move on, the issue of his eligibility will probably fade away. However, if Obama attempts to suspend the election or otherwise retain the White House after losing in 2012, then the eligibility issue has an exponentially greater chance of being litigated before the DC District Court by Writ of Quo Warranto, and finally ending up in the US Supreme Court.”

    Wouldn’t the US military have to go in and tell him to grab what’s important and get out? seriously, I don’t know that’s why I am asking.. What is the next plan? what can I do to help?

  67. In the 1964 case of Schneider v. Rusk, the US Supreme Court differentiated a native-born citizen from a natural born citizen. They said:

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President.”

    In the second sentence, if a native-born citizen was eligible to be President, then they would have used that term. But they did not. They said that only a natural born citizen was eligible to be President. Natural born citizens are a subset of native-born citizens:

    A native-born citizen is someone who is born in the country.
    A natural born citizen is someone who is born in the country to citizen parents.

    Hence, while all natural born citizens are native-born, not all native-born citizens are natural born citizens, since some native-born citizens can be born to one or two non-citizen parents.

    ed. Well stated. – Leo

  68. [ed. I don’t like your position. There is nothing in “human law” or “natural law” which prevents or guards against persons of different lands/races/nationalities having children together.

    The principle in natural law is that no species mingles with another species, they stick to their own kind and produce their own kind. The only exceptions are cases like mating horses with donkeys and producing sterile mules, -which are unnatural off-spring which violate the principle followed by all the rest of nature.
    In the political realm, it is an unnatural situation when persons with divergent nationalities pair-up and produce off-spring with dual nationalities instead of the normal and natural uniform single nationality. That is an aberration of natural law in a political sense. That which is normal is that which is natural. That which is abnormal….
    Matrimonial unions of various different types of people does not violate any modern human law, but that doesn’t mean it has always been viewed as “natural”. There were laws against mixed race marriages in American which were only repealed within our lifetime. Many, if not most peoples other than Americans and nations like America, have taboos against cross-racial, cross-ethnic, cross-religious pairings and the resultant hybrid children.

    Vietnamese society rejected the Amer-Asian children of American servicemen, viewing them as what they were in that country, namely abnormal and therefore unnatural. That revulsion was an “unwritten human law” which had consequences when it was broken. Such pairings and resultant children can be viewed as equal to or inferior to, or superior to homogeneous unions, -that’s all in the eye of the beholder, but they can’t be viewed as normal, and that which is natural is always normal.

    ed. They are perfectly normal. Again, you are skating on thin ice here. Move on from this topic. From reading everything you have wrote, I do not believe you are advocating that inter-racial marriage is abnormal, but you seem to be taking notice that society has viewed it as such through history. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. God’s love is expressed through inter-racial marriage just as it is through all other marriage. Anyone who takes issue with that truth is not welcome to comment here. I will not suffer racists. – Leo

    Our society has moved beyond what is normal, and that is a good thing, but from the perspective of history and nature it is also classifiable as unnatural. But we have a liberal view of that as being not a bad thing but a good thing. Same with equal rights for women. That is an advancement beyond what has come naturally in male-dominated, and usually male-chauvinist, societies throughout history. It is still an abnormal and unnatural situation to treat women equally in probably at least half of the world’s population.

  69. 1. Leo, what do you think of the claim that Cuba was a U.S. protectorate, and just as Barry Goldwater wasn’t born in a U.S. state, but a territory, Rubio would be eligible?

    [ed. I think it's wrong. Rubio was born in the US but his parents weren't citizens when he was born. Therefore, Rubio does not meet the definition of nbc stated in Minor. - Leo]

    U.S. territories were part of the United States in the sense that they belonged to the nation and were 100% subject to the jurisdiction of Washington and not subject to that of any other nation.

    Although Rubio does not meet the definition of nbc stated in Minor, it should also be emphasized that even without Minor, his citizenship would never have been described as natural born prior to it since only natives can give birth to natives. He was not born to natives but to foreigners even though he was American born.
    I avoided saying Native-born because it is that phrase that supporters of jus soli citizenship rely on to claim that being native born is the same as being natural born. “Native Born” is the term that put Barack Obama in the White House, therefore it should be dropped in favor of something that doesn’t connect the word native to place of birth instead of to its real connection to parentage. The 2008 election was won because of the ambiguity inherent it the term native-born.
    Natives, like herds, can be migratory, which shows that birth location is irrelevant to ones membership in the parent’s group. There is nothing in the law of nature that connects membership to birth location, not for animals, birds, nor humans. It is always and only connected to parentage. As it is for species, so it is for citizenship.

    If Rubio knew that, it could be a whole game changer, that is if he openly proclaimed it. A best case scenario would be his being picked as VP followed by his announcement that he has to decline because he is not eligible, being as he was not born to an American father. Then the s**t would hit the fan. The lame stream media would be forced to confront the controversy, albeit with arrogant disdain no doubt.

  70. Steve Says:
    October 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

    “…I’m convinced that the Supreme Court… determined that whatever the founding fathers intended as the definition of natural born citizen, Virginia Minor fell within that definition.”

    Steve’s arrived-at view seems very reasonable and logical, but it overlooks the nature of such a phrase as “natural born citizen”. When considering how the framers viewed the meaning of those words, one should bare in mind Oakum’s razor. The simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. The simplest and most likely view was one that was not complicated, -one that was straight forward, one that was not encumbered with nuance or rare exceptions or unlikely possibilities.
    They had a heck of a lot of things to think about in order to organize a whole new government, and presidential eligibility was just one piece, albeit and important piece, of the puzzle. Their prohibition against anyone serving except a n-b-c was written with simplicity and unequivocal clarity. That fact implies that they only had one agree-upon definition of what they were referring to. It implies that it was not vague in their minds because there is nothing vague about how plainly it is stated. Plain and simple words demonstrate a plain and simple meaning. And that meaning was not complicated by alternate possibilities, nor implied reference to national boundaries as being somehow a verbal equivalent to the word “natural”.

  71. Moonlight Says:

    The link below tells of a presidential candidate claiming that he has Federal court defined “standing” to challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility for being the POTUS. From Mr. John A. Dummett’s article he mentions a well known Constitutional attorney to assist;
    “…a nationally-known “birther attorney,” who must remain anonymous for the moment, has agreed to represent me in federal court…” [While I love Orly, I would be so disappointed if it were she. Edwin Vieira, Jr. would be a better selection.] I hope that, though you have stated that you have no plans for stepping foot into Federal Court again, that you would lend your support to Mr. Dummett. He seems to be genuine and understand the criticality of the Minor v. Happersett case.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/13/presidential-candidate-will-challenge-obamas-eligibility/

    Do you have any encouraging words regarding this man’s challenge attempt?
    Thank you.

    ed. I encourage everyone to fight for Constitutional truth. – Leo

  72. [The Court appeared to follow just such a two-step analysis in the famous 1875 women's suffrage case of Minor v. Happersett. Justice Waite, writing the majority opinion, first addressed the claim of Virginia Minor's citizenship, and then proceeded to discuss whether such citizenship entitled her to the right to vote. In answer to the first issue (and thus making this part of the opinion a direct holding and not dicta), Justice Waite wrote: "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."

    It is interesting to note that the judicial precedent established in Minor is heavily relied upon by so-called "birthers" who doubt the Article 2 "natural born" presidential eligibility of Obama. Obama, recall, was born a dual citizen in the U.S., the son of a non-U.S. citizen father who was here in the country legally but temporarily on a student visa with the stated intention to return to his native Kenya to work in its government.]

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

  73. borderraven Says:

    A dual-citizen, born of mixed-nationality parents, may or may not be a native born citizen; but a natural born citizen, born of two US citizen parents, is always native born.

  74. @paraleaglenm Says:
    October 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM

    “Minor established that natural born citizenship was WITHOUT DOUBT a native-born child of two citizen parents.”

    ———–

    DId the court in Minor therefore rule the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” was a native-born child of two citizen parents?

    The issue is not doubt but definition. If the court in Minor indeed made a finding of fact that the term “natural born citizen” meant a native-born child of two citizen parents, then the burden of proof is on the party seeking office who clearly is not.

    I find this so nakedly bizarre. How can the burden of proof be shifted so? Why is the burden of proof on the citizenry, collectively or in eaches?

    If my reasoning bears out, does not the burden of proof go far in establishing the guilty knowledge of the partisans responsible for this assault upon the Constitution of the United States?

    And by fiat of Oath of Office or similar oaths, does this not further establish guilty knowledge.

    I keep returning to RICO. They have conspired to take salaries and benefits from the federal government in their conspiracy against the Constitution. Their ill-gotten salaries and benefits, and other spoils and tributes arising from the operation of their respective stations in our government further arise from guilty knowledge in the making of the requisite filings and the requisite oaths.

    One cannot have it both ways.

    The burden of proof is on them. Their guilty knowledge cannot be separated from the fact of their oaths or the fact of their fraud.

    “We have a different opinion” is not a defense to the court in Minor having defined nbc as native-born child of two citizen parents.

    Neither was their apparent disputation disclosed by them in the many certifications and swearing of oaths that followed.

    The burden of proof is on the seeker who is not a native-born child of two citizen parents. This also, IMHO, proves the guilty knowledge in the writings, certifications and oaths subsequently taken, rendering them void on their face.

    ed. Led Zeppelin said it best, “We are your overlords…” They think exactly like that…but they are just ghoulish characters in a bad movie. You better repent before the movie ends and you dont know the time that will happen. I am counsel. – Leo

  75. James Wilkinson Says:

    http://www.thestoneroses.org/

    ed. “This is a great day for all positive thinkers.” Ian Brown Oct. 18, 2011- Leo

  76. I have a question I hope someone can answer. I’d like to know when it was and by what law it was that American women became imbued with equal standing with men in the matter of passing citizenship to their child. I figure it was one of the successor acts to the Cable Act but what decade was it and what was the act called. I’d like to know at what point in American history it was that Obama’s mother’s citizenship could confer on him American citizenship. Since he wasn’t a citizen via the 14th Amendment because his father, being a temporary guest, was not subject to the full federal jurisdiction of the United States, therefore his citizenship sprang solely from his mother.
    How is it not devastating to his eligibility to have to acknowledge that within our, or our parents lifetime he would not have been a U.S. citizen at all?

    On another note, a couple days ago I had a new and novel idea that I put into an essay what is available in the Grassroots Commentary section of the Patriot Post website. I postulate that based on the 14 year residency requirement, it is not required that the President be born in the United States. That U.S. birth is irrelevant to eligibility. I explain why in some depth. I’d appreciate some feedback on the validity of the conclusion I drew. If it is supportable, then Obama’s birth in the U.S. is a moot point, irrelevant to his eligibility. Without that as his justification for eligibility he has no other basis on which to claim that he is eligible.

    The url is http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2011/10/18/the-liberal-lie-that-elected-a-president/#commentform

    ed. You are wrong… and the case law in Minor bears this out. – Leo

  77. The Big Boo Says:

    A good article on Rubio can be found here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1197628.ece

    A couple of things to note:

    1. a rather decent discussion with all points of view (even if the “law professors” quoted are incompetent). No such artticle is “allowed” to appear for Obama, but if it’s Rubio then it’s “allright” to talk about it.

    2. A clear conclusion that Rubio is playing this as a politician. He is no more interested in fidelity to the Constitution than any other federal level politician. It will always be only about them and their advantages, never the nation.

    Rubio thus fails as a true conservative and folks (i.e. conservative Republicans) should not
    feel bad about pounding away on his birth story to illustrate his non nbc status as a way to continue to shine the truth on the non nbc status of Obama.

  78. davidfarrar Says:

    Leo,

    You have been vindicated, kind of: “The arguments aren’t crazy,” said Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum, an expert in constitutional theory. But, he added, “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”

    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462473_p2/birthers-ask-is-marco-rubio-eligible.html#ixzz1bKk7g6PA

    ed. Interesting. – Leo

    Secondly,

    Is there anyplace in Waite’s opinion where he directly refers to A2S1? If so, can you please print it out?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    ed. Of course…

    “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 [n6] 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,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

  79. paraleaglenm Says:

    In the early United States, 21 was the age of majority/emancipation . . . minus 35-year age requirement = 14-years.

    As for the Cable Act being integrated into statute, that had to happen in the early 1900’s. You must read the differernt revisions to find it. When derivative citizenship ended, i.e., a woman automatically taking on the citizenship of the husband (See Perkins vs Elg) the maiden U.S. citizenship remained inchoate if married to an alien husband.

  80. With the imprecision of language being what it is, it is necessary to realize when a statement is imprecise if it holds legal implications. Major-size outcomes depend on it. That’s why legalese exists, -to cover all bases. The comments by judge Waite in Minor were not a precise definition of anything but were instead a simple observation of what has always been considered “common understanding”, Therefore it was not legalese and did not cover all bases, as general rules never do.
    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens…” It is all too easy to misconstrue what that means. It does NOT say that “ONLY children born in a country of parents who were its citizens…are citizens” It merely observes that all the children born of citizen parents living in and giving birth in their own country are citizens by inheritance from their parents. It does not in any way *mandate* that without their birth occurring in their parents’ nation that they will not be citizens. In other words, it does not tie their citizenship to their place of birth, but instead ties it to their parents’ citizenship.
    While all such children are citizens, it does not follow that there are therefore no other equal citizens who might have been born elsewhere. That possibility is not excluded by the wording of the description of citizens by birth. It was merely not included. Children born to American citizens outside of the U.S. are as equally natural as their U.S. soil birthed peers. Citizenship is passed from the parents, not the soil. Citizenship for all children born of American parents is derived from them via natural law, not human statute or a tradition that is an obsolete vestige of monarchical rule.

    The point is that birth on American soil is a fact in 99% of births to American citizens, but some sire children overseas, such as Ambassadors, (I’d include one of my nephews who fathered a child in Germany and married his girlfriend, -the mother, but that gets into the area of dual-citizenship, -which isn’t as cut-and-dried as two U.S. citizen parents living abroad and giving birth abroad.)

    The framers of the Constitution wanted those children who were born abroad to some of America’s best and brightest to be equally eligible to be the President, -as long as they lived in the U.S. at least 14 of the required minimal 35 years of life. Why exclude such citizens when they would be a national asset with international experience? That would make no sense. Hence the immigration act of 1790 expressly made that clear to eliminate any doubt.

    So if birth occurring in the U.S. is stated merely as a normal matter of fact, and not as some kind of mandate, then natural born citizens are not dependent on where their mother was when they were born. They are U.S. citizens wherever they are born, in the U.S., on the high seas, on drifting arctic ice, on an airplane or in a space station.
    Thus, if presidential eligibility is not contingent on birth in the U.S. then Obama’s Hawaiian birth means nothing in regard to his eligibility. It means eligibility is contingent on something else entirely, not partially. And that is birth to native citizens of America.

    By removing birth in America from being his connection to natural born citizenship eligibility, he is left with nothing to justify his presidency since he is clearly disqualified by his foreign father.

  81. Citizenship and Suffrage at the time of Minor were in reality connected for *men*, as was their obligation to perform military service at the request of their country.

    Citizenship and suffrage were not connected for *women* until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, although some states had permitted women to vote. The 19th Amendment allowed all women in the US to vote without the “full” citizen’s obligation of military service.

    ed. I know from your final sentence that you understand what I am about to write, but since this sentence just above my comment is a bit off the mark in its wording, let me clear things up for the other readers. See City of Mobile v. Bolden which is linked in my report above. The Court in Minor stated that the Constitution granted nobody the right to vote. In 1980, the SCOTUS in City of Mobile re-affirmed that part of the holding in Minor… and the Court also stated that the 19th Amendment prevented discrimination as to voting rights on the basis of sex once a state grants persons a right to vote. The right to vote comes from the States, not the Constitution. That was the holding in Minor and it’s still good law today. Once a state gives persons the right to vote, the 19th Amendment prevents discrimination on the basis of sex at the ballot box. This is a very important distinction. Obama’s minions have got away with saying the 19th Amendment overruled Minor for way too long. That’s a complete lie. The holding in City of Mobile v Bolden from 1980, 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment, makes it clear that Minor is still good law and has never been overruled. That’s why the case was sabotaged at Justia. – Leo

    In the eighteenth and nineteenth century and even today (the ERA was not ratified; women do not register with the Selective Service), female citizens cannot be conscripted into military service.

    The obligation of citizens to perform military service for their country in times of need is not irrelevant to their status as citizens. Military service by aliens or residents has always been a consideration for full citizenship. The Lynch case cites the common sense necessity that a country must be able to call upon its residents/citizens for defense of its territory when attacked, and relies upon the British definition of natural born subject to insure the defense of the country.

    Freed Male slaves as citizens would have been obligated to rise to the defense of the country. Their guarantee of citizenship via the 14th amendment came with the right to vote *without* any explicit reference to that right. The votes of the freed slaves were a crucial factor in keeping the Union whole after the Civil War. It is interesting to note that the 14th amendment was passed in Congress without full representation of the southern states. Some southern Senators and Congressmen refused to swear allegiance to the United States and were excluded from voting on the amendment or even their elected seats.

    The right to vote remained in the control of the states, and was used by southern states in the early twentieth century to deny African Americans the vote through arbitrary literacy tests.

  82. paraleaglenm Says:

    1) Look up the ‘plain language doctrine.’ In addition, a law poorly written is unenforceable.
    2) While ‘dicta’ is commentary tangential or circuitous to the issue, ‘judicial notice’ is a clear statement of common knowledge and fact affecting the the holding. Justice Waite noted that children of two U.S. citizens were Natural Born Citizen, in the language and concepts of common law familiar to the framers.
    3) Conversely, the citizenship status of children born otherwise was an issue for another time.
    4) Therefore, ‘natural born citizen’ at the time of the framers was not idiomatic, but a term of art with a meaning free of doubt or ambiguity.

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote on the meaning of words when written, compared to later times when read. Both insisted that the original meaning be ascertained and assured before interpretation of a law or legal term.

    It is a fact that modern interpreters of law may attempt to redefine the law to make it more contemporary, or fit a liberal agenda.

    An example is the current class action against Florida State University which is denying in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens. The lawyer for the SPLC called the children “naturally born” in an attempt to define them as ‘natural born citizens,’ rather than merely ‘native-born’ citizens at birth per 8 U.S.C. 1401 as misinterpreted thanks to Wong Kim Ark.

    Does Florida State have the right to deny in-state tuition? While Plyler vs Doe (1982) forced states to provide children of illegal aliens (born or immigrated) equal social services K-12, that law may be extended as also applying to state schools such as Florida State, as long as the applicant meets the same requirements as a legal citizen.

    As I’ve pointed out, the 1772 British Nationality Act would have made Barack Hussein Obama a British natural born subject if born in one of the colonial states, even after the 1787 adoption of the constitution, or the passing of the first Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, i.e., there was no ‘jus soli’ provision in the Act; the Act required an alien father to naturalize before his minor children were given U.S. citizenship.

    That is the plain language of the law, including English law the Obots so zealously rely on for their ‘native-born’ birthright citizenship.

  83. Constitutionalist Says:

    Leo,

    You mentioned I could post my questions, but they don’t seem to have made it past moderation. Can you tell me why? I don’t believe I violated any of your terms in my posts. The lawyer I’ve been arguing with claims that none of his posts make it past moderation either. I have always found you to be fair in terms of providing both sides of the argument so I am a bit confused…especially since I wholeheartedly believe you are right and am just seeking answers to some things I’m unable to understand on my own.

    Can you tell me why my questions were removed?

    Thanks

    [ed. If your "lawyer" wants to ask a question, let him obey the rules and ask a question without using insults towards me or my readers. I will not allow his questions to go through you since he has violated the rules of the forum. If he wants to apologize for being rude... he can submit any question he likes, as long as it is devoid of insulting language. - Leo]

  84. davidfarrar Says:

    leo.

    Thanks for your help above.

    I have been writing this post one several blogs and thought I’d pass it on to you to see if it passes muster:

    There are two ways to achieve birthright citizenship having been born within the jurisdiction: via the Article II and by the 14th Amendment. Only those who are born within the jurisdiction of citizen parents are Article II ‘native’ or natural born Citizen (Minor). Those who are not, are 14th Amendment citizens (Wong), and cannot qualify to take the oath of office of the presidency or vice-presidency. Both Sen. Rubio and Obama are 14th Amendment citizens.

    If so, no response is necessary. If not, please advise.

    Thanks.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  85. “As for the child born to the soil of the nation of two citizen parents, there has been no doubt…”

    That is not the exact quote but certainly comprises the essence.

    As to the POTUS there must be NO DOUBT.

    The Commander and Chief and POTUS by virtue of the unique trustee role invested by the Constitution, must, for the security and the sustainability of the nation and the national government, MUST…

    … preside demonstrably free of doubt or conflict of interest as to allegiance or fealty.

    We have been gripped by the postmodern theater of the Imperial Presidency.

    POTUS sits as “Trustee in Chief” in defense of our national mutualism and its preservation.

    We have an Agitator-in-Chief who sees himself to be above the law.

  86. paraleaglenm Says:

    Politics — While S.L. Craig has considered the idiomatic issue concerning the misinterpretation of ‘natural born citizen,’ there is also a political one.

    In James E. Rogan’s new book, ‘Catching the Flag,’ he details the serious violations of law committed by Pres. Clinton (some were so serious they were not included in the impeachment so as not to embarrass the U.S.) What is truly shocking is that Rogan claims it was the Republican leadership in the Senate that led the way blocking conviction.

    Why? Because Clinton had a high popularity percentage in the polls, and the prognostication that impeaching Clinton successfully would guarantee an Al Gore presidency.

    The Republicans were wrong. By not enforcing the law, they opened the door for a president who parlays his popularity into acts of lawlessness and pillaging of our Treasury and credit, i.e., Clinton X 100!

    Now, however, with Obama’s popularity in the tank, we must press on.

    From early on, I felt it essential to attach the 14th Amendment and the Illegal Alien problem with the misunderstanding of what Article II’s Natural Born Citizen clause intended.

    Our economy crashed because controlling laws were revoked and others just not enforced. The United States is at risk because we refuse to stand up and enforce our borders, and the law governing immigration and a constitutional requirement for the presidency.

    The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen (817-words with quotes and footnotes) http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-transition-from-jus-soli-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

  87. I suspect that Justia was the source from which the Congressional Research Service produced its report on Obama’s eligibility back in 2008 which I understand was distributed to all members of congress. Also, this CRS report was probably the primary purpose of the Justia modifications.

  88. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=ircs_reports

    “Woman Suffrage in the Courts: Minor

    The final test of the New Departure was instigated by its author. Francis and Virginia Minor sued a St. Louis registrar, Reese Happersett, in 1872—the same year in which Susan B. Anthony voted. Three years later, Minor v. Happersett became the only woman suffrage case ever to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (88 U.S. 162). This historic decision at last acknowledged that women were indeed “persons” and therefore citizens. Citizenship, however, did not confer suffrage.”

  89. Where is the Fan? By now wouldn’t something from this gross miscarriage of easily seen and understood lawlessness regarding the application of the Constitutional have made contact with the proverbial fan?

    Possibly today 10/24/11 Rick Perry has placed the fan closer to the issue and potentially the possibility of Marco Rubio being considered a VP contender has made the fan larger.

    Adopting a campaign to determine the status of Rubio’s eligibility will also by its nature have to include the status of Obama’s eligibility. Thanks to a Washington Post, pro Castro reporter the accepted lawlessness that is American politics can be made the centerpiece of the 2012 elections. It is time the feelings and reputation of one man quit being lofted above the collective rights of citizens of the Federal USA as a whole.

    People who read what’s written on this site and on http://www.theobamafile.com and any other site showing the truth and facts regarding the usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” in regards to POTUS eligibility must not be afraid to take public action.

    Persons deeply concerned with the ineligibility on Constitutional grounds of Obama must in good conscience must also take a stance on Rubio’s status and not be afraid to discard Rubio as a VP candidate, the Constitution requires such. If you are true in your knowledge you must not sit by and wait for action. You must inspire action on your own and start emailing Perry’s campaign, calling radio shows, emailing TV News shows, and getting vocal at every opportunity.

    Equally anyone who believes the phrase “natural born citizen” includes the known facts regarding Obama’s birth in its definition must in good conscience start emailing Perry’s campaign, calling radio shows, emailing TV News shows, and getting vocal at every opportunity, and give claim as to how Obama is eligible and Rubio ineligible.

    As far as I’m concerned Phillip Berg in the run up to Berg v Obama et. al. 2008, had more complicit motives regarding the reason for his case. Berg went on many opposition shows to drum up support for his case based on hearsay and scant eyewitness evidence, there was no document of fact and the burden was on him regarding Obama’s COLB.

    The adage “Beware of strangers bearing gifts” is as forgotten then and now as it was in the city of Troy. Berg sought remedies based on Obama’s birthplace and his lost billable hours for his preparation of the case. And with the dismissal of Berg v. Obama et al. Berg provided an end around judgement that Obama is an ex post facto “natural born citizen”, especially in pop-culture jargon. When in fact Berg v. Obama et al. never truly defined the phrase “natural born citizen” in his case in Constitutional law nor did he present a case regarding the status of parentage at time of birth, past defining Obama is a citizen per the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952.

    Regarding Perkins v. Elg, so what?

    [ed. Perkins v. Elg involved a woman who was born in the US to US citizen parents... she fits the nbc definition in Minor. I don't understand your problem with the Elg case. It further shows that your parents do not have to be born in the US for you to be a natural-born citizen. The case makes clear that even if you parents were born in a foreign country and were aliens when they came here, if they became US citizens by naturalization before the child was born on US soil, then the child is a natural-born citizen. Perkins v Elg is very insightful to the lineage of POTUS eligibility cases.- Leo]

    That opinion overstepped it’s authority and bounds and was probably inserted in the opinion by a pro suffrage activist who thought they were craftily making it so a woman is eligible for POTUS since in all the years up to the 19th amendment it was judicial fiat that citizenship didn’t confer voting rights. Why would an activist of the day had believed suffrage would make a woman any more or less eligible to be POTUS?

    Therefore during the same time period an activist would also likely hold true that citizenship, and voting rights for a female do not confer “natural born citizen” status for POTUS eligibility. Elg being a female was as good a case as any to insert such a phrase, “natural born citizen”, that is clearly out of place when reading the opinion in its entirety and taking the rulings as a whole. So it’s likely some activist decided to do what activists do and that’s carry out a great miscarriage of fact and justice in order to feel they’ve done right in their mind v. the world.

    Also when hasn’t it been good that the oligarchy collectively called the court declare itself in law and at times to reverse itself? Any honest person who supports Obama’s eligibility or equally any honest person who supports Obama’s ineligibility have to both equally admit the Court is both deeply fallible and capable of issuing great nonsensical reasoning to bend the organics of law with any implied justness to match the organics of reasoning.

    “Natural born citizen” as a phrase and as defined has remained so defined since before the adoption of the US Constitution, and in all definitions until today means the same. And now is the time for the court to stop it’s usual nature of deferring action to the future. Must we make our children pay for our monetary as well as ethical and moral indebtedness?

  90. Christopher Richie Says:

    Leo,

    FYI:

    In January 2010, I attended a Republican Dinner with Marco Rubio as the featured speaker. I was quite impressed with him and thought he would make a superb President, so after his speech I approached him and asked if his parents were citizens when he was born, and he said “Yes.” I didn’t pursue this topic, just smiled and said, “Thank you;” but I got the feeling that he understood the import of my question.

    If he believes that his parents were ‘citizens’ when he was born, or if he’s willing to fudge the issue, don’t look for him to drop out.

    cato1787

  91. Mr. Donofrio,

    It’s a bit of a tangential, but what do you think of the hypothesis that Romney’s eligibility according to Minor is cloudy?

    To nutshell it, his father was born in Mexico to parents that had fled the US earlier in disagreement with the American laws against polygamy. It seems the intent of the expatriates was to permanently settle in Mexico, possibly insinuating an informal renunciation of their US citizenship.

    That would seem to make Mitt Romney’s father (George Romney) a Mexican citizen alone requiring naturalization, which never seemed to have occurred, and thus strip Mitt Romney of NBC status, according to the Minor standard.

    It seems like a weakly supported hypothesis, because surely it would have been demonstrated that George Romney was a de facto illegal alien when he either ran for governor in 1962 or president in 1968.

    [ed. I dont know the facts well enough on Romney's folks... but it is rather incredible that so many GOP hopefuls suddenly have nbc problems... Rubio, Jindal, McCain, Romney... it's just shady and it gives Obama a free pass since most of the media from the right adore these dudes and won't mix it up on the nbc issue. I just don't like it at all. - Leo]

  92. borderraven Says:

    Jack,

    Regarding Perkins v Elg 1939, see the Glossary for the Act XXII of Congress on February 10, 1855. When the man naturalized, so was the wife, and the baby was born, in New York USA to two US Citizens, a natural born citizen, as declared by SCOTUS.

  93. borderraven Says:

    anon-a,

    See the Glossary for Act XXII of Congress on February 10, 1855.
    When George W. Romney, was born in 1907, to American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico, he was derivative naturalized per Act XXII of February 10, 1855. When Mitt Romney was born in the US, to two US Citizens, he was a natural born citizen.

  94. @Leo
    @borderraven

    Thanks for the heads up. I was on my soap-box. After reading at http://www.law.cornell.edu/search for the term “natural born”, quotes included. Funny example of NBC in the results. Still doesn’t excuse my not researching all the facts about the case before so commenting.

    I still don’t get how all this is allowed to happen. What is the end game, the pay off? Is it to have a compromised POTUS so controllable? Is it to make fun of the USA through powers foreign and domestic? Is it because so many people have been taught so incorrectly that the requirement is one has to be born in the USA for POTUS eligibility so the mob of pop-culture rules the USA as the mob in Rome? Example; most media coverage asking Schwarzenegger about running for POTUS routinely stated place of birth and asked about a Amendment so he would be eligible.

    As a history professor used to say you really can’t get a read on the why’s, who’s, and how’s of stuff until about 150 years pass.

    What’s the point of the now if we can’t get our act together on paper until then? I’m pathetically upset about this, and I don’t care who the candidate is, there’s only one US Constitution.

    (I love my soap-box)

  95. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    DUAL CITIZENSHIP – SECURITY CLEARANCE IMPLICATIONS

    3. Security clearance evaluations/determinations must assure that access to classified information for a specific individual is “clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” Under the adjudicative guidelines, “any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.” When making such a determination, DS must consider all available information, both positive and negative. This is the “whole person” concept. Dual nationality is a relevant element in some cases. While U.S. citizenship is a basic eligibility requirement to be considered for access to classified information, it does not automatically confer the right to a security clearance. Dual citizenship must be considered in context of other circumstances in an individual’s background.

    http://careers.state.gov/uploads/7a/3e/7a3e09941d0d9861c0906b45b2af86d2/DualCitizenship.pdf

  96. There is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of “natural born Citizen” that is “enforceable” by ANY “legal mechanism” other than some form of “forum shopping various forms of challenges” in the various Courts in pursuit of a “bone fide Petition” to present to the SCOTUS.

    ALL inferior Courts do not have the Jurisdiction, and / or are unwilling to sustain Standing of a case asking the Question of the “legal” definition.

    It is, in the 1st instant, as proved by Minor V., a “Citizenship Question”.

    However, due to the inconsistencies and vagaries of the sitting POTUS’ questionable status, the “transient political aspects” attached to and imbued in the Constitutional idiom causes the “Political Doctrine of Separation of Powers” to shine its bright light on any instance’s of the “Question” before a Bench or Guv’mnt Department.

    Recently the Oklahoma State Supreme Court “denied” Application for Original Jurisdiction in a Challenge to the State Election Laws in spite of the fact that the State AG proffered a ‘meritless’ standard applicable to the “exclusionary provision” with the citation of Schneider v Rusk.

    The point is, not only is there NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, but, there is ALSO no acknowledged “uniform mis-understanding” of the “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    Maybe a “full faith and credit” challenge is appropriate …?

  97. borderraven Says:

    Steven,

    If not an “Application for Original Jurisdiction”, then what about an “Application for Concurrent Jurisdiction”?

  98. borderraven Says:

    If not an “Application for Original Jurisdiction”, then what about an “Application for Concurrent Jurisdiction”?

    “Concurrent” with “what”…?

    No Court has granted “Standing” nor accepted “Jurisdiction” on the subject of the A2S1C5 idiom of “natural born Citizen” in spite of it’s usage in the “Exclusionary provision” of the “Statutorily Constructed” “Prerequisite imperative requirement”.

    The Clause resides within the Constitution WITHOUT EFFECT with no part of the various ‘proscriptions’ being codified in a manner that is ‘enforcaeable’ by the operation of law.

    Age nor recidency is no more sacrosanct than NBC its-self. It can easily be arguered that the reduction in the age of majority for voting rights also affects the age requirement of A2S1C5 and ‘residency and domiciloe’ have been so convoluted that a single piece of ‘post-marked’ mail can serve as ‘proof of residency’.

    The Clause has been so “bastardized” that the very mention of it within any Federal or State Department or Court is met with the shunning historically reserved for…….well, thoise that were so shunned are now the norm so I am left howling at the moon……..

    Point is, like the forum shopping done prior to Roe v Wade or Love v Alabama or Brown v Board of Education………a sustained effort needs to be mounted to get the Question before the SCOTUS with a Bona Fide Petition asking if the Clause is meant to be without effect, and if not , what are the definitions, meanings and intent of the “excusionary provisions of the prerequisite imperative requirements of the Clause”…?

    Concurrent with what…?

  99. paraleaglenm Says:

    As much respect I have for SLCraig, I must debate and disagree.

    Natural Born Citizen was not Idiomatic at the time of the framers, nor in 1874, as proven by Justice Waite in Minor vs. Happersett.

    Both Madison and Jefferson commented on the dangers of ‘language’ changing, Madison even pointing out the contemporary abuse of the term ‘consolidation’ in terms of distribution of power between the states and the central government. (This is from memory, so forgive me if I’m off a bit on the facts of that issue.)

    It is our common Resolution that the framers were clear and unambiguous in their choice of words, ‘natural born citizen.’ In the law and language of that time, a child born on the soil of a state did not determine its nationality and allegiance . . . for the states were consolidated under certain uniform laws through federal legislation.

    Upon creation of a new Nation, the English Monarchy no longer limited the jurisdiction of the colonial states; United States law had been established and had to be respected Internationally, i.e., Law of Nations.

    Therefore, the centuries old limitation of jus soli gave way to the legal mechanisms of the March 23, 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act. Children of aliens, which included children born or emigrated to U.S. soil, (no distinctions between the two are implied or inferred) were by natural law the nationality of their parents. In fact, until Wong Kim Ark (1898) violated the Slaughterhouse dicta and Justice Gray’s own analysis and holding in Elk vs. Wilkins, U.S. naturalization law was consistent and without conflict in this matter:

    1) There was no ‘soil’ birthright citizenship.
    2) There was no dual nationality.

    Indeed, as proof, the English law Obots and Birthright Citizenship supporters so religiously rely on, e.g., Calvin’s Case (1608) and English Common Law has less weight and power of law when one considers that from 1350, and specifically the 1772 British Nationality Act, that once the colonial states became a new nation, all children of British subjects born on U.S. soil were, they themselves, Natural Born British Subjects.

    BIRTH OF AN IDIOM

    Therefore, it was out of the Wong Kim Ark holding, the creation of a new type of citizen outside legislated act, i.e., Ark’s excuse being that of his interpretation of a Constitutional Article, a child of aliens born on U.S. soil gained instant citizenship, plus had the national character and was under a second jurisdiction; that of their alien parents.

    These children were either ‘born’ or ‘naturalized.’ Those who saw only ‘born’ conflated the native-birth and thus was ‘born’ the new Idiomatic abuse of the term of art ‘Natural Born Citizen’ we struggle with today.

  100. paraleaglenm Says:
    October 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM

    As much respect I have for SLCraig, I must debate and disagree.

    Well, I’m afraid I do not see what it is you are ‘disagreeing and debating’ on……..? ……….unless it is the assertion that the Constitutional usage of the ‘term of words’ of natural born Citizen is made an idiom by their usage for the ‘specific’ needs of the Constitutional Clause.

    But, that it is self-evident that the term of words is made idiom by their usage being imbued by the needs of the Clause with aspects hitherto not inherent in the ‘term of words’ is linguistically to obvious to argue or debate, so there must be something other that I have missed.

    As for the14th, it appears you’ve bought into the bogus notion that the “Declaratory born Clause’ has any real affect on ‘birth-right Citizenship”, when, in fact, the ONLY beneficiaries of said Clause are those born of Alien Foreign Nationals that would otherwise have NO claim to the benefit of Citizenship. with all others deriving Citizenship from one (1) or Both (2) Citizen Parents, the 14th being intended to be a ‘Collective Naturalization Provision” for those emancipated Slaves previously denied Citizenship.

    It also appears you subscribe to the erroneous conclusion that WKA provided the Citizenship benefit to parents who were not ‘legally’ admitted, when in fact the parents were admitted under the terms of the Burlingame Treaty, which, in Article VI, proscribed the ‘naturalization’ of any covered person.

    Hence my conclusion that Justice Gray committed Judicial Kidnapping of an Alien Foreign National.

    If I missed your disagreement just let me know, by leave of the host.

  101. Hi Leo,

    “Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:”

    Did you know that Van Dyne copied almost word for word from Justice Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark?

    “That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

    reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” Wong Kim Ark

  102. paraleaglenm Says:

    First, pardon the grammatical errors. Long hours and little sleep . . .

    What I was trying to describe was the downward slide of the Natural Born Citizen clause, from Term of Art to Idiom . . . thanks to Wong Kim Ark creating the constitutional ‘citizen born.’

    With Ark’s creation of the ‘born’ citizen based solely on U.S. soil (illegal alien parents was a continuing slide downward that happened later), the concept of ‘native-born’ was conflated with ‘natural born,’ . . . thus, idiomatic.

  103. An interesting fact arises in the Minor decision, and that is;

    Notwithstanding the determination that Virginia Minor was a “natural born Citizen” without the, (a), States right of suffrage, nevertheless, in being at once a “person” and a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S., there appears to be no proscriptions in law that would have precluded her from being eligible to the office of the POTUS

    It, in my opinion, is important to acknowledge such an historical “legal” fact, if for no other reason than to hi-lite the many historical ‘misunderstandings’ surrounding “Citizenship” under the Constitution.

  104. borderraven Says:

    Steven,

    And might I add, that through miss-interpretation of and miss-application of the 14th Amendtment, the USA has
    committed unconstitutional kidnapping of an Alien Foreign Nationals, i.e., “anchor babies”.

  105. paraleaglenm Says:

    SL: An interesting citation from Minor. Imagine the musing of J. Waite on the eligibility of Ms. Minor to the presidency, and yet denied the vote.

    May I suggest that just as women derivatively ‘naturalized’ to the nationality of the husband, no LAW by MAN was considered proper if it DIVIDED a HOUSE, i.e., the bond between man and woman.

    In my first comprehensive blog on the nationality and Article II eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, 2-2009, after failing to convince McCain to challenge Obama under Title 3, Sec 15, I quoted a CNN Supreme Court correspondent who said this: Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst: “The law was always been [sic]understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”

  106. borderraven Says:

    paraleaglenm,

    Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst, falls into the same old trap in reading and perceiving the 14th Amendment.

    The law says plenty, but most folks are lazy readers, who stop short of “born in the US”. The 14th Amendment has been misread, misinterpreted and misapplied for too long. People ignore the jurisdiction clause or ignore diplomatic relations, under treaties, which delegate “consular jurisdiction” over foreign nationals.

    I feel this is or was done out of sympathy for the aliens or pride in the US, or if only to populate the US with citizens. Some folks will say, “This child born in the US, though born to aliens, could grow up and cure cancer someday and make America better.” Well, the US Empire is developed, and now we need to develop the Third World, so migrants will stay home and tourists will visit and spend money.

  107. paraleaglenm Says:
    November 2, 2011 at 1:50 AM

    Quoting the CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst: “The law was always been [sic]understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”

    The early ‘citizenship cases’ did not ‘consider’ the citizenship of the women given that the woman’s citizenship was derived from the husband/father.

    [ed. no more bold print, please... that is reserved for my comments. - Leo]

    The fact that the 14th made NO reconciliations regarding a ‘women’s’ citizenship status speaks to the ‘specificity’ of the purpose of the Amendment and its intended limited affect on citizenship as a whole.

    [ed. Good point and it also indicates why such a citizenship definition was required by the Court in Minor v. Happersett. The decision affirmed that women were citizens as much as men. - Leo]

    Should we ever attain an intellectually honest Congress and Judiciary the standing misconceptions and misinterpretations are easily repairable and of such an unassailable self-evident nature that even the mind-dead useful idiots of the left will have naught to protest.

    [ed. It is becoming more clear, especially in light of the impending national awareness of In re Lockwood... a case which was hacked at more sites than Justia. - Leo]

  108. “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,” justice Fuller, Re Lockwood

    Is he saying that women must be born of citizen parents? Why did he single them out? Does this apply to men also?

    [ed. Because her argument was pertaining to women, women were singled out. Of course it applies to men as well. - Leo]

  109. paraleaglenm Says:

    Fact: The colonies relied solely on jus soli because they had no jurisdiction beyond state lines.

    Fact: The British had abandoned Calvin’s Case, 1350 law and the 1772 British Nationality Act relying on jus sanguinis to promote commerce when their subjects were venturing beyond British territories.

    Fact: The 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act did not provide citizenship at birth for aliens, the minor children of aliens only became citizens upon naturalization of the father.

    Yet, from Madison in the Case of Mr. Smith to J. Gray in Wong Kim Ark, the simple attraction of jus soli kept winning the day . . . it was a solution without distinctions, for it created dual nationality if the father was an alien.

    So, you have Mr. Goldstein of CNN, probably an attorney, speaking without doing research, insisting that birth on U.S. soil created a natural born citizen, especially if the mother was a citizen . . . when the law first looks to the nationality of the father to start determination of which nationality has jurisdiction.

  110. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    According to the 1948 BNA Part II Section 5(a) Obama is a British citizen by direct descent, his father did not need to register his birth. Obama has produced the evidence of his birth circumstances on April 27, 2011. His Hawaii, US long form birth certificate is the evidence of his birth circumstance.

    The Declaration of Independence, is an expression of the commitment to separate from the King of England.

    Obama is a British citizen!

    The USA is ruled by a British citizen!

    [ed. Not correct... I have done extensive research on this but I dont have the time right now to summarize it. My research reveals that he is only still a British citizen if he was registered as one by his folks and if he did not directly revoke it himself. - Leo]

  111. paraleaglenm Says:
    November 2, 2011 at 10:30 PM

    Fact: The colonies relied solely on jus soli because they had no jurisdiction beyond state lines.

    But just as the Dredd Scott case determined that only US Citizens had the right to sue in Federal Courts, only State ‘citizens’ had the right to sue in Colony/State Courts, and were only Citizens if born to Citizen Fathers, jus soli being of incidental concern. Although the various Colony/States may have extended State Citizenship to foundlings and/or others as a matter of ‘equity’, that was the States right, before the 1st Congressional Naturalization Act establishing an uniform Rule of naturalization.

    The 1790 Congressional Act established the Jus Sanguinis standard as the Uniform Rule guiding Citizenship and the repeal of the provision allowing for the NBC status of foreign born children of Citizen parents establishes the necessity of Jus Soli only for NBC status.

    The Jus Soli provision of the 14th Amendments Declaratory, and expired, collective naturalization ‘born within the jurisdiction’ statement only benefits those who have no Jus Sanguinis claim to the Citizenship benefit, being, alien foreign nationals, whether here legally or not.

    [ed. No more bold print... please - Leo]

  112. borderraven Says:
    November 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM

    Leo,
    According to the 1948 BNA Part II Section 5(a) Obama is a British citizen …[snip}

    [ed. Not correct… I have done extensive research on this …[snip]

    It is my understanding that it is the existing determinative circumstances at the time of birth that would govern the conformity of being or not being an NBC.

    The ‘fact’ that the ‘option’ to pursue consummation of ‘foreign citizenship’ was available to the ‘0s’ parents based on ‘lineage’ would seem to be inconsistent with the historical concept of a ‘natural born citizen’.

    Aristotle posited that it took several or more generations from the Founding Generation to produce a “true citizen”…. it is difficult to imagine, in that context of thought, that an alien foreign national on a visiting Student Visa could be said to be the sire of an American NBC.

  113. paraleaglenm Says:

    The applicable British law is British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, “(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

    The ‘registration’ requirement is obvious considering that the U.S. hospital or birthing facility does not automatically register the child with the British embassy based on the father’s nationality. Perhaps it should, except the common misconception (legal interpretation of Wong Kim Ark) assumes U.S. citizenship by place of birth alone, especially if the mother fulfills age and residency requirements in 8 USC 1401.

    The key issue in interpretation of Natural Born Citizen is that in 1787 and 1790, the time of the adoption of Article II as part of the U.S. Constitution and the First Uniform Naturalization Act . . . and for one-hundred years henceforth, there was no such thing as dual nationality.

    Yet, at the same time Sec. of State Wm Seward declared that their was no such thing as a dual national, or dual allegiances (1861), Justice Gray creates a conflict of law (Wong Kim Ark) that inadvertently does just that to Ark . . . as a minor, a child of domiciled aliens born on U.S. soil would have both Alien and U.S. nationality/citizenship.

  114. paraleaglenm Says:

    William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
    Cf. Preamble of 1772 British Nationality Act

    “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the
    king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood
    with some restrictions. The common law indeed
    stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so
    that a particular act of parliament became necessary after
    the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his
    majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during
    the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded
    upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance
    where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances,
    or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of
    the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to
    be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign
    country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to
    whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was
    held (by a kind of postliminium to be born under the king
    of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.
    To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted
    by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born
    abroad, provided their parents were at the time of the
    birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed
    the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born
    in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in
    behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes
    these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children,
    born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were
    natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves,
    to all intents and purposes, without any exception;
    unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond
    sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of
    a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally
    speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all
    the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France
    differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a
    child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

    [ed. Anyone saying nbs is synonymous with nbc fails to address this... they are not the same concept by a wide margin. - Leo]

  115. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    The British Treaty of 1951/1952, allowed diplomatic relations, embassies, consulates, of the sending nation, on the receiving nation’s territory, and surrendered 14th Amendment jurisdiction and BNA jurisdiction in the UK. A consular officer exercises “consular jurisdiction” over assigned territory, where the registration of births and issue of passports are performed.

    The 1949 BNA conferred UK citizenship by direct descent on Barrack Hussien Obama II, and did not require registration or notification of the UK government.

    [ed. UK citizenship only survived in him, based upon a thorough reading of the law in the UK, if he was registered as a UK citizen. At birth, he was a UK citizen, but subsequent enactments changed his status to BOC after Kenya was made independent. According to the current law, from my research, a person can't be BOC (British Overseas Citizen) and also a citizen of Kenya after independence. Therefore, the only way he is still a British citizen is if his parents registered him as one and if he didnt renounce it... which means it is possibe he is still a Brit, but we don't have any way of knowing as far as I can tell... unless registration of UK citizenship is available in FOIA style requests from the UK. But his automatic UK citizenship at birth expired, from my best research on this, which was fairly extensive. So registration is the only way he is still a UK citizen. ]

    Newly discovered evidence, which recently surfaced, in the USA, on April 27, 2011, verifies the birth circumstances of Barrack Hussien Obama II, as being born to then UK citizen Barrack Hussien Obama.
    The birth circumstances are a constant which definitely define the legal situation of a person. Nothing can reverse the genealogy or location, or laws in effect, at the very moment of birth-where life or shall I say being begins.

    [ed. I agree, he was a Brit at birth and that's all that matters regarding whether such status affects POTUS eligibility... the President must be, at birth, nbc. So, whether he lost Brit citizen status is not relevant to POTUS eligibility. But whether he is still a UK citizen is a whole other issue which is not so clear. - Leo]

    Barrack Hussien Obama II, is a UK Citizen, with dual US citizenship.

    [ed. You don't have enough facts to determine that. Seriously, you need to check yourself here. I will provide analysis on this soon with legal references, etc. - Leo]

    The fact, so stated on his websites, that he was born into this world with the option to select a nationality on reaching majority, is proof he was not born a natural born citizen.

    [ed. I agree, but it's not as simple as that. I agree with the end conclusion, but it's not cut and dried and there is a rational other side to this... unfortunately, the other side we usually hear from is mostly irrational. - Leo]

    Natural born citizens, on reaching majority, are not faced with any decision over nationality, but dual citizens are.

    Barrack Hussien Obama II, is not a natural born citizen.

    On July 4, 1776, the USA declared independence from the UK.
    On January 20, 2009, the USA technically surrendered sovereignty to the UK.

  116. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    See

    http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

    British Nationality Act, 1948

    1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

    ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

    Part II

    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by birth or descent.

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

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

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

    … “or any place in a foreign country where by treaty(1), … His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or(2)” …

    Notes:
    1. the British Treaty signed by US President Harry S Truman, in 1951.

    2. the last conjunction “or” preceding the next paragraph.

    [ed. I dont understand your argument... please elaborate carefully, point by point. Clarity. Please make your thesis, point by point, citing each relevant section of law you reply upon as the point is raised. I cannot make heads or tails out of this the way you've posted it. - Leo]

  117. paraleaglenm Says:
    November 6, 2011 at 9:33 PM

    William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
    Cf. Preamble of 1772 British Nationality Act

    The continued convoluting of the British “Statutory Laws on Subject-hood” that were promulgated under Queen Ann’s Reign with either the “English Common Law” or the more ancient “Common Law” derived from the “natural law” is amusing to those of us that have taken the time to understand the formulations that have led to the Constitutional Rule of Law emanating from the establishment of our Constitutional Republic.

    They all are of the musings, contemplations and codifications of the various societies for the form of “government” within which they were to be applied.

    Insofar as the “Statutory English Laws on Subject-hood/citizenship” that are commonly, though mistakenly, referred to as the “English Common Law” are concerned;

    They were promulgated under the Governing Principle of the Divine Right of Kings, the very system referred to in the Declaration of Independence and of which the “bonds were broken”.

    Those that care to understand the Glory of the Constitution are advised to study the various forms of government, and the writings of those who have chronicled those that were practiced and those that were contemplated, from the Laws and Judgements found in the Bible, the Code of Hammurabi, to the Books on Politics by Aristotle attributed as being the Father of Natural Law studies, to the 17th Century writers of the Age of Enlightenment such as Pufendorf with “The duty of man and citizen” and “Of the Law of Nature” & “Of the Law of Nature and Nations” and also Grotius, especially, “On the Law of War and Peace”, then to the 18th Century writers, who proliferated with the aid of Gutenberg’s presses proliferating throughout Europe, and who I will refrain from listing, except as a tweak, Emerich de Vattel with his 1st English Edition of “Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” in 1759;

    …all of which led to the culmination of the best each had to offer and then Codified into the text of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    But to be certain the point is not lost, the Codified Statutes on Subject-hood administered under the Rules and Regulations of the English Common Law are only informative as to the status of Americans up to the delivery of the Declaration of Independence and then nullified and made moot by the years of the Revolutionary War and the Adoption of the Constitution. <period

  118. And again I would posit…

    [ed. Snip. see my comment to you here. Please obey the rules, no bold print. - Leo]

  119. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    My post citing the 1948 BNA, Part II, Section 5(1)(a)
    ” that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or”

    “that person (BHOII) is born … any place in a foreign country (USA) where by (1952 US/British) treaty, … His Majesty then has or had (consular) jurisdiction over British subjects; or”

    It was the British Treaty, signed by President Truman in 1951 (in force in 1952) that maintained diplomatic relations, allowing UK consulates in the US, and vice versa, that allowed a student visa to issue to BHO Sr, while keeping domicile he intended to return to in Kenya.

    My point being, that BHO Sr was not a resident alien, but a transient alien, and as it relates to birth tourism and anchor babies, non-resident aliens cannot birth US citizen children in the USA per the 14th Amendment (and Wong Kim Ark), due to consular jurisdiction of the sending nation.

    [ed. but recall, Gray in WKA, in his discussion of the Slaughter-House Cases and its dicta, stated that applying that rule to consuls, rather than diplomats/ambassadors, was not justified since consuls are not cloaked with diplomatic immunity in a similar way... I dont think that covers his father who was not a consul. this argument is not convincing to me. - Leo]

  120. British law is tedious. Some may interpret distinctions by way of Treaty . . . or that Obama, Sr. wss a natural born subject otherwise than by descent.

    The key law is 8 U.S.C. 1101 declaring Dunham the ‘legal paren’ upon abandonment of Obama, Sr.

  121. borderraven Says:

    Leo, wrote
    “[ed. but recall, Gray in WKA, in his discussion of the Slaughter-House Cases and its dicta, stated that applying that rule to consuls, rather than diplomats/ambassadors, was not justified since consuls are not cloaked with diplomatic immunity in a similar way... I dont think that covers his father who was not a consul. this argument is not convincing to me. - Leo]”

    Yes I understand that part of the discussion, but we are looking at the British law, not US. I’ll get back to US law later.

    Under the Law of Nations, foreign nations cannot establish embassies or consulates in the US unless a treaty has been mutually ratified, or a military invasion has conquered the land. The embassy and consulate officers are granted jurisdiction over their nationals, in the US, by the treaty. The series of US/British treaties have maintained mutual and reciprocal relations for decades. A child born in the UK to a US citizen, domiciled in the US, has US citizenship and that of the mother.

    The British Treaty granting UK consular jurisdiction over the USA, effected the 1948 BNA, Part II, 5(1)(a):
    Obama, born in the US to a US citizen, domiciled in the US, and a (non-immigrant) UK citizen domiciled in the UK, had/has UK citizenship at birth.

    Now for US laws:
    As currenlty written, 8USC1101- Definitions (a)(15) thru (16) treats both consuls and foreign students as “non’immigrant aliens”, due to fealty.

    (15) The term ‘‘immigrant’’ means every alien
    except an alien who is within one of the following
    classes of nonimmigrant aliens—
    (A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career
    diplomatic or consular officer who has
    been accredited by a foreign government, recognized
    de jure by the United States and who
    is accepted by the President or by the Secretary
    of State, and the members of the alien’s
    immediate family;
    (ii) upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials
    and employees who have been accredited
    by a foreign government recognized de jure by
    the United States, who are accepted by the
    Secretary of State, and the members of their
    immediate families; and
    (iii) upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants,
    servants, personal employees, and members of
    their immediate families, of the officials and
    employees who have a nonimmigrant status
    under (i) and (ii) above;

    ~snip~
    (F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign
    country which he has no intention of abandoning,
    who is a bona fide student qualified to
    pursue a full course of study and who seeks to
    enter the United States temporarily and solely
    for the purpose of pursuing such a course of
    study consistent with section 1184(l) 1 of this
    title at an established college, university,
    seminary, conservatory, academic high school,
    elementary school, or other academic institution
    or in a language training program in the
    United States, particularly designated by him
    and approved by the Attorney General after
    consultation with the Secretary of Education,
    which institution or place of study shall have
    agreed to report to the Attorney General the
    termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant
    student, and if any such institution
    of learning or place of study fails to make reports
    promptly the approval shall be withdrawn,
    (ii) the alien spouse and minor children
    of any alien described in clause (i) if accompanying
    or following to join such an alien, and
    (iii) an alien who is a national of Canada or
    Mexico, who maintains actual residence and
    place of abode in the country of nationality,
    who is described in clause (i) except that the
    alien’s qualifications for and actual course of
    study may be full or part-time, and who commutes
    to the United States institution or
    place of study from Canada or Mexico;

    [ed. I have looked into this as far as the web will allow me to... and I do not believe your analysis is correct. First, as to a point in your initial post on this which is not mentioned here, Obama's father was NOT a UK citizen by descent under the BNA 1948. Obama Jr is a citizen by descent, but his father is a UK citizen from being born in Kenya when it was a colony of the UK. Second, while Article 17(1)(c)of the 1952 Consular Convention between the US and UK does allow for the registration of births with the local British consul in the US, Article 17(2) states:

    "(2) It is understood that consular registration of a birth or death and the recording by a consular officer of a marriage celebrated under the law of the territory in no way exempts a private person from any obligation laid down in the law of the territory with regard to the notification and registration of births, deaths, or marriages with the authorities of the territory."

    Therefore, the UK does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the birth of the child. If he was registered as a British citizen, and he didn't formally divest himself of that citizenship, he's still a British citizen. His strange insistence that his birth status was "governed" by the UK, may indicate that he was so registered and that to his mind, he saw himself as being governed by the UK and not the US at the time of his birth. But we need more facts to determine if he was registered as a UK citizen with a Consul here or in the UK. Perhaps that is a matter of public record there. - Leo]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: