PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12.   The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 – Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject.   This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray – who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark – was appointed by Chester Arthur.

The Wong Kim Ark case involves an important historical opinion that SCOTUS Justices will certainly consider as to the Obama natural born citizen issue.

The recent discovery calls into question the motivations of both Arthur and Gray since Arthur’s father was a British subject not naturalized at the time of Chester’s birth.   In fact, William Arthur was not naturalized until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.  In the light of historical retrospection, Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark seems tailor made to the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1868, and Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898.  But under United States law in 1829 it’s not clear that Arthur would have even been considered a United States citizen at the time of his birth, let alone a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.  At best, he would have been a dual citizen of Great Britain and the United States.

It was proved earlier this week, by various articles in the Brooklyn Eagle printed circa 1880, and other authorities, that when Arthur was on the campaign trail as Garfield’s running mate he lied many times about his father’s emigration record, his parents’ life in Canada before coming to the United States, and his father’s age.   Chester also burned his papers and falsified his birth year.  It appears now that he was doing so to conceal the POTUS eligibility issue.

Every other President  (who didn’t become eligible under the Article 2, Section 1 grandfather clause) was born to American citizen parents in the United States.   The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.

It must now be questioned whether the relationship between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray was influenced by Arthur’s eligibility problems and whether those issues effected Gray’s opinion and vote in Wong Kim Ark.

It must also be considered that the integrity of Justice Gray’s SCOTUS appointment might have been called into question if Chester Arthur’s POTUS ineligibility issues had become known.


All of the above is relevant to the issue of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen in that the core Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark must now be re-evaluated in lieu of the fact that the Justice who wrote the opinion was appointed by Chester Arthur.

Leo Donofrio will accompany Cort Wrotnowski to Washington D.C. tomorrow and both will be available for comment at 11:00 AM on the steps of the Supreme Court.  This is not a rally, protest or vigil.   If the media would like to discuss this historical brief and the issues discussed above, Donofrio and Wrotnowski will be available to answer any questions thereto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Cort Wrotnowski



  1. The Supreme Court filing (application, brief etc.) in the Connecticut Wrotnowski case is soooooo much better than that in the New Jersey Donofrio case (apparently hurredly written before the Nov 4 election) that I don’t think Team Obama should get too comfortable with the Court’s denial of the first case since the second case IS distributed for Dec 12 conference. How the heck can anyone effectively counter this (great work Leo):


  2. The pieces are coming together. Keep it up Leo. This is better than a suspense novel. Damn!

  3. Joe E. Sheldon Says:

    Will the supplement also bring Colero’s ineligibility into question in line with Cort’s main suit since Colero was also a convicted felon as well as having been born in Nicaragua??

  4. angry American Says:

    I don’t deal in rumors. Good luck to Cort

  5. Yay!!! let’s Hope this one gets a little more traction. Hey I just found a picture of you. I was expecting a scholarly, elderly gent…You don’t look much older than me and…sorta cute!

    Do you think SCOTUS is influenced by “cute”? Hmm… Probably not.

  6. That’s good. Good luck.

  7. […] and Cort’s recent joint commentary on Cort’s case being distributed to Conference […]

  8. Go get ’em Leo! We are very proud of your efforts! Thank you sir, you are a great American.

  9. Keep the faith Leo. I believe in the Constitution, our judicial process, and you. Continue to do what you do best and good will follow.

    As stated by John Quincy Adams:

    “Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.”

    Rock on Leo!

  10. Sane Person Says:

    Dear Genius,

    It’s well known Supreme Court procedure that when a previously-denied application is resubmitted to another Justice — as this one was — that Justice refers the application to the whole court. That’s because almost every single resubmitted application is brought by a crackpot, and is without merit.

    So rather than allow the applicant to keep re-submitting to every single Justice until at least six justices have separately denied it, the second Justice refers it to the entire Court, which usually spends about one second “considering” it, and then denies it as a whole, thus putting the application out of its misery once and for all.

    Seriously, if the supreme court does anything other than decline to trake up the case after the confrence. I’ll send you $500. Seriously.

  11. Please. Please. Don’t make me hate America more than I already do. Maybe some will respect the Supreme Court’s decision regardless of the outcome, but I’m not so abiding to their intellect. The judges are just people, and ones that have in the course of events throughout history helped corrode Law to this point.

    If Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen, there is not one excuse that can be raised to sweep him into the White House. None!

    Also, based on a a very long study of linguistical codes, I unraveled a procedure to unveil hidden messages within categories of names and certain types of titles. I have decrypted about 75 of these codes, which I call Word Stacks, and none have been wrong yet. I have deduced a decyption winding through the names Obama and Biden. Come see for yourself. It’s very telling…


    P.s. More Word Stacks will be listed in days to come.

  12. [Ed. Thanks. Typos suxk.]

    On page 36, line 2 of the Cort brief, where you say Barack Obama it should actually be John McCain. i think you did a “copy and paste’ and this slipped through.

    perhaps you can correct this in your supplementary brief being submitted tomorrow.

  13. If I am not mistaken, In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray reversed the opinion that he had held in the earlier Elk v. Wilkins case, in which the Court correctly ruled that mere birth upon U.S. soil was not enough to transmit U.S. citizenship (as in the case of Elk, an American Indian at the time when not all tribes had yet been granted citizenship). The Elk case is strong evidence against “birthright citizenship.” I hope you are able, in undermining Justice Gray’s faulty conclusions in Wong Kim Ark, to not inadvertently undermine his correct views in Elk.
    God bless you! You are in my prayers!

  14. Perhaps there is hope:

    The Cort case comes up for conference on Dec 12, 2008.

    Leo, I join others in thanking you and commending you. God bless and keep you.

    A few questions:

    1. Is there hope that there will be positive disposition of the the Cort case; given the denial of your application.

    2. Assuming they issue a stay (is it even possible..given that electors meet on Dec 15th and the conference is on Dec 12th), what are next steps?

    3. Let’s assume during the conference they issue a stay and a writ for cert and after arguments they concur with your interpretation of NBC, what are remedial steps? Do we have a new election?

    Thanks again and keep the faith. There remains hope.

    P.S. Time to get that suppl brief for the Cort case incorporating the Chester findings prepared. Godspeed!


  16. Keep up the good work. hope you get him.

    I was looking at the Reporters guide to applications.
    It said in practice, applications usually are referred to the full court by the second Justice to avoid a long procedure of repeated referrals.
    Could this be bad for the next case?

  17. The news this morning was a bit of a blow. Nice that we can follow it up with this news! Go Leo and Cort!

  18. Argued: Any person eligible to vote in the 2008 election for president has standing to sue Obama on grounds he is not eligible as a candidate on due process and equal protection grounds as part of a common controversy.

    Common Controversy: Who is eligible to participate in the 2008 election either as candidate or voter.

    Nutshell: If the candidate can sue the voter as not qualified to vote and has standing, then as part of the same common controversy the voter has standing to sue the candidate as not eligible to participate in the election. If one can initiate a suit against the other as ineligible, then the other can plead as defense the ineligibility of the other. Either may initiate a defense he can plead. Denial of symmetry in the same common controversy to voter or candidate is denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law.

    More here:


  19. You go Boys! I’M SO EXCITED! I have been praying for you & asking the Lord above to give you guidance & supreme wisdom! There has been alot of blood shed for our freedom & i’m glad to here that you boys are not given up! Leo, this reminds me of a biblical story “THE BOOK OF ESTHER” If you get a chance please take a moment to review, it seems that it was all over for the Jews, unreversable. The King was tricked to sign off on a document that would legally kill all the Jews, including His Queen! The order was given, it SEEMS that it was a done deal. The tables were turned & what SEEMS unreversable was Reversed! Be encourage for we serve a Great & Mighty God! & you boys don’t stand alone!

  20. Leo, URGENT ATTENTION. The Wrotnowski petition uses the name Barack Obama in the very last paragraph when it should say John McCain. Please correct and keep truckin’. You are an American Hero.

  21. “Stay the course” Leo. So who’s going to play you in the movie when it comes out?

  22. Praying hard for you guys. Praying hard for our Constitution!!!
    Praying hard for the process of chosing our leader and making sure things are done propertly now and in the future!

    Blessings be on our Country and you good men.

  23. Leo, what difference does it make that Arthur appointed Justice Gray, given that Justice Gray agrees with your interpretation of “natural born citizen” anyway (since he declared Wong Kim Arc a native born citizen and not a natural born citizen)?

  24. Bob Anthony Says:

    Leo, Cort lives in the same town in CT as I do. And having to deal with a whining shrill “woman” like SOS Bysciwicz, an AVOWED LIBERAL and Richard Blumenthal, who was dubbed one of the worst AG’s in the nation by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, no friend of big business, and totally anti-smoking, I mean both of them should be labeled socialists. Sadly I live in the state I take no shame in calling the People’s Republic of Connecticut-Stan.

    By the way, when will you let us download that KWDJ radio interview?

  25. Leo , Thank GOD for men like You.

    You Find inner strength,and fight on..I’m just a simple Man, a Patriot who loves God and Country, as you have Proven time and time again.
    We stand Shoulder to Shoulder,.. I Salute you Sir! Thanks

  26. Pieter Nosworthy Says:

    On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
    — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

    If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
    — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

    Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
    — James Madison

    Cited from http://www.constitution.org/

    Good luck, Gentlemen, and God speed.

  27. bob strauss Says:

    Berg has filed for a stay of the electoral process with SCOTUS according to his site. Will SCOTUS respond or is this more” fuel for the fire”. Things seem to be heating up on this subject.

  28. 12 08 2008 berg files for supreme court injunction against the electoral college until obama produces the necessary evidence of a legal standing to be president…… GOOD LUCK ON THE 12 TH hope it is NOT LIKE AN UNANSWERED 8TH….

  29. Leo,

    Thank you for your hard work! I have faith in you and Cort’s case.

    I am glad to see that you are now open to interviews on camera. You are very articulate and effortlessly explain the facts of the case. I strongly believe that you can reach/convince so many more people on TV. I know you wanted to keep a low profile, but time is slipping away.

    Thank you Leo & Cort!

  30. This is high stakes poker… From the Politico:

    “The Supreme Court Monday rejected one case contending that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as the president is required to be under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The case, referred to the court by Justice Clarence Thomas after Justice David Souter had rejected it, argued that because Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, at the time a British colony, the president-elect was born with dual citizenship.”

    There it is…Out in the open….Obama at birth was BOTH a British & U.S. Citizen…Clearly a challenge

    So my take on this aside from having Obama becoming Precidint is setting a Precedent. This will start a slippery slope to letting anyone both foreign & domestic run for President of the United States.

    So, if the Supreme Court passes on this come Friday December 12, 2008, they will have abdicated their role as guardians of the Constitution.

    IMHO I don’t think Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia would send this to conference if they were going to deny it. All he would have to do is reject it himself today along with Leo’s…end of story.

  31. Leo, you probably have been too busy to watch the news, but on msnbc.com this afternoon they had an article about your case being denied. There is a video of a newscaster, Pete Williams explaining the case. He completely misses the point regarding the British citizenship. He says your case was based on Obama’s father being a Kenyon. I don’t know if the media is doing this on purpose or if they really don’t know what they are talking about. Here’s the link to the article and video:


    Keep up the good work!

  32. Playing devil’s advocate I’m thinking “stare decisis” here.

    What court is going to ignore the laws we have lived by and understood for the last 200+ years to over-rule what happened through Horace Gray? or Chester Arthur?

    Does this really add to the case?

  33. mtngoat61 Says:

    Hi Leo,

    MSNBC weighed tonight in with an opinion of your case, the Donofrio case. They said your name a couple of times. Keep a sharp lookout for O-Bots in the bushes. 🙂


    Mountain Publius Goat

  34. PS: and I’d like to add to the many thanks that have been offered here and elsewhere. You are a stalwart knight. Many blessings to you.

  35. Here from the AP:

    “WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.
    Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
    Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.”

    Boy last week they, the MSM could get nothing right some outright distorting regarding Leo’s case now after today’s denial, lot more accurate….Connect the D.O.T.S.

  36. John Nada Says:

    I just finished watching the Keith Olbermann piece with his guest commentator, the noted unconstitutional scholar Arianna Huffington (who is ironically the author of a book entitled “How to Overthrow the Government”). Apparently I never got the memo that MSNBC has merged with both Comedy Central and the Sci-Fi Channel.

    I hope that all 9 of the Honorable SCOTUS Justices get a chance to watch what I just saw on television. If they look at the contents of the pleadings and briefs in Leo’s and Cort’s cases in light of how the MSM has just treated Leo’s case after finally addressing it during primetime, they’ll have a good indication of how the future of this country will unfold if they don’t review Cort’s or any of the other similar cases on the merits and issue a definitive ruling.

    Query: If the MSM doesn’t think there’s anything to Leo’s case or any of the other cases, why would they have even bothered to mention Leo’s case at all?
    Answer: See Goebbels, Dr. Paul Joseph.

  37. Ladyhawke Says:


    Do you think that it is possible that the Supreme Court will not act until the Electoral College votes? I was just thinking that although it is unlikely – it is technically possible – that the EC could vote in an eligible POTUS, and not create a Constitutional issue.

    I am concerned because the SCOTUS seems to have set Cort’s conference more quickly than was done for your case and before the EC vote.

    I do admire all you have done!

  38. Leo,good info on Plains Radio.Hope you are listening before you come on tonight.Also,read article by Edwin Vieira. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

  39. Leo,

    I know you must be frantically busy preparing the supplemental brief for tomorrow with Cort, and so my question(s) pale in importance and comparison to what you and Cort are doing tonight.

    My prayers are with you both in your efforts on behalf of us all. You are truly doing the Lord’s work!!!

    I’m afraid to let my heart sing, though, without your assessment of the quote I have inserted below from an earlier posting. Is the posting accurate that Scalia’s referral for Conference could just be a procedural way to quickly silence the argument once and for all?

    “It’s well known Supreme Court procedure that when a previously-denied application is resubmitted to another Justice — as this one was — that Justice refers the application to the whole court. That’s because almost every single resubmitted application is brought by a crackpot, and is without merit.

    So rather than allow the applicant to keep re-submitting to every single Justice until at least six justices have separately denied it, the second Justice refers it to the entire Court, which usually spends about one second “considering” it, and then denies it as a whole, thus putting the application out of its misery once and for all. ”

    Do you have any way of knowing whether this is a single Justice Scalia referral or a referral by the entire Court?

  40. OH MY ….I don’t know if i just ran across something, but everybody..look at this!!! Barney Frank was on a committed to change the constitution back in 2000…to make Citizens eligible for president!!….I hope that i’m not the only one who found this…is this old news?
    Leo have you seen this?


  41. Leo,

    Here is one for the record. The Supreme Court recognizes Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS as an authoritative treatise for Constitutional Law. And they’ve expressed this in their briefings. One example:


    Dated in 2002 (I believe this is recent enough), they stated:

    “The leading international law treatise of
    the day, Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS, provided that law of nations immunity was an immutable principle of international law…”


    “Vattel’s treatise, published in both French and English, was widely available to the Framers and ratifiers,5 and it was cited both in the debates in the federal convention and in the state ratifying conventions.”

    There is that link you need. It bridges the historical references of “Natural Born Citizen” with modern references recognized by SCOTUS.

    It is very important that Wrotnowski’s case emphasize the importance of Vattel’s definition of “Natural-born citizen” Trust me, SCOTUS will not ignore this.

  42. Now back air

  43. Leo and Cort,

    Thoughts and prayers are with you.

  44. My prayers are with Leo and Cort for God to fully provide for you and to protect the people of the United States. May God bless you for what you are doing. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

  45. Carmen, it’s odd that you should mention the Book of Esther, since someone else commented in an earlier post that Gov. Palin was a modern day Esther… very interesting!

  46. Leo,

    I’m sure you already know this, but I saw it referenced in the case you reffered to, United States v. Wong Kim Arc.

    The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
    by Emmerich de Vattel

    Book 1, Chapter 19
    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”



    He clearly says, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Wonder what the possibility of linking this to the usage in the Constitution is. The time frame is right.

  47. Leo,
    When this is all said and done, I hope you sit down and write a novel. This story has it all – intrigue, suspense, historical references – and it is all true which makes it even more fascinating. I found out about your case by reading americasright blog. I googled your case and found your website on Blogtext. This must have been in late Oct./early Nov. In any case, when I first read your account of your interaction with the NJ courts, I could not stop reading because it was so fascinating and it continues to be so. What makes it even more incredible is that you did not mean for all this intrigue to happen with the clerks and the Chester Arthur issue. As you have said, you just “filed some papers” because you felt strongly about the Constitution. The other players have caused all the drama.
    Great work getting to the bottom of the Chester Arthur issue and for your courage and perserverance.

  48. The term natural born can be applied to many things and it applies to Barack Hussein Obama. Why you ask?

    This is the most important Supreme Court Case In the Nations History. If the Justices grant a hearing on this case it could lead to Obama being disqualified as a candidate. It is obvious to me and anyone who will take the time to understand article 2 of the US Constitution it reveals Obama must be a natural born citizen to be president. Obama has admitted on his web site fight the smears and in his book and audio tape that he was a citizen of kenya until age 21. This is proof positive he was a dual citizen at birth. Its simple to understand. A dual citizen at birth cannot be a US president as article 2 of the US Constitution has clearly stated. Its is also obvious to me Obama is a fraud because he has told the American public he is just a citizen now and not a dual citizen as before his age of 21.

    Is he just a citizen and not a dual citizen? If this is true it makes no difference as the US Constitution is only concerned with a persons status at birth as a natural born citizen.

    The only thing “natural” about Obama is he is a natural born LIAR!

    A positive decision by the US Supreme Court would reveal the deception that has been sold to America. The DNC and Obama would be exposed as frauds. May GOD bless America and expose the CON MAN Barack Hussein Obama.

  49. Leo,I’m listening to the show tonight,and I’m glad you are fired up.This guy Steve is good.He bounces ideas off you and you have good communication going.He didn’t take your tips as an insult.And he’s well aware of the corruption that is rank in our system,whereas you always show a little too much faith in our rotten system.We might see justice,but I think everything has to be pristine and flawless or the bad boys are going to boot it.This shouldn’t be.Someone at the stae or federal level should’ve had the integrity and decency to bring Obama’s duplicity out in the open.Steve just touched on the riot issue.Both of you are correct.Obama and the corrupt officials in the parties and government are at fault.Not “we the people” that are trying to uphold the Constitution.

  50. Leo, I am all for you and Cort. But, if I may play devil’s advocate, could we possibly be getting too optimistic about Cort’s scheduled conference? I’m wondering too if this action taken by the resubmittal justice of choice in your cases and others, isn’t done just to avoid the appellants’ continuing resubmittals to each justice individually if denied by the last justice.

    Hopefully this is not so, but is this happening with most cases presented and denied by the initial justice assigned to the case? It just goes to conference to save time??

  51. More interesting is the profused reference to Vattel by SCOTUS. So far I’ve counted over 50 Supreme Court references to the “Law of Nations”.

    And these are the ones revealed on the web. I’m sure there are tons more. Dig on Vattel. You may be able to get even more case references that support Vattel’s significance to “Natural-born Citizen”.

    The more you quote the High Court, the harder it will be for them to deny Cort’s case.

  52. truthbetold11 Says:

    were Americans with a capital A ‘belushi”

  53. Jon Carlson Says:

    Claim that only Arthur was not natural born incorrect. Bush I and Barbara Bush born in Germany circa 1915 not circa 1925 as claimed and are 10 years older than claimed and look much older. Bush II born to two German citizens also a German citizen although born in the US. Research:

    9/11 Ringleaders Execute Brilliant
    German Spy Plot: Trick OBAMA


  55. As “Lawyer” mentioned this is an incredible story. Leo and Cort’s persistence against the odds and getting jerked around especially in NJ. Just amazing. This would be an incredible book and movie but Hollywood would never have the guts to tell it. Keep it up Leo. The word is slowly getting out. America is lucky to have our men and women in uniform plus men like Leo and Cort fighting against the odds to defend the Constitution and to get to the truth.

  56. Woohoo!!!

    Today began terribly but is ending on a brighter note.

    God speed, Leo & Cort!

  57. Praise to Allah for courageous people like you. May Allah help you in this fight for justice. AMEEN.

  58. lutherkeal Says:

    [Ed. I have always said, it’s up to SCOTUS. I am not filing a full petition even though my case is technically still pending.]

    I have a question for you good people. If SCOTUS throws this one out too or rules in Obama’s favor, will you respect their decision and leave this alone or will you question it as you question their first decision? I’m curious to see what it will take for you to be satisfied. I’m also amazed that some of you think the highest court in the land is wrong and should rule in your favor merely because you believe it (your opinion) to be true. If we let Blog rule as the highest law then what is next? Where is our constitution then? If you feel better qualified than SCOTUS to make these interpretations, please feel free to present your law credentials to PE Obama for consideration.


  59. […] Further details […]

  60. Leo – Please also note, this is important – Justice SCALIA distributed it to conf JUST IN TIME to stop the electoral college! Justice THOMAS was not in a hurry, remember? HE distributed it to conf. on 11/19 but the conf wasn’t until DEC 5 !!!!! Ed if I am right they may want to stay the EC on Friday. Justice THOMAS gave over 2 weeks, Justice SCALIA gave only 4 DAYS!!


  61. An EXCELLENT read if anyone cares about this issue!


    God Bless!

  62. Leo,

    I know you’re busy tonight, so no time for niceties….it’s spelled Wong Kim Ark, not Arc.

  63. [Ed. The opinion is flawed in my opinion because it fails to properly examine the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision or it’s legislative intent. Put it this way, a man born to an alien father, like Chester Arthur, would have been >assured of historical citizenship within the opinion of Wong Kim Arc…We don’t know if the appointment is relevant but the case is. And now we can all sit and wonder whether Gray knew of Arthur’s ineligibility and whether Gray’s appointment would have been challenged by anybody who might have discovered Arthur wasn’t a natural born citizen. Would the discovery of that fact, at the time Justice Gray was a SCOTUS Justice, have disqualified him? Maybe not, but it would have cast a shadow thereon. The point is well made that it’s just these kinds of questions which are the danger of having an ineligible President. It puts a question mark on history and precedent and that’s not good.]

    I have heard you say that Wong Kim Arc was a flawed opinion. Can you please explain why this is the case since Justice Gray ruled that Wong Kim Arc was only a native born citizen? Also, what is the significance of Justrice Gray being appointed by Chester Arthur? Are you trying to say that Chester Arthur would have somehow benefitted from Gray’s reasoning?
    Thank you.

  64. […] Another update: Click here […]

  65. I was so disappointed when I saw that they denied your case. However, I was so glad to see that Cort’s is going to be reviewed. My feeling is that if they knew they were going to deny it, the announcement should have been on Friday. However, they did wait until Monday which makes me think that they wanted time to think about it. Therefore, maybe that’s why Cort’s was not brought up until today after the denial of your case. Maybe someone is giving you a second chance. You said Cort’s was put together much better because you had more time. Also, I find it rather ironic that all of a sudden you receive much needed information on a past president from 1851 that was actually ineligible to be President because of his father’s U.S. citizenship but was not proved until now and you are able to add this information as a supp. brief. Could it be our prayers to uphold the Constitution are being heard? Keep praying everyone. America depends on it!

    Also, I just happened to think what does Webster’s Dictionary say about the word “natural”. A few of the meanings are: 1. determined by nature; 2. relating to nature; 3. not artificial; 4. being simple and sincere; not affected; 5. proper; reasonable; not unusual; 6. innate; 7. easy; unaffected; kindly; and 8. pert. to or in a state of, nature.


  66. Actually, you could not renounce your British citizenship simply by being born to naturalized American citizens at the the time of the founding. The British empire considered you a British subject if you were the child or GRANDCHILD of a British subject. If they found you on the high seas, for example, they could press you into service. And they did! They impressed 2,273 American sailors into the Royal navy. It was a major factor in the 1812 war!

    What England thinks of who is a citizen of THEIR country has NOTHING to say about who is a natural citizen of OUR country. It never did! We fought a war to convince England of this fact!

  67. Leo,
    I’m very hopeful about Dec. 12th. Heard you and Cort in a radio interview. I think your personalities work well together. You two seem to mesh and have an honest respect for one another and most importantly have a common bond in your love of our nation and our constitution. I believe you will convey that to the justices and hopefully inspire them to remember their own love, hopefully, for our nation and what it was founded on. They have been blessed by the Lord to have attained such a position of power. I just pray that they are wise, discerning, and unafraid to do what is right and the way I see it, there is only one right decision. Hard decisions are probably pretty unnerving to even Supreme Court Justices!

    I am praying for you, Leo and Cort, as well as our honorable justices. I am praying that you are clear minded as well as calm and courageous! I pray this for the justices, as well.

    I truthfully feel there will be a backlash either way but it would be far better to deal with this now and end this sham rather than let this continue and elect a dishonorable man to be President of the United States!

  68. Thanks Leo for responding to my questions. I understand now – ineligibility could possibly make all actions taken by our goverment as a result of such President null and void. There is an article written by Edwin Vieira that addresses from a Constitutional standpoint what he believes it would mean to have an ineligible President. The article is dated Oct. 29th and is titled Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down. It is at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

  69. Leo and Cort Thank you for what you are doing.
    Your work is very much appreciated.

  70. John Fleming Says:

    GREG: you are completely missing the point.

    Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a US citizen. But because he was also born to a British citizen, Obama in turn was ALSO a British Citizen. That is a dual allegiance. Obama has admitted he held dual citizenship. If he wanted it again he could apply for and likely receive it .

    THE CONSTITUTION states that being a ‘natural born citizen’ is a requirement to be POTUS. So then we must establish what it is to be a ‘natural born citizen’. Mr. Donofrio has done extensive research in support of his and Cort Wrotnowski’s cases. That research backs up the assertion that it was in fact the Founder’s intent and widely held that a natural born citizen must be born with a single allegiance to the United States citizen.

    The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue directly and Congress has never clarified the definition the phrase.

    If Obama is NOT a natural born citizen then the impact of his actions could cripple the legal system.

    It is vital for Mr Obama to clarify his eligibility or he is unwilling to do it, hope that SCOTUS see’s fit to issue an opinion that settles the issue.

  71. Keep hammering at the media, Leo. I think they are slowly getting the idea that you actually have a valid position. They will only realize that if it is repeatedly pointed out. You must continue to patiently point out the differences. Thanks for hanging in there with Cort.

  72. According to my lights, the distilled question can be stated this way:

    In 1961, would the United States government consider a child born in Hawaii of an American mother and a UK subject to have dual citizenship?

    What might be helpful to the cause is if a lot of people were to pose this question to their local office of the State Department in their respective cities. I’m in Boston, so I can do it here.

    What do you all think? Where are you located? Are you willing to pose this question – in writing or in person – in order to further the effort to arrive at an understanding of the true circumstances of Obama’s citizenship?

    Let’s do it! Or do you see a flaw in my “magic question”?

    [Background: I did read on a non-government site something about how the U.S. recognition of dual citizenship had changed in the last ten years, so perhaps in 1961, it wasn’t recognized. But it’s hard to believe that Osama Sr. would have been prevented from exercising his parental right to take the child to Kenya if he so chose. In that case, I cannot believe the U.S. would have prevented him and said it was because Osama Sr. did not give UK allegiance to his son at birth.

    Here’s the site: http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-dual.htm

    And here’s the text:

    4. I heard that the US and Canada don’t allow Dual Citizenship. Is this true?

    This is incorrect. Both the US and Canada now allow their citizens to hold multiple citizenships. Most references to the contrary are out of date since this has been resolved for at least ten years in the case of the United States and over twenty in the case of Canada. Note that the respective governments often couch dual citizenship in negative terms as few governments like to lose control over their citizens.]


    Of course, we know that this is the text today:


    Dual Nationality

    The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

    A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S.
    citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

    Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S.
    Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

    However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
    Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S.
    citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

    Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

  73. Grats, Leo and Cort! It seems the fat lady didn’t sing after all.

    I just have one comment. I read an article brought to my attention from Phoenix at Zapem. It was also Phoenix who clicked that docket like a slot machine this afternoon until he hit the jackpot and got on the bullhorn. I have to commend his perseverance and mostly, yours. 🙂

    Anyway, the article was written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., today, but I’m going to revise one summary he made and say this instead for your blog:

    “Perhaps when each Justice contemplates the merits, let us hope that the statue of Justice holding the sword and scales is not replaced in the courtroom with one of Pontius Pilate washing his hands.”

  74. [Ed. And what if Obama Sr. took Obama to live in the UK or Kenya. Just because he was born in US does that mean his father’s home country has no juridiction over him?]

    Greg wrote:

    What England thinks of who is a citizen of THEIR country has NOTHING to say about who is a natural citizen of OUR country. It never did! We fought a war to convince England of this fact!

    Thank you, Greg.

    I find highly offensive the notion that who may or may not hold the office of President should ultimately be dictated willy nilly by the laws of foreign nations.


  75. Maybe I’m just being hopeful but it’s possible the supremes denied Leo’s case because they wanted the Cort case to be the one they used in this matter. After all if you had to take something like this to the world you would want the strongest argument available, right? The fact that Scalia waited until today to move Cort’s case forward and that it goes to conference so quickly is strange.

  76. B41’s papa, Prescott Bush, was born in Columbus, Ohio, and mother Dorothy Bush was born in York County, Maine. B41 was born in Massachusetts and wife Barbara was born in Queens, New York.

    And what great news about Scalia’s distribution to the Full Court.

    Just because thousands of people want to break the law doesn’t make it not the law.

    Whatever the outcome, the Donofrio/Wrotnowski cases will have been heard by the full court.

    This is a tremendous accomplishment.

    Do you believe for one second these Justices would work in the Law their entire lives, devoting their life to its study and ascend to the highest office therein only to then roll-over for the two political parties who wish to trample Article II as written by the Framers? Do you? I don’t. Not at all.

    I trust the Honorable Court to rise above the politics. I am intensely grateful the system allowed these cases to ascend to the place where they are now. There is no more important or appropriate place for them to be.

  77. Hello Leo,



    This was actually discussed at a hearing in our House of Representatives in the year 2000. The arguments for it are less than interesting, but the arguments against are much better. It’s kind of a long read if you have time.


    I wish I was a fly on the steps of the Supreme Court tomorrow !

  78. To those who think Scalia distributed Cort’s case to the full court to avoid further resubmissions…that is sometimes the case but not always. This particular case needed to be submitted to a Justice committed to the orginal intent of the constitution. That would not be Souter and Ginsberg.

    This is an unusal and important case and it will be followed by many more challenging Obama’s qualification to be President. It will affect future problems that will arise if the problem is not solved now.

    It looks like Scalia moved Cort’s fast to the full court so that it could be reviewed before the EC takes place. That does not sound like a case being distributed but not taken seriously as some have guessed. If it were not to be taken seriously, why would Scalia not have had both “unserious” cases (Cort’s and Leo’s) given the axe at the same time?

  79. Ledger One Says:

    [Ed. 3rd parties have ZERO influence on SCOTUS. ]


    Congratulations and great work on the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. And, the facts in United States v. Wong Kim should weigh heavily on this case.

    On a different note, how much can third parties influence the SCOTUS? I know the Judges on SCOTUS are supposed to be completely immune from outside influences but, Washington is city with many powerful players, how much can Obama/Soros/DNC influence the Judge’s opinions?

    Are there special ways that influence can be applied to taint the Wrotnowski case and if so how can it be countered?

  80. James Lee Says:

    I prefer to refer to Obama as [Ed, insults fail to educate, just make your point…], and wish that everyone else would do the same. It is fitting in light of the fact that it is obvjous he is trying to hide things by virtue of not simply asking that the long form of his birth certificate be released as well as his medical and college and graduate school records.
    Hats off to you, Leo, for all the good work you have done and are dokng to stop Fraudbama from becming president.



    Barack Obama will no doubt be the Democratic nominee for president in 2012. So is there anything that you/we can do in preparation for the 2012 primary/general election???

  82. Cal – Wong Kim Ark flew in the face of previously decided Supreme Court decisions as well as the unmistakably clear legislative intent citing English Common Law which had been repudiated by the Founding Fathers.

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

    Sen. Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    Sen. Howard follows up by stating that: “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

    CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 et seq. (1866). Senate debate quotes are from the Congressional Globe (precursor of the Congressional Record) for May 30, 1866.

    In 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean: The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    Congressional Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” This report had been signed by William Lawrence and James F. Wilson, two significant original Fourteenth Amendment participants. There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between nations. This makes it impossible to argue the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was merely to reassert the common law doctrine of demanding unconditional allegiance through birth. The common law doctrine by operation creates double allegiances by making children of other nation’s citizens born locally forever subjects of the crown whether they consent or not.

    The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull affirm this.
    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

    The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself, when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) [169 U.S. 649, 698]

  83. Leo,

    It is about timing and the SCOTUS ability to give you what you ask for.
    Uncharted waters and no ability to stay the Electoral College vote.
    After the electoral vote there is a prescribed way to handle a POTUS Elect at this time that doesn’t qualify.
    I think that is what you should ask for in your relief in Cort’s case. Not to stay before the vote but what the law says should be done after the E vote.
    If this is just stupid or you wish not to post and let me know you have seen it. I would appreciate, your reply that you have seen this message.

    Be well and prosper.

  84. Just a thought. I am not sure if these facts are rumors or actual events. I have seen written that Barack Obama made a trip to Pakistan at a time when US passport holders were not allowed to go there. If that is true, and Obama used a passport issued in another country, would that not imply that Obama recognized his other citizenship after the age of 18? Also if/when he releases his College paperwork, and if it is found that he received financial aid due to his other citizenship, would that not also demonstrate recognition of dual citizenship on the part of Obama?

  85. [Ed. Gee wiz. Where did I ever say I was sure about that? Please. I said “IF” they were looking at this issue of nbc seriously, then if I were them I would MUCH rather have Cort’s application than mine. It’s suck a more professional legal document. Im not sure of anything. For them to take action would floor me. That being sais, I believe the law is on point in the brief.]

    Leo, how can you be so sure that the Court will hear Corts case if they didn’t even sya why they denied yours??

  86. The Bible says, “…the Truth shall set you free…” “…Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life..no one can come to the Father except through Him…” America was founded on Biblical Truth and Principles…it is even stated in the US currency that “In God We Trust.” By God’s grace and mercy, He will never allow anyone (not even Obama) to trample upon the Constitution! The battle belongs to the Lord, and He is fighting on behalf of the truth-loving American people against the evil acts of those who want to destroy this blessed nation. In Christ, we have victory! Let’s claim it! My earnest prayers are with you, Leo and Cort, and all the other faithfuls who love to preserve truth, honesty, and integrity in this nation!

  87. Leo,

    Glad to see this case is moving forward despite the bad news today. My prayers and thoughts are with you. Keep up the good work!!! God bless you … ~ J

  88. American Eagle Says:

    How could have America derailed so much? How could they’ve done that to this once so proud country? “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are just empty words on a worthless piece of paper by now!

    Besides, I totally agree with David’s analysis: it tells everything about HIM. You need to read this stuff.


  89. I was wondering if anyone on this blog could give me an idea as to the depth of “SECRET” and/or “TOP SECRET” info has been made privy to Private Citizen Obama (or whatever his current legal standing is) through his communications with individuals such as the current POTUS and his selected CURRENT Sec. of Defense and any others that have passed along this type of information to “at best” a US Citizen like most of us here. Let’s say that he is found to be ineligable to continue forward to Inauguration because of the Constitutional Law – What is done to ensure that whatever level of info he has at that given point is protected from being forwarded to another individual or Nation that “MAY” use that information to Cause Harm to the United States and her Legal Lands and Citizens. Has some of this “HIGHLY CLASSIFIED” knowledge already been passed on to any of those entitie’s as of yet? I am hoping someone here might have some idea as to what Legal Right the current Administration and others have in the passing of this type of info to a person that at this time is not even the President Elect as yet, but just a person like you and I that has only found the “favor” of the popular vote until the Electoral Votes are actually validated come Dec. 15th. I don’t see where he could just say he was sorry for the confusion and walk away from this with a Head Full of knowledge that may be Critical to the Safety of our Borders, etc. If found eneligable, who would the persons that have made Obama privy to this information turn to in order to be debriefed? Would any of these players have a Legal Problem if they had concerns about this candidate being unqualified to attain the Highest Elected position in the land prior to their Revelations to this “STILL UNELECTED INDIVIDUAL”?

    Any Comments would be much appreciated 🙂


  90. truthseeker Says:

    Hi Leo:

    Just so you know. There are members of Congress who intend to speak up abot Obama’s Natural Born Status. This was posted by a person at Texas Darlin Blogspot:

    John Mirse,
    Perhaps you can add John Linder (R-GA) to your list of courageous people in the House. I found this letter on democratic-disaster today.

    This story has been percolating in the media for a number of months. Unfortunately, unless Senator Obama produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States.

    On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes. After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.


    John Linder
    Member of Congress

  91. Would it not be wise to make are Electors aware of the following?

    John Jay wrote to George Washington, who was president of the Convention. In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).

    First, the issue of foreign influence is a key theme of the famous Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68.

    Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.

    Second, these issues were directly addressed in a statement by Charles Pinckney in the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so

    “as to make it impossible … for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.” The Founders “knew well,”

    he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….

    Thus, in Hamilton’s view, the problem of foreign influence was solved by the Electoral College.

    Isn’t this why they where created in the first place? They are the one’s who decide if a candidate is eligible or not. They do not have to vote for Obama. The laws in some states that obligate them to do so are not constitutional.

    Do you agree?

  92. truthseeker Says:

    On another note Leo, I found this again from Texas Darlin in regards as to why BHO might have had his law license pulled:


    The following is an attempt to present the relevant aspects of Barack Obama’s life, from birth to the present. Every attempt has been made to present accurate names, information, and dates. If errors or significant omissions are noted, please feel free to post your comments at the end of this report. You may also contact the author directly (colony14@gmail.com).

    On December 17, 1991, Obama is admitted to Illinois Bar, enabling him to practice law. On his application he lies at least three times, failing to disclose that he had previously used the name “Barry Soetoro,” neglecting to disclose his record of drug use, and failing to disclose his approximate $400 in unpaid parking fines. [345]

  93. Just sent a reply to WND in there report that your case was thrown out Leo. Told them that only the Stay for the November 4th Election was thrown out and that your Stay for the Electorial College Vote was STILL PENDING. Also told them about Cort’s case being Conferenced. People really need to find out ALL the details before they decide to write stories about what’s going on. This is how we got into this mess in the first place.

    Stupidity is not the inability to learn, its the Unwillingness to learn.

  94. I really hope they don’t try to cop out with the “precedent” that Chester Arthur was not a NBC and we cannot now hold Obama to that same standard since it was violated. I could see them pulling some shenaningan like that (Sorry for being a wet blanket)

  95. Kevin Johnson Says:

    Gov Bill Richardson admits, on video tape, that Obama is an “immigrant”. Here is the link to the story. Wow!!


  96. Okay, let’s just says Obama isn’t naturalized thereby making the election invalid. What next?
    Here’s what: Either we run the election over again or the Supreme Court anoints someone (probably McCain, maybe Pelosi). Pelosi gets the nod it’ll be much like Obama (who’s going to be Bush-lite anyway). McCain gets the nod, well, watch out.
    I know some folks already oiling up their small arms. My God, what a mess it’ll be.

  97. Bill in NC Says:

    It’s important to point out that this is the last case on this issue before the USSC.

    Once the electors meet and certify (in less than a week), only Congress has the authority to determine the next POTUS.

    There is no longer remedy via any federal court at that point.

  98. Ima Whaxjob Says:

    Man I sure does hope dem activist judges will beez activist on this one like day wuz when day picked Bush.

  99. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obamas_end_run_around_congress.html

    I just read this copy and feel such an urgency for this situation with Obama, principally because he is like a salesman in pushing his product with a limited time offer and pressuring the potential buyer to “act now!”

    In particular, if he is able pull of this “stealth strategy,” this country will have been sucker-punched the moment he hits the ground running after the inauguration, from which I fear we will be unable to recover:

    “This end-run around the deliberative process is revolutionary — it is, perhaps, the closest America will ever come to a legal and constitutional Presidential coup d’etat.

    “By lumping all of his major new-initiative programs into an omnibus stimulus/jobs bill which has virtually no chance of not passing, these sweeping new programs will immediately become part of the American system of governance. These dramatic new far-left legislative initiatives won’t need further hearings — ensuring that there will never be any chance for Americans to speak out, for or against these changes.

    “The entire checks-and-balances process that has guided our law-making process for more than two centuries — a process that often protected us from the unbridled “tyranny of the majority” – is being thrown out the window, bringing to America a true “imperial presidency,” one that would horrify the Founding Fathers. They knew exactly what an imperial ruler was capable of doing – and America may soon learn the lesson they knew only too well.”

  100. Cort and Leo:

    You are asking the Supreme Court to accept your definition of “natural born citizen”. To do this, you need to show that the definition you are suggesting was the one that was accepted and widely understood to be operative at the time the Constitution was framed and ratified.

    As I understand it, early publicists all agreed that “natural-born citizen” meant one who is a citizen by no act of law. A person who owes his or her citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), he or she cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature, or jus naturale. The founders clearly recognized and embraced the laws of nature.

    Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. As shown in the following passage from Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 work, this law of nature is also recognized by the law of nations:

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

    de Vattel, Emerich, The Law of Nations of the Principles of Natural Law (1758), Book I (Of Nations Considered in Themselves), Chapter 10 (Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It), Section 212 (Citizens and natives).

    The entirety of de Vattel’s work can be accessed via the internet at: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

    FYI, Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss diplomat and lawyer. In order to increase my personal knowledge of de Vattel’s work and influence, am currently reading his Law of Nations, as well as the information provided by The Schiller Institute at: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

  101. [Ed. Cort will make a motion for me to argue the case “Pro Hac Vice” if we get that far.]

    I know that Cort is not a lawyer and is filing Pro Se. If his case goes to oral argument at SCOTUS, can/will he present the case himself? Or will he have you or some other lawyer to present his oral argument to the Honorable Court?

  102. [ed. Im trying to stay off cam and just do radio.]

    Leo on cam? Are you going to wear your shades?

  103. [Ed. Please compare my brief to the one I prepared for Cort’s application. Cort’s is so much better. Mine was a rush job and it would have required a new brief for any kind of substantial action. Cort’s is ready to go. I believe in the SCOTUS. They might deny Cort too, but I’ll still believe they would have a good reason I may have missed to do so. They won’t act or not act out of fear. You don’t understand. If they were to take action as drastic as Cort and I have requested… the application MUST be able to withstand legal scrutiny. My brief had some serious issues. I feel good about Cort’s. Im proud of it. I wasn’t all that proud of mine.]

    Personally, I don’t give a hoot what the Supreme Court rules concerning eligibility. If the Supreme Court judges can’t interpret the Law correctly, then they should go find another task they’d be capable of. This is the most important political issue there could be, and if they are not going to provide at least an answer to the American People for why they won’t procede further, then my tax dollars to them is wasted. Transparency.

    I suggest everyone email their Sec. of State if they haven’t already done so. Here’s a mock email I sent mine. Copy it and add in what you feel is necessary. But send them quick.


    Dear Secretary of State’s Office:

    I believe I am sending this email to the necessary department concerning the placement of candidates on ballots. If you read the email and know of another department (Electors?) who deserves the intelligence contained within, please contact me, or if you’d be so kind, forward my concern to them. Thank You for your attention, and have a pleasant read.

    U.S. Constitution: Article 2, Section 1:

    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;…

    Natural Born Citizen?

    per http://www.FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html)

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

    British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): 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.

    Hence, Barak Obama is not a natural Born Citizen. The framers of the US Constitution had to place a special clause allowing themselves to become President because they were British Subjects also (re: or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,…). To protect US Citizens from political invasion, they devised the term “natural born Citizen” as a way to shun those with citizenship ties to foreign countries. If they meant anything else, they would’ve included Naturalized Citizens or just Citizens for the prerequisite. Obviously they would’ve, since in the Constitution it explicitly states that members of Senate and the House of Representatives only need to be Citizens as a prerequisite.

    To the best of my knowledge, the Secretary of State, and probably the Electors too, affirm that they will uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. So to allow Barack Obama to whittle through the election process would allow an imposter to be our President and would be against the Law on all parties involved.

    The US has seen enough political debauchery over the decades, and the signs of its corrosiveness in all aspects of daily life should be a clear signal that any more of this despicable behavior will end our country. I demand, as a natural born Citizen, for whom you work for, that you uphold the Constitution and aid in disabling Barack Obama from reaching Presidency. There’s nothing more important. Nothing.

    David Mivshek

  104. DoNotGiveUp Says:

    Do not despair. The Cort case is in full conference on 12/12.
    Judge Scalia was in last Friday’s full conference (Leo’s case) and he must have an idea what the other judges’s ‘vote’ would be. If he is not confident that there is likely to be sufficient vote he would not have wasted their time referring it to full conference. I think the judges are giving the people more time to digest this and be prepared for their verdict this Friday. They are just picking the best case to rule on, and rule they will just in the nick of time!

  105. DoNotGiveUp Says:

    [Ed. It can’t be changed now. It’s so annoying, you have no idea. I saw that a few days ago and was absolutely sick. They will figure out it’s a typo though. ]

    Leo, Page 8 – does not sound right – should eliminate the ‘NOT’ before natural born citizen?

    Applicant respectfully submits that the defective Presidential election of

    2008 may still be cured by this Honorable Court by way of an injunction

    voiding the election on the grounds that NEITHER Barack Obama NOR

    McCain are NOT natural born citizens as is required by the Constitution

    to be eligible to the office of President.

  106. Larry Benson Says:

    It appears to this non-lawyer that possibly the case law and issues regarding Scalia’s decision are inaccurately misplaced. Although giving the appearance of being precisely relevant, it is made irrelevant by several other principles of law. The recent federal court decision that “the unclean hands doctrine” defense for Obama is not an affirmative defense-just because Arthur didn’t get caught or challenged establishes a 14th amend equal protection of equal non-protection of law or in some way authorizes this present breach of costitutional requirement.
    Statute of limitations requirements that prevent changing Arthur.
    The SCOTUS Hubris Doctrines whereby SCOTUS can overcome an individuals right to property; the SCOTUS “just this once constitutional waiver” doctrine that allowed Bush to steal the election despite its illegal, unconstitutional and malgotten methods; the establishment by SCOTUS of the SCOTUS “Constitutional obsoletion by attrition” Doctrine whereby the more “just onces” SCOTUS can provide, the wider the body of citable case law and precedent supporting it and everyone, including Obama is entitled to his or her “Just Once;” and the fabrication of the “NEW Due Process of authorizing unauthorized Law” doctrine making the o;ld due process of law obsoleteand the “acceptability of this new “Standards of Operation” which business lawyers know that once establsihed and allowed to be established becomes a right and no longer a wrong.

  107. Millie O'Riley Says:

    There is much discussion on this article at Comcast.


  108. gatorsmom Says:

    Came across this on another blog, don’t know where it initiated, but my comments follow:


    Leo someone posted this link to a search engine for births:


    It lists Obama as being born August 4, 1961 in Somerville MA and has no listing for Hawaii.

    It is curious that Somerville is located a few miles from the Boston airport in 1961 and was a required refueling stop and Immigration clearance point for travel from Europe in 1961.


    Here are my comments:

    I just have to add my two cents…

    I looked myself up. I used my maiden name and nothing came up. I used my married name and sure enough, there I was, with my correct birthdate and middle initial. The only problem was the city listed was NOT where I was born! I pondered this for a minute trying to figure out how the heck that would come up. I realized quickly that the city listed was the city I lived in when I applied for my marriage license. At the same time, I changed my legal name to my new married name. So, that website states “Our information comes from official government records…” OK, so they picked it up from my last Government record relating to my legal name change.

    So, how does this apply to Obama? My thinking is that the reason it lists Somerville, MA as the city is because that was where his last legal name change took place. We know BO went to Harvard. I think while he was there is when he changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama. It’s already thought that he had his college records sealed because he’s hiding something. I think he’s hiding that his name was different when he went to college. He was registered as Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and got financial aid due to that fact. I know people already suspect this, but to me, this just makes that argument all the stronger.

  109. Leo, I found this on a blog. I have not heard you address this. Is it relevant?

    For people who might want to learn more about how the term “natural born citizen” was defined at the time the Constitution was written, it was in the 1758 “Law of Nations” and the “law of nations” was referenced elsewhere in the Constitution.

    Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

  110. I saw this on The Obama File today and thought many would like to read it also. I think it goes to the core of what we are trying to protect. I also think that all those patriots, even my own family, men and woman, that survived the ocean to come to this new World, that fought the Revolutionary War, Civil War, First World War, World War 2, Vietnam, Kuwait and now the Iraq War to protect us and others from tyranny, would be sick about what we are going through right now and that they would not take it lying down. Thanks to Leo, Cort, Steve, Keyes, Berg and all the fearless people putting themselves out there to protect our freedoms, Country and the Constitution. The greatest weapon we might have is our voices and words. It really makes me tear up, especially the last line!

    The condition of the founding fathers’ spirit and intention for America was eloquently stated by Samuel Adams:

    “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

  111. Leo,

    At present, the law states that anyone born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is considered a citizen of the United States. Right now many international graduate students come to the United States and have children. In many cases, the child is raised elsewhere, but can ultimately choose to live in the United States. I even understand that the parents may be able to return with the children. If there isn’t some formal definition of “Natural Born Citizen” that flows from all your efforts, then there is nothing to prevent someone born in the US but essentially raised abroad, from becoming US president. There simply must be a definition of NBC that comes from all of this.

    Frankly, I think the laws allowing alien students to have US children while studying here is a concern. We had 4 students from a terrorist sponsoring country that gave birth to 6 children in two years, while studying. All of those children will be raised abroad but, like Obama, may be allowed to run for POTUS.

  112. [Ed. I think there was only one dissent. ]

    How many of the Justices voted with Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark? Was the decision 5-4?

    Even though Justice Gray was appointed by Chester, he would have been confirmed by the Senate. Today that is quite a process. Was he “rubber stamped” into office?

    Was Justice Gray Chester’s only appointment?

    If Mr. Obama appoints a Justice, I wonder if history would repeat itself in some way.

    Of course, Mr. Obama is on record as saying the Constitution is flawed.

  113. moderationist Says:

    The potential for Obama being blackmailed, not only by those in America, but also by unscrupulous people around the world. The blackmail issue should be raised continually, it is first and foremost.

  114. [Ed. Good question. Not sure. If you find the answer, please let me know.]

    Is there any evidence that the particular constitutional sub-committee that came out with the “natural born citizen” clause consulted Vattel’s Law of Nations for the presidential eligibility paragraph or any other provisions they put forward?

  115. Misstickly Says:

    Honestly, I can’t imagine any of the justices wanting to make their authority subject to the President’s honesty on the NBC rule. How this will affect the rulings on the eligibility cases..I don’t know.

  116. DavidRM/David Mivshek

    Are there left-over cardboard cut-outs of Bickell that we can throw darts at???

    Please advise…

  117. Honorary Brit Says:

    Probably completely unrelated, but reading the breaking news about Blagojevich, I came across this info:

    “He grew up in Chicago, the son of a Serbian immigrant who worked at the A. Finkl & Sons steel works on the North Side; his mother worked as a ticket-taker for the Chicago Transit Authority.”


    “Blagojevich had talked with Democratic allies about running for president as early as November 2002, but he made no moves to enter the 2008 race.”

    I wonder it he’s a NBC, and if not, whether somebody filled him in about the requirements.

  118. Another Illinois Governor gets arrested on Corruption charges. Illinois and Chicago have a long history of corruption. Tony Rezko gave campaign contributions to both Blagojevich (just arrested) and Obama. Obama would not have been able to buy his home without the help of Rezko who is awaiting sentencing.

    I believe Leo has the strongest case and I hope he is able to have Cort’s case heard.

  119. Of interest in the current discussion, Matthew Spalding, PhD, wrote a series of articles for the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Spalding is the Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. His areas of expertise include the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Political History and Citizenship. In an article entitled, “Making Citizens: The Case for Patriotic Assimilation,” he references United States v. Wong Kim Ark and states that the Court made an erroneous interpretation in this case concluding that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen, regardless of the jurisdictional requirement. Read the full artile here (it is very interesting):



  121. Leo!!! You’re case and Obama’s eligibility made the local radio talk show, Richard Randall on KVOR. He got your case right and he’s been talking about Obama’s eligibility for about an hour so now.

    Your case has exploded in the media.

    I read about the “We the People” press conference yesterday, wise move not going.

    Thanks for all you do,

  122. I get your reservations about the flawed “under the juridiction” interpretation by Justice Gray as being based more territorrially, and he said that Ark “never renounced his allegiance” to the US. Which doesn’t jibe with the “as of the writing… ” or “under the jurisdiction” clauses. I also notice that the terms “native-born” and “citizen” are used interchangeably. I noticed on Fight the Smears that Obama uses the term “native born” to describe his status. “Native born” to me means born in the US, and Natural born means something else. Is this part of his strategy, to try and make the terms interchangeable?

  123. When I tried to view the Donofrio update listed above, it would come up and then go to a Google Search page automatically. Hmmmmmm.

    It happened 3 or 4 times.

    I was, however, able to press the print button before the search page came up, so I’ll be able to read the update.

    Has this happened to anyone else? Google is apparently at it again!

    Isn’t freedom great? God bless you Cort and Leo! We’re praying!

  124. […] this one will work. Donofrio said that he had more time to put it together than the other one. Click here.« DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDINGWROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED […]

  125. just pixels Says:

    The Supreme Court is NOT NOT NOT going to intervene in another presidential election. Especially in the absence of actual facts that Obama was born outside the U.S.. And even more especially in response to an arcane legalistic argument about dual citizenship.

    But keep dreamin’.

  126. Hi Leo,

    Keep up the great work! You are in our prayers.

    I don’t think the denial of your first application is anything negative. Look at what you (and Cort now) are asking the SCOTUS to do: challenge the validity of the last Presidential election! That’s a big request and I can imagine it is not being taken lightly. Keep up your efforts. They are extremely important!

    There is something here and Obama knows it; why else would he spend $1 Million dollars for three law firms on the unrelated Berg / Martin issue of keeping his birth certificate sealed? Berg may have something but you and Cort have taken the high ground in the matter.

    I can’t wait to see what happens!

  127. Mario from New Jersey Says:

    I have pondered what did the Framers mean when they used the term “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution. I have not done exhaustive research on the question and I surely do not have the time to do so given the current timeline of the election. But from what I have so far read, including but not limited to what Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. and his commentators have so far written, I have come to the following understanding. Some argue that U.S. citizenship status should not be determined by what citizenship status some other nation may bestow upon a child born on U.S. soil and that just being born on U.S. soil is sufficient. The example is that the citizenship of a child born on U.S. soil should not be influenced or controlled by what Great Britain said in its naturalization acts and that our own laws alone should control that child’s citizenship status. The problem with this argument is that just being born on U.S. soil makes one a U.S. citizen but does not necessarily make one a “natural born Citizen” as that term is used in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

    It is clear from the Constitution and later Congressional Acts and the 14th Amendment that the Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizen” and just “citizen.” I believe that there is a reason why the Framers added the adverb “natural” to the verb “born.” If there was no special meaning to the use of both words together, one could easily argue that “natural” is redundant, for any birth at the time of the writing of the Constitution was nothing other than natural. But the Framers recognized that just being born a citizen was not enough because there could exist a law whatever it may be and from wherever it may come which may cause that child to be given some other citizenship status and therefore some other allegiance. They knew that these foreign laws could be applied on U.S. soil through the citizenship of the person present on that soil. They did not want any doubt whatsoever or to take any such risk when it came to the President or the Vice President of the United States, who can easily become the President. The only way they could avoid such a risk was to demand in the Constitution itself and not in some later act or statute that the status of being born a citizen had to occur by natural means and not by some artificial means such as a law, regardless of whose law it could be (including the United States Congress). They understood and trusted the Almighty power of Nature and nothing else, for Nature is something which no man can create, manipulate, or otherwise control. One might say that today through technological advances, human beings can control Nature to some degree. But we must keep in mind that the Framers lived at a time when there were no significant technological advances which would allow people to control nature even is some small degree. The Framers must have believed that only Nature is pure and unable to be coerced for whatever motive. Hence, no law, no man, no matter from what Earthly source or place could change that natural status which would be bestowed upon a child at the time of his or her birth. With Obama, we already see how some foreigners believe they can manipulate him simply by the fact that he has alleged roots to Islam or Kenya. One foreign religious leader has already called upon him to convert “back” to Islam or be forever damned and doomed no matter how much power and glory he may gain by being the President of the most powerful country on Earth.

    Hence, the Framers looked upon the basic elements of nature as the factors that would safeguard the survival of their new nation and prevent it from being attacked also from within. Those factors are soil (where you are physically born) and blood (that which you inherit from both your mother and father). The Framers required that only the President and Vice President possess both of these factors (soil+blood from both parents=natural born Citizen) to be eligible and therefore qualify for their respective offices. Hence, the Framers required that the President be born on U.S. soil of a mother and father who are both citizens at the time the child is born. It is the time when the baby is born that is controlling, for it is only at that time that we as human beings can allow Nature (and not some artificial device such as a law) to decide a child’s status in the world. The timing is critical because Nature at that moment cannot be controlled by any human being. If one of these factors (soil or parental blood) is missing, then you are not a “natural born Citizen” and ineligible to be President under Article II of the Constitution.

    One can argue that the “natural born Citizen” Constitutional safeguard is vulnerable, given the fact that our laws allow people not born on U.S. soil to be naturalized and thereby become a U.S. citizen. Once naturalized that person is a full citizen of the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, but he or she still has the same blood as before being so naturalized. Assuming a man and woman or one of them if the other is already a U.S. citizen, naturalizes before creating a child on U.S. soil, that would make that child a “natural born Citizen.” One can then argue that the child acquired his “American” blood indirectly through a law that allowed one or both of his or her parents to naturalize. But at least, the naturalized parents at the time of the child’s birth owe no allegiance to any other nation due to their having naturalized (voluntarily cut off allegiance to another nation which was a natural consequences of their births) and they pass that new “natural” status to their child at the time of his or her birth. Additionally, no Constitution is perfect. Regardless of this imperfection, the Constitution still says what it says and it was the best that the Framers could do to safeguard the survival of the new nation by requiring at least a special allegiance to that nation by its President and Vice President.

    We are now confronted with having to determine as a Nation what the Framers meant by “natural born Citizen” as the term applies to the Office of President. This is a critically important task. Whether it is the United States Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the U.S. Congress, each state’s Secretary of State, our national political parties, or some other institution, someone has to decide. Appropriate action must be taken so that our Nation will know what is meant by this Constitutional term and whether Obama meets the requirements of the term. It is also crucial for Obama to have this issue decided, for he cannot expect so many Americans who want this question answered to ever believe in the legitimacy of his presidency and its laws unless the question is legally answered. Those who believe in the importance of this matter should leave no stone unturned in having this issue properly and timely decided.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    Jamesburg, New Jersey

  128. Follow up to my last post that is yet to be moderated by Mr. Donofrio. Since that post, the news has broke regarding the arrest of Illinois Governor Blagojevich. Will either Blagojevich or Obama be required at some point in time to reveal the content of discussions (if any) they have had with each other via any form of communication since the time that Obama vacated his Senate seat? Anybody?
    Thanks again,

  129. Kevan Corkill Says:

    Prayers, praying for the TRUTH to come into the light for all to see…Amen.

  130. Here is some more from another blog:

    “Corroborative to this case, the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to “define and punish… offenses against the law of nations.” The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

    Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say ‘of itself,’ for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.”

    The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” An extensive analysis citing this is “Defining Natural-Born Citizen,” by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

  131. I am the vine and you are the branches

  132. If the link to “The Law of Nations” is established, it certainly provides a plausible context for a definition of “natural born citizen”. Is this part of your brief at the SCOTUS?


    well now comes the governor issue in the home town of obama and he runs and smoozes with these fellas just like resco and pretty soon they will be singing the tunes of involvement. wow what a busy man he must be, having to dodge weave duck and spin his way to the throne of illegitament potus. keep up the great work and hope the caffeine is corsing thru you as you will need some. this seems to be approaching break neck speed. AWESOME LEO

  134. The fact that Scalia saw enough merit in the case to schedule it says that there are at least two judges on the SC interested in the CORT case and points, perhaps, to procedural flaws or perhaps over reaching stay for the NJ case being denied the stay yesterday.

    I don’t see any point in generating interest in the Wong Kim case, when there are other cases and opinions (including from founding fathers) to support the position of the case which greater clarity. Better to let sleeping dogs lie than to re-hash things out of historical prospective, no?

  135. from volokohov board

    if you actually look at the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court cases interpreting the Citizenship Clause after the Civil War, it is certainly not clear that the citizenship issue is so clear-cut. From the Summary of Argument in an amicus brief in the Hamdi case:

    The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was added during Senate debate. During the debate, the authors discussed in great detail their purpose and intentions in adding the requirement that a person be born, not just in the United States, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Howard, sponsor and author of the Citizenship Clause, when questioned about the meaning of “jurisdiction,” responded that the phrase was intended to be read as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described persons who “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.” Chairman Trumbull noted that even “partial allegiance if you please, to some other government” is sufficient to disqualify a person under the jurisdiction requirement.
    For three decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court recognized the jurisdiction requirement of the Citizenship Clause as including a non-geographical distinction between those with allegiance and those without. In The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873), this Court noted that the jurisdiction clause was “intended to exclude from its operation . . . citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (1884), the Court described the jurisdiction clause as covering “all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power.”
    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), however, Justice Gray wrote an opinion which eviscerated the jurisdiction requirement. Justice Gray felt that, once within a national territory, an alien gives up allegiance to all other governments, at least temporarily. 169 U.S. at 693 (alien’s “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory.”). Thus, any alien born within the United States would automatically gain citizenship without reference to the jurisdiction requirement.
    Yet this analysis of allegiance is foreign to American history, earlier precedent and logic. Under that analysis, for example, there would be no need to require aliens to take an oath of naturalization renouncing all allegiances to foreign powers. Similarly, the naturalization cases continue to require some type of “talisman of dedicated attachment” on the part of an applicant for citizenship. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 834 (1971).
    Unfortunately, Justice Gray’s faulty analysis of the jurisdiction requirement was cited in later decisions for the proposition that a child of alien parents “born in the United States, was a citizen of this country,” without further analysis. INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985). In fact, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (1982), the Court went further, suggesting that the authors of the Citizenship Clause used the term “jurisdiction” in a “predominantly geographic sense.” Again, the Plyler opinion included no reference to or use of any allegiance analysis, even though the authors had made such an analysis central to the Citizenship Clause. The evisceration of the jurisdiction requirement creates a powerful magnet for “drive-by citizenship.”

  136. Dear Leo et alia,
    I’m a registered Democrat whose respect for what the creators of this nation hoped to accomplish with the Constitution–and how it’s led us as a nation since then–is deep enough to be practically molecular with me. [I’m also a former law student at Penn who, alas, switched instead to an M.B.A. curriculum at Wharton but loved the law courses and analysis behind a well-crafted argument. Meaning that almost all talking heads on TV annoy me no end as they seemingly do no homework before opining without intelligence, but I digress.]

    I don’t know how much value one heartfelt thanks for your efforts and care about this important issue will matter, but you and your supporters have mine. I’ve had to provide personal information, by far, to interview for, and obtain, positions on Wall Street than Barack Obama has in his whole career. I find his obstructive arrogance, not only overweeningly offensive, but curiously suspicious to say the least.

    Why does applying for the job of POTUS not have a higher, rather than a lower, level of disclosure than most jobs in and out of the government?

    And why would an attorney whose purported field of expertise is Constitutional law be willing to address the legitimate questions raised about his natural born citizen status?

    I ONE theory that I think explains why his book (written in 1997, published later) even mentioned his father’s nationality as of 1961 and it is this:

    He liked, and sold, the concept of himself as somehow a citizen of the world, with transcultural exposure and education, and especially liked the Kenyan aspect AND

    couldn’t have foreseen in even his wildest dreams that, within 10 years, he might pull off the coup of becoming his party’s candidate for President!

    I rest my case, the man is a curiously opaque Rohrsach that people read into without any evidenciary substance behind their assessment of him as anything beyond a transrace orator with Ivy League credentials.

    Thank you again for your efforts and helping educate so many of us, not to mention causing perhaps thousands of people to read the U.S. Constitution for the first time.

  137. This case needs to be heard by the Supreme Court. The question needs to be settled once and for all. Waiting until after Obama takes office would be a disaster. Joe Six-Pack has already suggested that the electors themselves are not constitutionally required to pick Obama (though they may have problems in their states).

    See Joe Six_pack’s Letter to America: http://www.JoeSixPack.me

  138. It would seem to me that “Ark” was an illegal appropriation of America’s right to self determination.

    No nation can survive endless assaults of citizenship birthrights and voting rights by “adverse posession” which is what ARK decreed, that anybody born here was an “American”, this policy was a direct assault on our sovereign rights and an antithesis to the primary responsibility of the chartered Constitution-To protect Americans, their property, their territory and their rights from foreign invasion and appropriation.

    Ark denied American that right and instead subjects them to slavery at that hands of global mob rule.

    I find it ironic we finally ge this criminal case reheard in the middle of the greatest criminal conspiracy, invasion, and appropriation of private property in the history of humanity.

    The sub-prime home loan collapse was perpetrated to promote illegal & legal immigration on a national scale into America, virtualy every bank in the nation was drafted & nationalized to promote a hostile foreign criminal invasion of our territory at our own expense, foreign agents were used to procure foreign funds to start & maintain the scheme until it no longer could be supported with other people’s money.

  139. I am afraid we are against treason in all institutions in this government,I hope against hope this court will be fair and impartial and rule according to reason and law to discover the truth and how,this, if it is true that Obama is not eligable to become our President will destroy this nation and its fabric forever.
    One thing is for certain if the supreme court chooses to ignore the voice of the people and allow this man to continue without restraint,we can all quit hoping in our government leaders to do what is just and right and start hoping in the only hope we have left,God and the will of the people to amass and cry out for justice,amass in legions all over this nation without restraintto demand a simple proof Obama’s birth certificate. will you join? Will you sacrifice? Will you be willing to take a stand in the streets across this nation with signs? will you help with the printing of bumper stickers to be distributed across this country? will you march on Washington and sit and refuse to eat until they fear the corpse at thier door? Will you stand in front of the whitehouse? will you do any and all that is needed to gain this one demand? Obama show us your birth certificate. i hold out little to no hope the supreme court will do the american people justice at all. To all of you reading this,my brother and sister of the usa,will we wake up and stand in honor in our suits and ties,in the hundreds of thousands?In small grass roots knowledge drives? Or do we just want obama’s youth knocking on our doors to determine our race and or our political affiliation,or do they already know and can we expect Obama’s youth at 4:00 am in the morning? People be prepared be very prepared ,Obama is a communist/socialist and you must know this is a full court press to bring about thier communist new world order and nothing less. Be prepared ,be very prepared,your life depends on it.

  140. Dear Mr. Donofrio,

    I am so sorry that the Court did not fully hear your case. I think you are an American hero.

    Good luck and God bless you and Cort Wrotnowski in the next case. I feel hopeful that at least some of the justices are willing and able to cope with this historical crisis.

    This case is not about Obama, it is about America being ruled according to the U.S. Constitution as opposed to a foreign take over attempt.

    It is time for Americans to be for America. It is time for Congress to be for America. Our country has been decimated by government scams, croney capitalism is on a rampage, the probability of intentional destruction is as high as the known stupidity of Congress, REFORM is the only way ahead.

    If SCOTUS grants a stay, Bush should prepare for a second election. It may be providential that Americans have been given an extra six months or so to grasp what is at stake. If so, this really is a blessed nation.

  141. Frank Lake Says:

    No attorney here, but after reading Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Arc is that he sights English Common Law cases out the wazoo, but I didn’t see once where he quoted the definition of Natural Born Citizen from other Common Law cases or Common Law itself.

  142. […] morning, I stumbled across the personal blog of Leo Donofrio, Esq. On it is a press release from last night: PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 […]

  143. Emotions resembling a yo-yo; my hopes were high until yesterday — today I will try not to build up my hopes but instead wish you the best of luck in [y]our continuing struggle to keep our Constitution afloat.

    There are so many issues the SCOTUT Justices have by-passed and side-tracked over the last hundred years: is there really a cause for hope that THIS ONE will see the light of day?

    Yet, I still hope… –jws

  144. I would like someone to address “Sane Person’s” allegation above (10th post) that referring to conference is almost always a tool to avoid further appeals.

    I thought the appealed to Justice could also refuse the case and that ended it.

    Can anyone answer this?

  145. It was more of a Freudian Slip than a typo — when I typed that last “T” I was thinking of the word “Treason”… –jws

  146. AmericanVoter Says:

    I would like Mr. Donofrio, or some other student of the Supreme Court to explain what it means if Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (and any other cases contesting Obama because of his acknowledged dual citizenship at birth) are dismissed without comment by the SCOTUS. Does it mean that a precedent is set that henceforth a President with acknowledged dual citizenship at birth, but who allowed such to expire as an adult, is eligible to be POTUS?

  147. I anxiously await the news of your success. I love my country and the Constitution is was founded upon. Let’s hope the Supreme Court justices love them as much!

    Good luck!

  148. The Castellan Says:

    I think everyone on here needed to see this.

    Chicago Politics: Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Allegedly Conspired to Sell Obama’s Senate Seat
    December 9th, 2008

    Another story from theobamafile.com; this one has been brewing for several months, as federal officials have been investigating what many of us have already known about Chicago politics: It’s a dirty machine, and now it’s arrived at the federal level:

    Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper’s editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

    A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

    Otherwise, Blagojevich considered appointing himself. The affidavit said that as late as Nov. 3, he told his deputy governor that if “they’re not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it.”

    But the Politico reports that it gets even better. A recorded conversation Blagojevich had include the following choice comments:

    “F**k him,” Blagjoveich says of Obama during a lengthy call with top aides and his wife recorded on November 10th, “For nothing? F**k him.”

    In another section of the complaint, Blagojevich expresses exasperation that Obama and his team aren’t willing to offer him an inducement in exchange for appointing an aide, apparently Valerie Jarrett, to the Senate.

    Blagojevich “said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but ‘they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them,’” says the complaint.

    theobamafile goes on to say the following; I couldn’t have said it better myself:

    Obama and Blagojevich should both be in jail for this, but watch for Blagjoveich to spill the beans on the Obama/Rezko deals. This is just the beginning.

  149. […] Wrotnowski Application Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia – Distributed for Conference on Dec … […]

  150. [ed. good post. the senate is totally guilty exactly as you stated.]

    this will probably be “sniped” but I tried..again.
    I see the Constitution as the rulebook for the game of politics. When a player has three strikes, and the crowd protests, does the umpire back off and let him bat again? NO. The American people are the umpires of this country. The President, Senate, and the Congress are the players. The teams are the Democrates, Republicans and others.

    These people run our country. Yet, I would bet that there are more Americans that have read the rule book for the sport they follow then there are Americans that have read the rule book that applies to the individuals that run our country, the Constitution.

    No one appears to be upset that our Senate was aware of the eligibility problem and passed SRS511, declaring Sen. McCain a “natural born citize.”Not because it has “any legal effect,” or because it was Sen McCain. But because they knew there was an eligibility issue that applied to both candidates. If dual nationality is an exclusion so is dual citizenship. If they had not taken it upon themselves to define “natural born citizen” to benefit of each of their parties, we would not have this constitutional crises today.

    SRS 511 received huge media coverage. The American public was placed on notice that the Senate was breaking the rules, and the public praised them. Horray,we get to keep our guy in the game.

    The eligibility issue is huge, no doubt. Leo, and Cort, stepped up to the plate with a very unpopular issue, and I THANK THEM. But, does it change what the Senate did?

    We continue to turn a blind eye when it comes to the Senate and the Congress. WHY? They get up in the morning with boo-boo breath, their bodily functions are the same as yours. They fart and scratch just like any other human being. They get paid to do a job.

    Once they are elected, in order to get the job, the only requirement is to swear an oath to follow the rules in the rule book ( uphold the US Constitution). I ask you, did they break the rules? Are you going to allow them to continue to break the rules with exemption from penalty? Your the Umpires.

  151. Well, it looks like SCOTUS has all the info it needs. Leo, refer to Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):


    I really enjoyed the matrix. It sums up this entire argument with one ugly, albeit effective table.

    GO LEO. GO CORT. Get these guys off the ballots.

  152. LEO… Seen this? Speaks to “The Supreme Court’s Wrong Turn in Wong Kim Ark.” Mostly 14th Amendment and naturalization issues, but may offer something novel in text or cite you haven’t run across.


    John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

    March 30, 2006
    From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
    by John C. Eastman, Ph.D
    Legal Memorandum #18

    It is today routinely believed that under the Citi zenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizen ship. However strong this commonly believed inter pretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.

    It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, its view that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizen ship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance to the naturalization policy of the nation.

    The Original Understanding of the Citizenship Clause

    The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amend ment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[1] As manifest by the con junctive “and,” the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequi sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States—even for a short visit; even illegally—is considered to have subjected himself to the juris diction of the United States, which is to say, sub jected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.

    Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpre tation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doc trine of legal interpretation that legal texts, includ ing the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.[2]

    The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par­ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.

    The jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is somewhat different from the juris diction clause of the 1866 Act, of course. The pos­itively phrased “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States might easily have been intended to describe a broader grant of citizenship than the negatively phrased language from the 1866 Act, one more in line with the modern understanding. But the relatively sparse debate we have regarding this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support such a reading.

    When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” juris diction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[5] (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.[6]

    The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court—by both the majority and the dis­senting justices—in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9]

    Although the statement by the majority in Slaughter-House was dicta, the position regarding the “subject to the jurisdiction” language advanced there was subsequently adopted as holding by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins.[10] John Elk was born on an Indian reservation and subsequently moved to non-reservation U.S. territory, renounced his former tribal allegiance, and claimed U.S. citizenship by virtue of the Citizen ship Clause. This Court held that the claimant was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, which required that he be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[11] Elk did not meet the jurisdictional test because, as a mem ber of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed imme diate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States. Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” accord ing to the Court.[12]

    Drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the Court continued:

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[13]

    Indeed, if anything, American Indians, as mem bers of tribes that were themselves dependent upon the United States (and hence themselves subject to its jurisdiction), had a stronger claim to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment merely by virtue of their birth within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States than did children of foreign nationals. But the Court in Elk rejected even that claim and in the process necessarily rejected the claim that the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, meant merely territorial jurisdiction as opposed to complete, political jurisdiction.

    Such was the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause initially given by the Supreme Court, and it was the correct interpretation. As Thomas Cooley noted in his treatise, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdic tion to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”[14]

    The Supreme Court’s Wrong Turn in Wong Kim Ark

    Despite the clear holding of Elk and the persua sive dicta from Slaughter-House that mere birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to meet the constitutional prerequisites for birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held otherwise in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,[15] with expansive language even more broad than the holding of the case itself. It is that erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, adopted 30 years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that has colored basic questions of citizenship ever since.

    In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Horace Gray, writing for the Court, held that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and resi dence in the United States,” was, merely by virtue of his birth in the United States, a citizen of the United States as a result of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[16] Justice Gray cor rectly noted that the language to the contrary in The Slaughter-House Cases was merely dicta and therefore not binding precedent.[17] He found the Slaughter-House dicta unpersuasive because of a subsequent decision, in which the author of the majority opinion in Slaughter-House had con curred, holding that foreign consuls (unlike ambassadors) were “subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.”[18]

    Justice Gray appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the terri tory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sover eign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.

    More troubling than his rejection of the persua sive dicta from Slaughter-House, though, was the fact that Justice Gray also repudiated the actual holding in Elk, which he himself had authored. After quoting extensively from the opinion in Elk, including the portion, reprinted above, noting that the children of Indians owing allegiance to an Indian tribe were no more “subject to the jurisdic tion” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment than were the chil dren of ambassadors and other public ministers of foreign nations born in the United States, Justice Gray simply held, without any analysis, that Elk “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”[19]

    By limiting the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to the children of diplomats, who neither owed alle giance to the United States nor were (at least at the ambassadorial level) subject to its laws merely by virtue of their residence in the United States as the result of the long-established international law fic tion of extraterritoriality by which the sovereignty of a diplomat is said to follow him wherever he goes, Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, alle giance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

    Justice Gray’s failure even to address, much less appreciate, the distinction was taken to task by Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, in dissent. Drawing on an impressive array of legal scholars, from Vattel to Blackstone, Justice Fuller correctly noted that there was a distinction between the two sorts of allegiance—“the one, natural and perpet ual; the other, local and temporary.”[20] The Citizen ship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment referred only to the former, he contended. He noted that the absolute birthright citizenship urged by Justice Gray was really a lingering vestige of a feudalism that the Americans had rejected, implicitly at the time of the Revolution and explic itly with the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Four teenth Amendment.[21]

    Quite apart from the fact that Justice Fuller’s dis sent was logically compelled by the text and his tory of the Citizenship Clause, Justice Gray’s broad interpretation led him to make some astoundingly incorrect assertions. He claimed, for example, that “a stranger born, for so long as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason.”[22] And he was compelled to recognize dual citizenship as a neces sary implication of his position,[23] despite the fact that ever since the Naturalization Act of 1795, “applicants for naturalization were required to take, not simply an oath to support the constitu tion of the United States, but of absolute renuncia tion and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince or state, and particularly to the prince or state of which they were before the citizens or subjects.”[24]

    Finally, Justice Gray’s position is incompatible with the notion of consent that underlay the sover eign’s power over naturalization. What it meant, fundamentally, was that foreign nationals could secure American citizenship for their children merely by giving birth on American soil, whether or not their arrival on America’s shores was legal or illegal, temporary or permanent.

    Justice Gray stated that the children of only two classes of foreigner nationals were not entitled to the birthright citizenship he thought guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    First, as noted above, were the children of ambassadors and other foreign diplomats who, as the result of the fiction of extraterritoriality, were not even considered subject to the territorial juris diction of the United States.

    Second were the children of members of invad ing armies who were born on U.S. soil while it was occupied by the foreign army. But apart from these two narrow exceptions, all children of foreign nationals who managed to be born on U.S. soil were, in Justice Gray’s formulation, citizens of the United States. Children born of parents who had been offered permanent residence but were not yet citizens, and who as a result had not yet renounced their allegiance to their prior sovereign, would become citizens by birth on U.S. soil. This was true even if, as was the case in Wong Kim Ark itself, the parents were, by treaty, unable ever to become citizens.

    Children of parents residing only temporarily in the United States on a student or work visa would also become U.S. citizens. Children of parents who had overstayed their temporary visas would like wise become U.S. citizens, even though born of parents who were now in the United States ille gally. And, perhaps most troubling from the “con sent” rationale, even children of parents who never were in the United States legally would become citizens as the direct result of the illegal action by their parents. This would be true even if the par ents were nationals of a regime at war with the United States and even if the parents were here to commit acts of sabotage against the United States, at least as long as the sabotage did not actually involve occupying a portion of the territory of the United States. The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guaran tee the right of citizenship to former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in its terri tory illegally is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

    Although hard to sustain under the broad lan guage used by Justice Gray, the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark is actually much more narrow, and the case need not be read so expansively as to pro duce such absurd results. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts,[25] Wong Kim Ark’s parents were ineligible for citizenship even if they had renounced their Chinese citizenship and subjected themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. As such, Wong Kim Ark arguably would have been entitled to citizenship because, like his parents, he would in fact have been “sub­ject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the complete, allegiance-obliging sense intended by the phrase.[26]

    This is not to say that Congress could not, pur suant to its naturalization power, choose to grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals.[27] But thus far it has not done so. Instead, the lan guage of the current naturalization statute simply tracks the minimum constitutional guarantee— anyone “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen.[28] Indeed, Congress has by its own actions with respect to Native Americans—both before and after this Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark—rejected the claim that the Citizenship Clause itself confers citi zenship merely by accident of birth.[29] None of these citizenship acts would have been neces sary—indeed, all would have been redundant— under the expansive view of the Citizenship Clause propounded by Justice Gray.

    A Citizenship of Consent, not Feudal Allegiance

    Once one considers the full import of Justice Gray’s language in Wong Kim Ark, it becomes clear that his proposition is simply incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause, but with the political theory of the American Found ing as well.

    At its core, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that political theory posits the following: Governments are insti tuted among particular peoples, comprised of nat urally equal human beings, to secure for themselves certain unalienable rights. Such gov­ernments, in order to be legitimate, must be grounded in the consent of the governed—a nec essary corollary to the self-evident proposition of equality.[30] This consent must be present, either explicitly or tacitly, not just in the formation of the government, but also in the ongoing decision whether to embrace others within the social com pact of the particular people. As formulated in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780:

    The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights…. The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.[31]

    Thus, as Professor Edward Erler has noted:

    [T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent. Not only must the individual consent to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the community as a whole. If all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are to be counted citizens—even those whose parents are in the United States illegally— then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent of “the whole people.”[32]

    In other words, birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bed rock principles of the American regime.

    Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to the republicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalism of medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sover eign.[33] A necessary corollary of the feudal notion of citizenship was the ban on expatriation, embraced by England and described by Blackstone as follows:

    Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection…. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance…. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due.[34]

    Thus, when Congress passed as a companion to the Fourteenth Amendment the Expatriation Act of 1868, which provided simply that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi ness,” it necessarily rejected the feudal birthright citizenship doctrine of medieval England as fun damentally incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As Representa tive Woodward of Pennsylvania noted on the floor of the House of Representatives: “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it.”[35]

    Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation’s Founders when they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in 1866 and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Reviving Congress’s Constitutional Power Over Naturalization

    It is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters actually intended: that only a complete jurisdic tion, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented.

    Of course, Congress has in analogous contexts been hesitant to exercise its own constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution in ways contrary to the pronouncements of the courts. Even if that course is warranted in most situations so as to avoid a constitutional conflict with a co-equal branch of the government, it is not war ranted here for at least two reasons.

    First, as the Supreme Court itself has repeat edly acknowledged, Congress’s power over natu ralization is “plenary,” while “judicial power over immigration and naturalization is extremely lim ited.”[36] While that recognition of plenary power does not permit Congress to dip below the con stitutional floor, it does counsel against any judi cial interpretation that provides a broader grant of citizenship than is actually supported by the Constitution’s text.

    Second, the gloss that has been placed on the Wong Kim Ark decision is actually much broader than the actual holding of the case. Congress should therefore adopt a narrow reading of the decision that does not intrude on the plenary power of Congress in this area any more than the actual holding of the case requires. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were actually in this country both legally and permanently, yet were barred from even pursuing citizenship (and renouncing their former allegiance) by a treaty that closed that door to all Chinese immigrants. They were therefore as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they were legally permitted to be, and under those circumstances, it is not a surprise that the Court would extend the Constitution’s grant of birthright citizenship to their children. But the effort to read Wong Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause to con fer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause, but also permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary power assigned to Con gress itself.

    [1]U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.

    [2]See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (“this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”); see also Richard A. Posner, Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case. W. Res. L. Rev. 179 (1989).

    [3]14 Stat. 27, ch. 31 (April 9, 1866).

    [4]Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2893 (May 30, 1866).

    [5]Id., at 2890.

    [6]Id., at 2892–97; see also Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Pol ity 72–89 (1985).

    [7]The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872).

    [8]Id., at 73 (emphasis added).

    [9]Id., at 92–93 (Field, J., dissenting).

    [10]Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

    [11]Id., at 102.

    [12]Id., at 99.

    [13]Id., at 102.

    [14]Thomas Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America 243 (2001) (1880).

    [15]United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

    [16]169 U.S., at 653.

    [17]Id., at 678.

    [18]Id., at 679 (citing, e.g., In re Baiz, 135 U.S. 403, 424 (1890)).

    [19]Id., at 681–82.

    [20]Id.,at 710.

    [21]Id., at 707; see also Edward J. Erler, “Immigration and Citizenship: Illegal Immigrants, Social Justice and the Welfare State,” in Gerald Frost, ed., Loyalty Misplaced: Misdirected Virtue and Social Disintegration 71, 81 (1997).

    [22]Id., at 693.

    [23]id., at 691.

    [24]Id., at 711 (Fuller, J., dissenting) (citing Act of Jan. 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, c. 20).

    [25]E.g., 22 Stat. 58 (1882).

    [26]Cf. In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 907 (C.C. Cal. 1884) (Field, Circuit Justice) (concluding that the American-born son of Chinese immigrants, who had taken up permanent residence in the United States pursuant to a treaty with China that rec ognized the right of man to change his home and allegiance as “inherent and inalienable,” because he, like his parents, was at the time of his birth subject to the “exclusive” jurisdiction of the United States).

    [27]See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (“The Congress shall have power…To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”).

    [28]8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).

    [29]See Act of July 15, 1870, 16 Stat. 361, ch. 296, § 10 (cited in Elk, 112 U.S., at 104) (extending the jurisdiction of the United States to any member of the Winnebago Tribe who desired to become a citizen); Act of March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 632, ch. 332, § 3 (cited in Elk, 112 U.S., at 104) (same offer of citizenship to members of the Miami tribe of Kansas); Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b) (granting citizenship to Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States).

    [30]Decl. of Ind. ¶ 2.

    [31]Mass. Const. of 1780, Preamble (emphasis added).

    [32]Erler, Immigration and Citizenship,at 77; see also Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders, at 166–67.

    [33]See id., at 81.

    [34]William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 357–58 (1979) (1765).

    [35]Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 868 (1868); see also id., at 967 (Rep. Baily) (describing birthright citizenship as “the slavish feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 707 (Fuller, J., dissenting) (describing the rule adopted by the majority as “the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liege men to their liege lord”).

    [36]See, e.g., Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 455 (1998); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–770 (1972); Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954).

  153. [Ed. I have consistently edited insults and any mention of violence, and Ive especially censored all negative language about the Court. When denied, I wrote that I trusted the Court had good reason to deny my application. If have a problem, please quote the link and Ill check it out.]

    Fascinating. In your very measured and legitimate quest to have SCOTUS define “Natural Born Citizen”, you have also unleashed droves of fanatics. In this very blog the consistent message has become: “if we lose this case, the Presidency has been occupied by a usurper”. They then go on to advocate dereliction of military orders, willful lawlessness, etc.

    You have a responsibility to counter each of these with a measured and thoughtful response that properly frames the real issue here. You hold a specific belief in the definition of this term. Others disagree with you. It is the role of the SCOTUS to provide for the definition. If they side against you, so be it…the system has worked. Unfortunately, in all disagreements one side wins, one side loses.

    As a note: the court deciding not to hear the case has traditionally meant that they openly disagree with either your argument or feel they have no legitimate role to play in the matter. It is NOT a “travesty” if they make this decision. It doesn’t instantly back up conspiratorial theories etc. Please be a responsible blog host and ensure that the discussion steers clear from this craziness and stays in the realm of healthy legal debate.

    Thank You,

  154. Thanks for your good service to the people of America. I want all to know the historic significance of December 12th for our entire continent. If you will remember, it was the day through God’s Mothers intercession that the 2000 election was finally settled, and the culture of death was dealt a blow It is also the day Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared way back 1531 and said, “Know and understand well, you the most humble of my son, that I am the ever virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the True God for whom we live, of the Creator of all things, Lord of heaven and the earth. I wish that a temple be erected here quickly, so I may therein exhibit and give all my love, compassion, help, and protection, because I am your merciful mother, to you, and to all the inhabitants on this land and all the rest who love me, invoke and confide in me; listen there to their lamentations, and remedy all their miseries, afflictions and sorrows. And to accomplish what my clemency pretends, go to the palace of the bishop of Mexico, and you will say to him that I manifest my great desire, that here on this plain a temple be built to me; you will accurately relate all you have seen and admired, and what you have heard. Be assured that I will be most grateful and will reward you, because I will make you happy and worthy of recompense for the effort and fatigue in what you will obtain of what I have entrusted. Behold, you have heard my mandate, my humble son; go and put forth all your effort.”

    O Mary,
    bright dawn of the new world,
    Mother of the living,
    to you do we entrust the cause of life:
    Look down, O Mother,
    upon the vast numbers
    of babies to be born,
    of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
    of men and women
    who are victims of brutal violence,
    of the elderly and the sick killed
    by indifference or out of misguided mercy.
    Grant that all who believe in your Son
    may proclaim the Gospel of life
    with honesty and love
    to the people of our time.
    Obtain for them the grace
    to accept that Gospel
    as a gift ever new,
    the joy of celebrating it with gratitude
    throughout their lives
    and the courage to bear witness to it
    resolutely, in order to build,
    together with all people of good will,
    the civilization of truth and love,
    to the praise and glory of God,
    the Creator and lover of life.

    Pope John Paul II
    Encyclical Letter “The Gospel of Life”

    Fight on Brother, and know that we are praying for you and that your mother wears combat boots and will crush the head of the serpent.

  155. 1. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
    2. http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
    3. Next? http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

    Does anyone else have the feeling like me that we are up against insurmountable odds with the Obama machine? 😦

  156. […] Wrotnowski Application Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia – Distributed for Conference on Dec… PRESS RELEASE: 12.08.08 7:20 pm Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the […] […]

  157. Must Love Dogs Says:

    What is the procedural and/or time-frame difference with which SCOTUS handles “A Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” “An Application for Emergency Stay,” and “An Application for Emergency Stay that includes a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or Prohibition?”

    I read that when a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is filed, SCOTUS automatically gives the Respondent 30-days to file a response and when An Application for an Emergency Stay is filed, they decide whether to grant the application by means of “conference.”

    If a Stay is granted, does SCOTUS then allow the Respondents 30-days to file a response to the included Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or Prohibition? If not, what is the procedure after a Stay is granted?

  158. kittycat77 Says:

    Hurry up, Leo. We need an update of today’s activities. I noticed that SCOTUS has the Supp. Brief now for Cort showing up. Haahaa!

  159. Florida:
    Comm. Allan Katz, 175 Tarpon Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32308, Home: 850-425-1605, Work: 850-224-9634

    Allan Katz is on the City of Tallahassee Counsel.

    Anyone living in Florida might be able to get to him soon:

    Wednesday, December 10
    Regular City Commission meeting at 4:00 PM. For more information, please contact 891-8533.

    Allan Katz should be part of this meeting.

    *Wednesday, December 10
    Economic Development target issue committee meeting at 1:30 PM at conference room 4F, fourth floor, City Hall. For more information, please contact 891-8533.

    Perhaps a 1 or a group of people can get to Allan Katz during these meetings to address this issue to him.

  160. [Ed. Good post. Don’t hate, educate. ]

    dcomus, it’s just your negative attitude… This Obama machine or whatever was created here in the blogsphere and you can choose to “drink the cool aid” or remain positive. Remaining negative does no one any good.

    Whatever transpires with these lawsuits, we owe it to our country to give this kid a chance… you don’t have to like him, or wave his flag, but don’t get on here and just look for opportunities to smack him around…

    If he does something stupid, believe me, we’ll know..there are more than enough eyes on him right now…

    Let’s try to stay focused on the future of this great country, roll up our sleeves and get back to doing the work that will move this country out of recession back in to prosperity for all..


  161. [Ed. Yikes. Nice one, thanks. Embarassing.]

    Press release for 12/8/08 still has Justice Scalia’s first name spelled wrong. “Anotonin”.

  162. Leo,

    I hope all went well at SCOTUS today. I saw the supplemental brief made the docket.

    Is it available somewhere to read? I want to stay as informed as possible so I read all briefs.

    Thanks again for all you do!

  163. [Ed. I haven’t updated the blog in 24 hours. I just dont have the time. Sometimes I click the wrong button. Sometimes I might not want a post to go up if it’s breaking my own personal rules of conduct. Sometimes I might just be in a bad mood. Doing my best to keep it real. Lots of dissenting opinions are posted. But if I think somebody is just messing with minds, Ill cut it. I don’t know what I clipped of yours, if anything. Feel free to resbumit. Sorry if I deleted something that didnt deserve it. ]

    I notice my comments are being ignored for moderation. If you don’t want me to post here on your blog and support you then all you have to do is say so. I’m not begging or anything.

  164. It seems to me that if all these petitions are denied, the SCOTUS is basically leaving it at the feet of the electors to decide, since it appears clear that the Secretary of State of the various states have not properly, and certainly not consistently certified the candidates.

  165. [Ed. Yes, I’ll get that brief up soon.]

    Leo, Good job. Can you please post/upload today’s supplemental brief. Thank you.

    I asked before but got no answer. Can you please assist with my questions:

    If the SCOTUS agrees with your NBC interpretation what remedial steps can they avail themselves of. What’s next for the country? How do we determine the next POTUS?


  166. NJ Citizen Says:

    [ Ed. I do the best I can. If you haven’t seen the numerous moderations and snips of various nasty comments, then you’re not paying attention.]

    “Robert Says:
    December 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    As a note: the court deciding not to hear the case has traditionally meant that they openly disagree with either your argument or feel they have no legitimate role to play in the matter. It is NOT a “travesty” if they make this decision. It doesn’t instantly back up conspiratorial theories etc. Please be a responsible blog host and ensure that the discussion steers clear from this craziness and stays in the realm of healthy legal debate.”

    An open disagreement with an argument presented by a petitioner — assuming arguendo that there were no other factors impairing the grant of Stay (as requested here) or conversion of the App. to a Writ of certiorari — would seem to be best expressed as a contrary ruling. SCOTUS can decide not to take a case on any number of grounds and if they don’t explain why, one does not know why.

    Procedural problems?
    Well-settled law? (That would not be the situation here; see, e.g., 9/08 Univ of Michigan Law review which was a “special topic” issue on only NBC clause) Typically, a case trying to raise a matter that is already well-settled law might be declined without comment.
    A case presenting with a situation of a “too narrow” ruling being required? If SCOTUS saw that there were narrow grounds (above) for ruling, then SCOTUS would be unable to pronounce on the “larger issue” of still unsettled law, wouldn’t it? It might decline the case.
    A matter has not run through its full “process” such as to militate for intervention by SCOTUS? (Read 20th Amendment about the remaining process, in which Electors and then Congress might find eligibility objections filed/noted. Is it the right time for SCOTUS to intervene? Esp. since the NJ and CT cases were filed in October with the intention of getting stays on the Nov. 4th balloting, but didn’t reach a Justice until too late.)

    There were 11 pages filled with the titles of dozens (over 100) of cases with dispositions of a denial, accompanied by no further comment, on Monday. The binary options laid out by Robert do not seem to cover what may have been myriad reasons for those denials. There’s an interesting video linked below, in which Justice Scalia mentions in passing (and humorously but not jokingly) how their conferencing process can be pretty casual.


  167. Sheffield Says:


    I don’t necessarily seek out other posts that take a shot at another poster like your comments to DCOMUS… but I didn’t see anything particularly pointed in his comments only his exasperation that there is a formidable Obama political machine that with certain advantage gained from those who have fallen short on their responsibility administer a valid election. With that he is able to essentially walk into the presidency…

    So I admire the spirit of just wanting to “give the kid a chance” but find it’s application here quite interesting when applied to someone who is effectively side stepping the Constitution and exploiting broken election system. What “eyes” do you feel are on him… politicians? MSM? the same eyes that were on him during the primary and popular vote?

    So I think I understand where DCOMUS is coming from even I may be a little more positive in trusting that justice will be served.

  168. Leo,

    I notice you removed one of my earlier posts where I expressed my displeasure with Jeffery Toobin’s snarkey analysis of your case by calling him a name synonmous with “donkey”. Sorry if that was inappropriate. I’ll try to contain myself in the future.

    God bless.

  169. I put together a little summary of official replies to the Obama situation with their definitions of natural born citizenship. I would be willing to keep it updated if you or someone else would be willing to make a place for it. I WOULD POSE THIS REQUEST TO BERG, BUT HE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTACT AT THIS TIME. If you think that he would make a place, would you have him contact me? here is what I have so far. If you have a recommendation, please let me know.

    From replies published on the net and the results of Berg’s and others challenges we have the following to date:

    Vetting Procedure

    The voters are supposed to do the vetting (Senator Martinez of Florida letter) without the right to demand documents from candidates in a court of law (Berg’s case).

    The Federal Elections Commission is not responsible to determine the Constitutional qualifications of a candidate.

    A secretary of state may require the candidates to sign notarized affidavids that they are eligible (example Arizona, Rhode Island) or may accept the political parties’ official candidates as eligible (example South Carolina). No back up proof is required.

    “If a government entity did not require Mr. Obama to swear an oath of allegiance at adulthood for a dual citizen, or require a person to become naturalized, then it must not be necessary. That person must be a natural born citizen.” (Wayne Abraham, NC elector). (I wonder if that approach works with taxes?!)

    “Unfortunately, unless the candidate produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States” (John Linder).

    “…individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed.” (Idaho Senator) [read if the courts did not hear the case he must be okay]

    Eligible Citizenship

    “Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.” (Senator Martinez)

    “at least one parent was [strike not] a US citizen at the time of their births … is definition of natural born” (Kevin Akin, California State Chair, Peace and Freedom Party, California Elections Boardmember)

    “native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens)….state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency.” Senator from Idaho

    “Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the ‘natural born’ status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector.
    “In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And[[sic] has never been required by the United States government to become ‘naturalized’ or take the oath of citizenship.” Wayne Abraham

    If you have more quotes from government officials/electors, please post to my attention. I will try to keep a running summary.

  170. NJ Citizen Says:

    “[ Ed. I do the best I can. If you haven’t seen the numerous moderations and snips of various nasty comments, then you’re not paying attention.]
    Robert Says:
    December 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm”

    Post above was a quoted paragraph from Robert and then my response … 😉

    Believe me, I know that you must have your hands full … still. And hope that the filing in D.C. and meeting with Cort/press went well. I just took the quote from “Robert” — which seemed to be limiting the potential reasons for a denial of your App for Stay to only TWO possible grounds — and answered it with some of the many other reasons there might have been to cause a denial. It takes a crystal ball to figure out what SCOTUS does — before and sometimes, after. I just hate to think that “political fear of repercussions” might be the stumbling block in getting this area of law resolved, but it’s a “real world” and not an “ideal world” we live in. Even for the 9 Justices.

  171. Just my Opinion

    I have never trusted Mr. Obama and have always thought he was Corrupt.

    You are just as good as the Company you keep.

    You do not go to the same church for 20yrs and not believe in what your Pasture is Preaching.

    You do not hang around with known Terrorist.

    You do not associate with Corrupt businessmen

    I do not agree with his Political views:

    Late term abortions

    AKA Partial Birth Abortions

    Civil Defense Program

    AKA Hitler’s Brown Shirts

    Redistribution of wealth

    AKA Socialism

    Taxing big Oil,

    When their profit margins are way less than most Big Corporations. Their profit margins have not changed, they are the same now as they where in the Summer.

    It was OPEC causing Oil Prices to be so High.

    AKA Lets kill off all the US Oilfield Jobs and PUT MORE PPL OUT OF WORK.
    Yes I work in the Oilfield.

    There are so many more.

    So do you say, I Hope they find a way to disqualify him?

    I say, Hell yes I Hope they find a way!

    I will always be indebted too and sincerely grateful to Donofrio, Cort, Orly, Berg and all others who are trying to disqualify Mr. Obama.

    Thank You, P. Null…………………………………Noman, Oklahoma

  172. Another Lawyer Says:

    Leo, I enjoy this blog. I’ve been following your lawsuit and I find it very interesting. There are a few comments I’d like to make – this is mostly aimed at your readers and some has little to do with your particular suit, but I’d be most grateful for your indulgence.

    As to the theory that Obama was born in Kenya:

    There are different degrees of “truthiness” in every “fact”. At one extreme you have “truth”. It is impossible to prove anything to the point of actual truth – it is like an asymptote that you can approach but never reach.

    There’s historical fact – for example, George Washington was the first US president. That isn’t TRUTH, because we can’t be absolutely 100% positive that he was president. But given all of the evidence that exists, we can convince ourselves to 99.9999% certainty.

    Then you have “legal fact”. This is the only fact that matters in the law. There are many cases in which something can be a “legal fact” even though it is beyond question that it is false. For example, the case of Stambovsky v. Ackley specifically stated that it was a legal fact that a certain house was haunted by poltergeists. It wasn’t REALLY haunted, but for the purposes of the law, it was.

    Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii and established it as a legal fact. He has a birth certificate, it says he was born in Hawaii, and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed its authenticity.

    As far as the law is considered, it is a legal fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and given the way our government is structured under the constitution, the Supreme Court could not determine otherwise no matter how much it wanted to.

  173. //I understand about the time/attitude issue about posting comments. I just noticed some comments lately were just sitting for moderation, and because of past experiences on some other blogs/forums wasn’t sure what to make of it.//

    Thanks for responding and accepting the comments I was concerned about. Mainly my letter to Sec of State, which UPDATE was reffered to Wisconsin’s Election Division (seb@seb.state.wi.us).

  174. I have been following all this from Australia, Have yet to see anything connected with it reported in print or any other media,Silence!
    Rupert Murdock must have been smilling when he named his empire “News Limited”
    I do not believe the lengths that Media, DNC etc. have gone to, to protect the Kenyan candidate.

  175. Another Lawyer Says:

    My next point:

    It is totally fruitless to try to argue that Chester A. Arthur’s presidency was illegitimate and therefore that one or more of his Supreme Court appointments were illegitimate and therefore certain cases are not the law.

    As Leo is well aware, our legal system is very concerned with “finality of judgment”: ie, at some point you draw the line and say that no matter what, this thing cannot be challenged.

    If you sue someone, and you exhaust your last chance to appeal and you’ve lost, and then you find some evidence that 100% proves your case, tough luck. You had your shot and now it is all over, even if the other person comes straight out and admits he was responsible.

    It is a legal fact that Chester A. Arthur held office legitimately

    [Ed. Hogwash. It was just discovered this week that he was a British subject. Hopefully, we shall see what SCOTUS says.]

    , and his Supreme Court appointment/s was/were legitimate. If it turns out that he was born in London and trained as a Communist Ninja Spy to infiltrate and destroy the US government, that won’t change the legal fact that he was a legitimate president. It might change what we perceive to be the HISTORIC facts, but it will have no effect on the legal facts.

    [Ed. Perhaps, but that info would certainly have an effect on the issue before the Court.]

  176. John Fleming Says:

    ATTN: I have an answer to LF’s question about what will happen if Obama is found not qualified to serve as POTUS . . .

    Here are the basics: essentially the process outlined in the Constitution and in the US Federal Code states in the event that a candidate is deemed unqualified to serve as President, then on the date of Electoral vote certification, which would be January 6, 2009 during a mandatory joint session of Congress (and after the NEW Congress will have been sworn in on January 3rd) then the remaining candidates with electoral votes, no more than three candidates with the highest electoral vote totals, would then be presented to the House to vote on for President, with each State’s Representation getting 1 vote to cast for the President (including D.C., making it 51 total votes) .

    The Senate would be given the task of electing the VP from the three VP candidates who had the highest pledged electoral votes. Again 51 total votes would be cast.

    If John McCain is also disqualified, then an interim President would be selected by the House of Representatives until Congress can select and vet new candidates. These new candidates could be selected from within Congress or from the outside. Congress would set a special election date, and they would hold a special election with the House choosing the President and the Senate choosing the Vice President.

    However, most likely a disqualified Obama could very well result in an administration of John McCain as President and Joe Biden as Vice-President, which though not my preference, would certainly make for an interesting four years.

  177. [Ed. thank you.]

    Hey Leo,

    Have you seen this article on the meaning of “natural born citizen” at the time our founding fathers wrote the constitution?

    Here’s the link to the Emerich de Vattel book cited in the Times Examiner article.

  178. Cort Wrotnowski’s Emergency Application…Dec. 12 “Natural Born Citizen”

    trackback: http://twana.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/cort-wrotnowskis-emergency-applicationdec-12-natural-born-citizen/

  179. Could the SCOTUS on its own after the EC vote. Say to any one that gets the most votes and is the true PEOTUS.

    We the SCOTUS command you to show this court that you or qualified to hold the office of POTUS!

    I know I am grabbing at straws. If it was McCain or any one else I would want the SCOTUS to have a look at them to say yes or no.

    BTW… Leo you have changed my mind about John McCain.. while a hero he knew better. Heck just about everyone in DC is an attorney of some sort or other.

    The SCOTUS has seen your case, you made sure of that. They know what is going on. They have my respect as long as they guard the Constitution as they have taken their oath to do.


  180. Leo, I thought this might be of interest to you and the case…

    Post #60
    1 reply
    Donald K. Lovvo (Western Arizona, AZ) wroteabout an hour ago
    This is what I have found as defining a natural born citizen. Notice, the citizenship is obtained through the father.


    Natural-Born Citizen Defined

    One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

    Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States

  181. I notice that my comment posted December 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm is still “awaiting moderation”.

    I will try to simplify the point.

    From the pleadings, it appears that the Wrotnowski case was brought in state court, and was dismissed specifically because, under that state’s law, Wrotnowski lacks standing.

    [Ed. Not really. Please read Chief Justice Rogers Conn. Supreme Court opinion. It does not dismiss for standing as per the Berg case…it dismissed on this basis…

    “Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this court lacked subject
    matter jurisdiction over the matter.”

    She applied a statute 9-323 which Cort did not rely on, nor did it apply to him. I don’t know why she said that Cort brought his suit pursuant to 9-323 because he did not bring his suit under that statute. That statue only applies to “candidates or electors”, Cort is neither. It’s a wild decision which ought to be reversed since Cort’s complaints in both the Conn Superior Court and Conn Supreme Court actually rely on Article 6 Section 3 of the US Constitution as to the SOS oath of office and Cort also relied on Conn. General Statute “9-3”, but “9-323” was not a part of Cort’s argument.
    The decision should be overruled. ]

    So my question is, what FEDERAL issue is raised that would give the US Supreme Court jurisdiction?

    [Ed. Oath of office to uphold the Constitution fused to statute 9-3. Please read the actual application and feel free to quote therefrom in the future. It’s at the top of my blog, right hand corner.]

    I’d also note that it is the routine practice of the Supreme Court to distribute applications for conference if they are presented to a 2nd judge after previously being denied; that’s why the rules require 10 copies to be filed for the 2nd application and not the 1st. So the fact that the case has been docketed is no indication that there is jurisdiction — it’s just the next step they would need to take on the way to a final denial.

    [Ed. See my blog today where I show two SCOTUS cases that involved stay applications which were intitially denied, renewed to a second Justice and then denied by the second Justice without ever being referred to the Court or distributed. One was denied by Scalia upon a renewed application and this was in 2008.]

  182. I know this is off the subject but could you please answer this question sir?

    [Ed. snipped for inflammatory and false statements…]

    See 101 (b) page 62 of pdf Crimminal Complaint issued 5 Dec 08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    Reference 101 b. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked what he can get from the President-elect for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that Governor General Counsel believes the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate….[Ed. snipped for more inflammatory stuff]

    [Ed. Your analysis is WRONG. If the Governor “believed” he could get something from Obama, that doesn’t mean a damn thing. That just shows “his” thoughts on the issue, or even the thoughts of his counsel…what they “believe” does not in any way imply a reciprocal criminal intent by anybody else they happen to be believing things about. Patrick Fitzgerald said these charges do not implicate Obama. What some body believes about another person doesn’t make the other person guilty of it. That sounds like insanity law 101. ]

  183. It seems to me that your main argument as to why the Supreme Court should hear this issue is simply that it is an open question whether “natural born citizen” means something different than “citizen at birth”. That is, the Court has never ruled or considered your claim that dual citizenship status at birth negates a person’s status as a “natural born citizen”.

    I assume that you would admit that the phrase “natural born citizen” is susceptible of more than one interpretation. That is, while your interpretation may possibly be correct, it is merely one of at least two reasonable interpretations.

    [Ed. It’s one of two interpretations, but I don’t think the other one is “reasonable” especially in light of precedent and the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment Framers. Furthermore, the seminal opinion of Wong Kim Ark has been called into question now that it has been found out Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth (possibly not even a dual citizen. more on that later today so stay tuned…).]

    I’d just point out that if the phrase is ambiguous AND the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, then it is NOT “unconstitutional” or in any way illegal for Obama to take office. Nor was it illegal for Chester Arthur to be President. You simply have things backwards: if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling defining the phrase, it would apply to all future Presidents— it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court ever makes its holdings retroactive, and even then it can only apply to open or pending cases.

    I think you owe it to your readers, for the good of this country (and for their own protection), that you are presenting an ARGUMENT but that, no matter how good your argument, it does not have the force of law.

    [Ed. I haven’t argued that my argument has the force of law, just that the law ought to be enforced.]

    We do have a democracy;

    [Ed. No, we have a Constitutional Republic based on democratic principles… if we can keep it. (Ben Franklin)]

    Obama was elected with 63 million votes — and you yourself concede that he was born in Hawaii, with an American-born mother; and he was raised largely by American-born grandparents.

    So whatever the citizenship status of the father he never knew, it is hard to see as a practical matter what impact that has on Obama’s loyalties and his ability to govern as a loyal American.

  184. The whole issue of Constitutonal eligibility became moot on Election Day.

    The idea that WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereignty and supreme governing authority in the U.S. has escaped both pro and anti Obama camps.

    The notion of Obama not being qualified to be president arose during the primaries and was rejected by the Democrats because they elected him to be the Democratic Nominee. The notion was again rejected by WE THE PEOPLE on election day when he was elected and became the undisputed President Elect.

    At this point, only WE THE PEOPLE, collectively, can change the outcome of the presidential election. Any other argument concerning his qualifications, including his place of birth, at this point is moot.

    This is a highly significant point because I suspect in the very near future, a bogus birth certificate will originate from Kenya or Indonesia. But even if it were found to be real, that would not change the outcome of the presidential election for two reasons.

    First, Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen, so no matter where in the world he was born, he is a natural-born citizen.

    Second, WE THE PEOPLE have spoken and WE elected Obama to be our 44th President.

    ‘This country is owned by We the People. We created the Constitution to limit and shape the powers of government. We can, in point of fact, knowingly elect a felon to the House or Senate and prior US Supreme Court precedents like Powell v. McCormack uphold the inability of the House or Senate to remove the people’s choice for any reason other than the qualifications clauses in the Constitution, which are minimal.

    >>>In turn, at least six US Senators and Representatives have served full terms even though elected when they were TOO young under the constitution.

    Do We the People, the sovereign power of this country, have the power to resolve conflicting claims on a birth certificate where one side claims Kenyan birth and ratify that or assume the risks of that?

    Puh-leeze. Of course We Can. And yeah, we can ignore discriminatory claims about kenyan birth that, even if true, just don’t matter.

    Can the Courts or Congress, on a basis completely independent of the will of the people, second-guess the election, tell us to “try again”, or veto our choices?

    No They Can’t.

    …the American people would never lose a struggle for democracy on their own country — IF they understood it as such. So, of course, this direct attack (seeking to re-decide or overrule the election of Obama) is styled as “upholding the Constitution.” In effect, our own national hunger for the restoration of justice, the rule of law and the Constitution is being harnessed — in a twisted way — so that the Constitution can start being enforced FIRST against Barack Obama. That’s why it’s important to see these lawsuits for what they are — and go on offense against those who dislike democracy.


    We don’t need their “help.”‘


    In other words, WE THE PEOPLE, collectively, have decided that Barack Obama, Constitutionally eligible or not, will be our 44th president. Our decision cannot be overridden by Congress, the Supreme Court or even the Constitution.

    WE THE PEOPLE are the supreme sovereignty and hold supreme legal and legislative authority over the U.S. Our sovereignty supersedes the combined powers of our three branch federal government and the U.S. Constitution.

    [Ed. Wrong. If the candidates are not Constitutionally eligible, then the election was a fraud.]

    Remember, the U.S. Constitution was written and designed to limit our representational federal government’s authorities, not WE THE PEOPLE’s authorities.

    WE THE PEOPLE can indeed elect anyone we want to be president, regardless of what the Constitution says, and there is nothing anyone or any law can do to stop us.

    Barack Obama is indeed the President Elect.


  185. Christopher Wiseman – I just wanted to thank you for your post on the Wong Kim Ark question I had. That was very helpful and I appreciate your taking the time to explain this issue.

  186. [Ed. The McCain nbc Senate resolution means a bunch of Senators wrapped up some water cooler talk in a fancy ribbon and made people think it was a law. It’s not. It has no legal effect whatsoever.]

    America wrote something about SRS511 that the Senate passed. Could you explain to us and what impact this has? Perhaps I need a Civics 101 lesson here, but help me to understand how this trumps the Constitution. Is there someplace we can read up on it? I looked at Project Vote Smart and could not find anything about this. When was it passed?

  187. KElizabeth Says:

    Though lower courts ruled petitioner(s) did not have ‘standing’ in some cases that does not rule out that there were possibly other reasons that the cases were not given merit and that the ‘lack of standing’ was just the one cited. (does this ever happen?)
    Is it possible Leo that these before SCOTUS and others are not reaching the burden of proving ‘injury in fact’ since Obama has not been sworn in yet.?? In all the briefs I’ve read, which admittedly are not all inclusive, I’m not convinced of an ‘injury’ in fact that has already occured that the courts can remedy. It could be that I’m not a lawyer and have no idea what I’m talking about. However, I am a Process Server with the Fifth Circuit and have won both cases in my life that I argued pro se, so I feel I’m at least fairly knowledgeable of the requirements and proceedure of eligible suits.
    Unfortunately, it could be that we have to wait until Obama is in office to claim that we have been harmed. I’d love feedback from anyone, but mostly the attorneys of record.
    thank you

  188. NJ Citizen Says:

    Nice-enough write-up in the Washington Times newspaper about Cort’s lawsuit, with the opinion of Eleanor Holmes Norton thrown in as gratuitous counter-balance about the fate she predicts for such legal challenges.


  189. whysoserious Says:

    While I don’t necessarily disagree with your Wong Kim Ark/Chester Arthur/Justice Gray tactics, it’s a little off to the side of the bullseye, in my (non-lawyer, legal neophyte) opinion. The bullseye is the unmistakable intention in the natural born requirement: NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES ALLOWED IN A PRESIDENT.

    They at least wanted a minimum guarantee of loyalty that comes from a lineage of Americans, especially in the climate of, you know, britain and the history of the world and it’s nations’ tendency to invade/ruin/meddle with/destroy one another. It’s obvious, it’s reasonable, it’s common sense, it’s rational, it’s logical, etc.. NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES.

    Extreme example: could the queen of england marry an american citizen (say a man for now, as I refuse to entertain the thoughts of a lesbian marriage and adoption of a test tube baby), get pregnant, and give birth in a state, stick around as long as necessary to gather the legal papers, fly back over the pond with the child, have tea in the city of london for the next ~21 years whilst the child is schooled in marxism and international banksterism, fly back to the states, and gather funds and support for the next 14 years in preparation for the presidential candidacy on the by now 35 year old son or daughters’ birthday?

    This is the kind of lunacy you get with the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ and all that implies for morality, logic, and the constitution. We already have presidents invading other countries without congressional approval, private international banksters stealing all our money and charging us interest on it at the same time, so lets turn back now, shall we?

    Just to test out what the -minimum- test of loyalty can possibly reveal, after all the nitpicking and relativism squabbling, the founders can assume if we can read the constitution, we might also have brains and figure out other ways one might end up an enemy, lets look at Obama and see if it’s possible he might have any divided loyalties.

    Has he lived in a foreign country? Yes.

    Has he lived in or traveled to countries whose politics might not be in line with american politics? yes. (How did he get to pakistan back then anyways)

    Has he been educated or trained in any school of thought, philosophy, politics, religion, etc. that might also be contradictory to the constitution? yes yes yes.

    Has he expressed anything publicly in word or deed that would indicate a disloyal tendency? yes.

    Does he have family or friends involved in the politics of another country, or ever participated in another countries politics? obingo! yes and yes.

    Does he think the constitution of the united states can and should be ignored when it’s suitable to ones personal goals, in direct contradiction to the oath of office he’s trying to get elected to? why, yes, apparently he does.

    The point is clear, and there is no room for ambiguity or legalweasle room when it comes to the ONE SINGLE job in America where some poor guy has to follow you around with the nuclear football 24/7/365 in case you have to wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

    Not only should he not be allowed to run for president (boo hoo, so your dad wasn’t a citizen when you were born, and your stuck with a millionaire wife and 2 kids and a cushy job in the senate, it’s ONE job in the country that might last 4 years), it should be seriously considered he be investigated for attempting to deceive the american people and congress, being he had to have been well aware of the constitution, (being a constitutional lawyer and all) and his not being qualified, or at the very least somehow deciding for himself he was qualified. This aint some irs tax loophole. Nice ‘certificaTION of live birth’/-native- citizen red herring there slick…

    stupid hawaii. see what you’ve done? 😉

    so, whatcha think Leo? Call the bluff or not? Make Obama run to the supreme court while holding congress or the electorals to the fire? I don’t know what to do, nor what it would mean if one thing or another was done legally speaking. Obama was counting on this crap. Lots at stake here.

    oh and where the hell are all the rest of the lawyers who’ve been practicing law longer than i’ve been alive? time to step up people. I wish we could call up the SCOTUS guys and just ask them.

  190. NJ Citizen Says:

    A deranged report from a Stephanie Salter in Indiana


    Sample excerpts:

    “For those keeping score: Nina Wells and Susan Ybiewicz are secretaries of state for New Jersey and Connecticut, respectively. Leo Donofrio is a retired New Jersey attorney with a lot of time on his hands, and Cort Wrotnowski is a prodigious author and, according to a Connecticut NBC affiliate, a health-food store owner in Greenwich, Conn.”

    “Lower courts tossed the cases; Connecticut’s attorney general called Donofrio’s ‘a baseless, bogus claim that’s apparently part of a nationwide effort to confuse or derail the election.’ ”

    I read the pleadings in the NJ case, and don’t recall any charges of “baseless” and “bogus” in the ruling, nor from press accounts of anything the NJ OAG said. Should there be a demand for RETRACTION??!!! The columnist provides her e-mail

    [Ed. please dont print phone numbers on the blog. just link to the info. Thank you.]

  191. Sara, are you THE Sara? You seem very wise and intelligent! If not, I’ll just say I like the way you think!

    Leo and Cort, Keep the faith! We have your back with prayers and lots of good old American spunk! I believe you are men that were meant for times such as these. Go in with confidence and be vessels of God’s wisdom and will. No matter what, believe He has a purpose for you in this! I like the way you respect the Supreme Justices, just remember….don’t be intimidated….they are also learning….we all are! God Bless you both. Have courage and peace in your hearts.

  192. It looks like the Court is rejecting the stays, but holding back on the Writs for Cert. The Justices may prefer to wait and see if the Electors or Congress take any action before they proceed. Even though you did not file a Writ for Cert., your case is still pending. They could still treat your case as a Writ. for Cert. Berg’s Writ for Cert. is still pending, but the Court has denied his applications for stays. The Court will only take action if necessary, and will avoid stays, if at all possible.

  193. Must Love Dogs Says:

    Could you please answer my earlier question. What is the procedure at SCOTUS if they do grant Cort’s Stay Application – Do they then handle it as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari? Will they give the respondents 30-days to respond (although, we all know it the Electoral vote is stayed, there will be great incentive for a speedy response)? And, if not what do they do? This question is based on the hypothetical that SCOTUS will grant Cort’s Application for Stay.

  194. What do YOU think America? How many “associations” are we going to ignore and simply just let a CHICAGO …[Ed. No insults to any parties allow. Thnak you.] and Michelle Angela Davis Obama waltz in and DISGRACE THE WHITE HOUSE?

    We have one last chance to contact the Electoral College to stop the constitutional crises that will result if Barack Obama gets sworn in without meeting the presidential requirement of being a natural born US citizen.


    The letters will be sent FedEx to all 538 members of the Electoral College and will be delivered Friday morning, giving each elector the weekend to consider the constitutional issues raised by Obama’s presidency.

    Remember: We are not responsible whether they listen or they fail to listen, but we ARE responsible to deliver the message [Read Ezekiel 2 & 3]

  195. The fact that Writs for Cert. are pending at SCOTUS should encourage the Electors and Congress to take their responsibilities more seriousy. I doubt Roberts will swear BO into office if he’s not satisified BO is constitutionally qualified. Roberts has sworn to uphold the Constitution. . . .

  196. Sarah Palin Says:

    Gosh, you guys are mavericks!

  197. Millie O'Riley Says:

    [Ed. Thank you. I’m really trying to keep it clean. Everybody is welcome, Obama supporters too.]

    [Ed. I haven’t updated the blog in 24 hours. I just dont have the time. Sometimes I click the wrong button. Sometimes I might not want a post to go up if it’s breaking my own personal rules of conduct. Sometimes I might just be in a bad mood. Doing my best to keep it real. Lots of dissenting opinions are posted. But if I think somebody is just messing with minds, Ill cut it. I don’t know what I clipped of yours, if anything. Feel free to resbumit. Sorry if I deleted something that didnt deserve it. ]

    Thank you for the above explanation. Leo, I think you’re doing an amazing job of moderating this blog. In my opinion it is clear that your goals are to keep it real and to keep it clean and fair. I’m so grateful to have this bog to read in order to get an up-to-date, accurate and unbiased education about these matters that will forever alter the course of this country’s fate – one way or another. I am so grateful to you and the others who are working for the truth.

  198. [Ed. Only his application for an injunction was denied. His full petition for Writ of Certiorari is still pending as far as I can tell. Looks like the Court should have distributed that for conference today, as it’s ten days past when the other side’s briefs were due.]

    As a side note, It appears that Phillip Berg’s case was denied Yesterday
    by Judge Scalia.

  199. Correction, Philip berg case denied by Justice Souter. (See Docket)
    Sorry for the error

  200. My two children are dual citizens (UK and US) and I can guarantee you they have allegiance to both countries. I wouldn’t expect anything less.

  201. [Ed. Cort’s case pleads the birth cet issue in the alternative, but indirectly. It argues that if the Cort doesn’t holld that he is a nbc, then the Court should order the Conn SOS to do a proper investigation into any and all candidates eligibility.]

    A question–if SCOTUS decides to hear this case, will it only address the 2 parent/citizenship issue, or will it also require examination of the birth certificate to ensure the place of birth requirement? In other words, if the case is heard, and the court subsequently rules that the Kenyan citizenship of his father or dual citizenship is not an issue, and instead rule that place of birth is overriding, could there still be a potential unresolved issue with the validity of the birth certificate? Or would both the citizenship and place of birth requirements be examined in full by the court under this case?

  202. [Ed. In a nutshell. Court held WKA was a “Citizen” – Court had the chance to hold he was a nbc, but Court refused to to do that.]

    Leo: I’ve read through most of of United Staes v Wong Kim Ark per your link. Having trouble understanding the “bottom line.” Can you state the opinion in a nutshell?

  203. Re: tzugidan and “give the kid a chance”

    Well, I suspect you are of the opinion that all the lawsuits pertaining to BO’s eligibility are hogwash…that the “natural born citizenship” suits are erroneous…that there is nothing odd about all his “sealed” documents, e.g., http://poorbuthappy.com/yourthing/post/obamas-records-that-are-not-released/

    Now if – according to unreleased documents and questions like “natural born citizen” — Obama is proven legit, then I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should “give this kid a chance.” But, if he is shown to be otherwise, then NO we should not give him a chance. And the final question is: will anything ever be done so that we can even answer the above questions?

  204. Never mind …you expained here: Thanks!
    [Ed. The opinion is flawed in my opinion because it fails to properly examine the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision or it’s legislative intent. Put it this way, a man born to an alien father, like Chester Arthur, would have been >assured of historical citizenship within the opinion of Wong Kim Arc…We don’t know if the appointment is relevant but the case is. And now we can all sit and wonder whether Gray knew of Arthur’s ineligibility and whether Gray’s appointment would have been challenged by anybody who might have discovered Arthur wasn’t a natural born citizen. Would the discovery of that fact, at the time Justice Gray was a SCOTUS Justice, have disqualified him? Maybe not, but it would have cast a shadow thereon. The point is well made that it’s just these kinds of questions which are the danger of having an ineligible President. It puts a question mark on history and precedent and that’s not good.]

  205. [Ed. Precedent is not made upon what Justices do not say, precedent is made upon what they did say. They said, in their holding that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen”. They never said he was a “natural born citizen.” They could have said that but they didn’t. Furthermore, in Justice Gray’s discussion of the “Minor” case, it was explained that a nbc was a person born in the US to parents who were citizens… and in MINOR the court stated that persons born in the US to foreign parents were the subject of controversy.]

    I am a bit confused on something, in past comments you said United States v. Wong Kim Ark held that he was a citizen but not a natural born citizen. From reading the opinion it seems like they were saying he was a nbc. Where in the courts decision does it hold that Wong Kim Ark was not a nbc?

  206. There is a YouTube that says Donofrio blasts Pete Williams but when I tried to view it, it said it was no longer available. Did you respond to his report?

    Best wishes to you and Cort! Still praying..

  207. Leo — I don’t know if you seen this, but here is the original TIME magazine article writing the history of the program that brought Barack Obama, Sr. to the United States under Eisenhower Secretary of Sate, Christian Herter, and The Kennedy Foundation run by Sargent Shriver.


    Please note, the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. was the resource for the U.S. State Department [Says one British diplomat: “These people are going to get across the Atlantic by hook or by crook, and they are going to survive. They can’t face their villages unless they return in triumph.”], along with the State Department’s “Institute of International Education.”

    I think this proves for you that Barack Obama was supervised in the U.S. by the British Embassy when he arrived in the Summer of 1960 on Tom Mboya’s “African-Airlift,” during the heat of the Nixon-Kennedy presidential campaign.

  208. [Ed. INCORRECT. Your assignment for today is to read the Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling. It does not challenge Cort’s standing. Go do your homework and then we can discuss the merits of that Court’s decision. I’ve been waiting for questions on that, so if not this reader than hopefully somebody else will take up the offer to begin a dialogue on Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Rogers’ published opinion. Here is the link

    http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR9.pdf ]

    The issue on appeal in this case is whether the lower court was correct in ruling that Wrotnowski did not have standing to bring his lawsuit. It is not in a different procedural posture than Donofrio. Expect the same fate.

    But, even if the court took this case, it would be considering the standing issue, not the citizenship issues.

  209. It appears Leo the Supreme Court discussed your case and Cort’s in the same conference, along with Berg’s, but the Government just needed more time to prepare for the announcement of a stay.

    I believe Berg’s case was kept alive to allow Obama more time to approach the Court with some action to clear up this matter. To me it would appear that Berg’s case is the bait and after some housekeeping, Cort’s case is the trap.

    By not taking action on the writ in Berg’s case and ignoring Cort’s case before the Court, Obama has displayed an unbelievable level of arrogance and contempt for our highest legal institution.

    It takes some time to ready security for an announcement as shattering as putting a Presidential candidate on trial.

    When they denied Berg’s latest emergency stay, yet the case still breaths and Cort’s case was referred, it appears the stage is set (with some Greek columns in the background) for the court to rule that Obama must appear for Berg’s case at trial to order the production of a birth certificate that will support the other trial he is not named in as a defendent.

  210. A masterful move by the Supreme Court if my premise is accurate.

    You legal guys ROCK Leo!

  211. NJ Citizen Says:

    Steve Says:
    December 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm
    If the link to “The Law of Nations” is established, it certainly provides a plausible context for a definition of “natural born citizen”. Is this part of your brief at the SCOTUS?

    Steve: The linkage is very important to the 1758 “Law of Nations” and the term “natural born citizen” and the fact that the latter term is used elsewhere within the four corners of the Constitution — in the provisions about piracy on the high seas and international disputes — shows an awareness by the Framers of something very important to “originalist interpretation” which is, “public text” authoritative for its time.

    There have been “Law of Nations” learned works from the time of Hugo de Grot (a/k/a “Grotius”) and the one in place in 1787-88 (Pavel’s work of 1758) would have been the “public text” of the times. It’s important in another sense, as well, given our American jurisprudence’s long struggle with sometimes using British common law (especially in state courts) or borrowing and adapting ideas from it, in order to build up “stare decisis” (judge-made law, an accretion of rulings).

    A lot of cases will recite to words of Blackstone, writing about common law. The thing is that his analysis of notions of citizenship which are “natural born” in any way uses the term “natural born subjects” — suited to monarchy, feudalism, and serf-to-master of dominion (land) relationships and ideas. The exact kinds of things the Framers and Revolutionary War American colonies were trying to get away from! Some faulty analysis that’s out there tries to substitute “citizen” for “subject” and then do a wholesale borrowing of all the rest of the thinking about relationships enunciated by Blackstone. It can lead an analysis astray to do that.

    The Constitution is America’s “national law” as are federal statutes that abide within constitutional delegation of legislative authority. As Scalia said: “There is no common law” in federal courts. And most states have now codified the areas of law that had, originally, relied on common law decisions from courts.

  212. Leo, as to the Connecticut ruling. As states are responsible for their own elections, are not state elections officials responsible for the eligibility of all candidates. Does Conn have a standard for qualifying minor parties that differs from that of major parties? It seems to me to make a minor party qualify in one manor and have a major party candidate qualify only based on the representations of a private corporation (RNC & DNC) is not equitable. Also, what legal authority does the SOS have to delegate his/her responsibilities to a private corporation.

    I don’t believe the court can answer a standing question if they first do not answer the responsibility question. If the SOS is responsible for the qualifying of all candidates, and they do not, then any voter should have a claim against them. My rational is that they have been deprived of the ability to participate in a fair election and as voters of the state that alone should give them standing. If you can sue about the number of voting machines before an election, you should certainly sue about candidates qualifications.

    The constitution assigns responsibility for things not specified to the federal government to the states or citizens. By placing the names of the presidential, senate, and house candidates on the ballot, the SOS assumes responsibility for their eligibility. If he ignores that responsibility, then it falls to the citizens to enforce the constitution and thus they claim standing.

  213. At a news conference today, President-elect Barack Obama said that he had no contact with disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) or anyone on the governor’s staff about potential replacements for Obama in the United States Senate. But that statement directly contradicts Obama’s top political strategist, David Axelrod, who told a local Chicago television reporter less than two weeks ago that Obama did have a conversation with Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy.

    “I know [Obama has] talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.”

    Ok I’m not a lawyer but if Obama has lied about meeting with Governor Blagojevich to discuss filling his US Senate seat isn’t this a real problem for him?

    On November 23, David Axelrod said that he was SURE Obama had spoken with the governor regarding his senate seat.


    The Governor General Counsel in the crimminal complaint talked with advisors/aids reprsenting Obama. This is in the crimminal complaint.

    The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser “the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate.”

    Is it legal for an advisor representing Obama to offer Blagojevich’s wife a job in exchange for Blagojevich appointing who Obama wants in his vacated Senate seat?

  214. Thank you for including the link to the Conn. Supreme Court holding in reply to Brian’s post. I appreciate the opportunity to read the actual holding – but it just confirms my initial impression that the Wrotnowski case was dismissed for lack of standing (or, failing that, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction):

    “Accordingly, this court
    concludes that, under Scheyd, Bortner and Caruso, the
    plaintiff has not made a colorable claim under § 9-323

    [Ed. He didn’t have to make a colorable claim under that statue, because it only applies to electors or candidates. Cort was neither. The Judge completely whipped that statute out of thin air and as such her use of it is reversible error. Her use of it creates a legal fiction. ]

    that he is ‘‘aggrieved by any ruling of any election official
    in connection with any election for presidential electors
    . . . .’’ Therefore, the plaintiff lacked statutory standing
    to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter
    jurisdiction over the matter.”

    I understand that you are arguing that your case is brought under § 9-3 rather than § 9-323 – but § 9-3 does not provide any sort of statutory cause of action– so I understand why the court would look to the only state framework for bringing an action related to conduct of an election.

    [Ed. When a statute says it applies to only “electors or candidates”, then that’s who it applies to. The Judge can’t force Cort into the category of “elector or candidate” just because his law suit was strong and she doesn’t want to hear the case on the actual merits.]

    In any case, § 9-3 sets forth a presumption as follows:

    “The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title…”

    As the statute says, and as the application says, the presumption only applies to “the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form”… Cort didn’t challenge anything she wrote or did, he challenged her inaction – her failure to act as to her prescribed duty to uphold the Constitution. As to things she “didn’t do” and write about, there is no presumption whatsoever. The statute applies to Her oath of office which is “prescribed by law” in Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution… her duty to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, her minimum duty prescibed by law – as the commissioner of elections, is to make sure that the ballots contain only names for President who are Constitutionally eligible. Her office said, “It’s not our job.” That’s the case in a nutshell.]

    and the state appellate court, in its ruling, noted that Conn law apparently precludes consideration of federal constitutional claims under its election statutes:

    “The Supreme Court also has held that constitutional
    claims are not within the ambit of General Statutes §§ 9-
    324,7 9-328 and 9-329a. See Scheyd v. Bezrucik, 205
    Conn. 495, 506, 535 A.2d 793 (1987). When an election
    official has complied with existing law, but the plaintiff
    claims that the law is unconstitutional the plaintiff
    may well be aggrieved by the law or regulation, but he
    or she is not aggrieved by the election official’s rulings
    which are in conformity with the law.’’ (Internal quotation
    marks omitted.) Id., 503. The Supreme Court reasoned
    in Scheyd that the legislature had excluded
    constitutional claims from the statutes governing election
    contests because it ‘‘might reasonably have opted
    for speedy adjudication of disputes about technical violations
    of election laws on the theory that identification
    and rectification of such mistakes is ordinarily not a
    matter of great complexity. Constitutional adjudication,
    by contrast, requires study and reflection and may
    therefore, as a general matter, be deemed less appropriate
    for accelerated disposition.’’ Id., 505–506.

    That also does not apply in any way to Cort’s complaint because of this part of the above quoted text …”When an election official has complied with existing law, but the plaintiff claims that the law is unconstitutional”… Cort never challenged any statute as being unconstitutional. Oh contrare, mon frere. The only statute he concerned himself with and relied upon was 9-3 and it is certainly constitutional. This decision is a legal fiction and should be overturned.]

  215. David aka monkeytrots Says:


    Thank-you for fighting for the Constitution.

    Would it not have been preferred to file three separate suits against the three different problems of ‘natural born citizen’ since the three have such widely different problems ?

    The specific issue that causes a problem with the above inclusion is the status of Senator McCain as a natural born citizen. Both his parents are United States Citizens, and, thus, there is no dispute that Senator McCain is a United States Citizen also.

    The question of his additional qualification of being ‘natural born’ is raised by Senator McCain’s birth in Panama – at a military hospital on a military installation in Panama – that was a sole command installation flying ONLY the American Flag. I believe those facts can be easily substantiated. My father, USAF Lt. Col., retired served as a Base Commander in South Korea in the 70’s is my source for the following: Are United States Military Installations in foreign countries considered U.S. Soil ? His answer is that, it depends on whether it is a sole United States command or a Joint Operation – and he referred me to the U.S. Code as being the source for that. I have been only able to find partial references in the U.S. Code to substantiate, but it boils down to ‘Is the military Installation subject to the legal jurisdiction of another country ?”.

    [Ed. The Department of State Foreign Affairs manual states unequivocally as follows:

    7 FAM 1116.1-4

    c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S.
    diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the
    14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the
    jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.


    McCain was not born on US soil, and he’s not a natural born citizen. There’s also this (although it doesn’t really matter) story from the Washington Post of May 2, 2008:,

    “Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department’s bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the “Child Born Abroad” records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain.”


    If not – all criminal cases on that installation come under the sole jurisdiction of the authority United States Government. If so, the legal processes of the other country can enter the base, and arrest, detain, try, prosecute, and convict United States Citizens.
    When I lived on a USAF housing base in Japan during the 60’s – the Japanese Police could NOT enter the base, nor did they have authority to arrest anyone physically on that base – they could, of course, exercise an arrest on anyone that ventured outside the comples . Any dependent that was born on that base, to parents who were United States Citizens, were definitely given the status of ‘natural born citizen’.

    The use of a State Department Manual in an attempt to determine the validity of “United States Soil/Sovreign Territory”, especially with respect to military births, disturbs me greatly. The SD manual is not an authoritative legal source. The manual goes so far as to state that ’embassies’ are not considered ‘U.S. Soil’ as far as the 14th ammendment is concerned. I disagree – and the Marines that Guard our Embassies would strongly disagree.

    [Ed. You may disagree with anything you like. But it’s the State Department who executes the laws of this country. If you disagree with a law and break it, the Court won’t say it’s OK ’cause you disagree. Furthermore, you acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Manual doesn’t agree with you, but you state unequivocally here is no dispute that Senator McCain is a United States Citizen. At the very least you must admit that the FAM disputes what you say.]

    Attacking a United States Embassy is considered an attack upon the sovreign United States. International Law has long recognized this fact.

    The American Flag flies [b]by itself[/b] over these installations, and foreign governments have NO JURISDICTION over ANYBODY within the confines of these installations. Thus, one can only conclude that the State Department Manual is seriously flawed, and egregiously erroneous in their stance on this issue.

    I am sure that legal authorities at our United States Military Academies could document this issue quite thoroughly.

    If you wish to contact me by e-mail, Leo – I can also put you in touch with my lawyer who has been intensely interested in these lawsuits, and considers yours to have been the only one to date that has stood much of a chance. I can put the two of you in touch, if you so desire.


  216. I truly believe BHO was born in Kenya. This refusal by the supreme court
    is nothing more than an ongoing smoke and mirrors shell game that has been shoved down the throats of the american people via threats of imprisonment if one should decide to question a politician, judge or cop.

    It is my firm belief this election was “rigged” via ACORN and the republicans did little if anything to challenge BHO and his thugs.
    Come 01/20/09 prepare for GRIEF!

  217. A scary thought:

    If SCOTUS hears the case and declares Obama ineligible, the lame duck congress could call a lame duck constitutional convention to amend the constitution to allow Obama to become president.

    If SCOTUS dioes not hear it, expect riots, civil disopbedience, militant groups rising up, etc.

    Neither is a pretty picture. God Help us!

  218. A scary thought:

    If SCOTUS hears the case and declares Obama ineligible, the lame duck congress could call a lame duck constitutional convention to amend the constitution to allow Obama to become president.

    If SCOTUS does not hear it, expect riots, civil disobedience, militant groups rising up, etc.

    Neither is a pretty picture. God Help us!

  219. lisa,
    It’s time to make the switch….you are a Republican….you get it!!! Now go out and educate your old Dem. friends….you have the ability. Great post!

    Still in the game for you guys! God Bless. Melatonin is great when you need to sleep…I think we are all getting a little restless here. Our hope is in you two + the Lord! A powerful mix!

  220. While I am not a lawyer, scholar or historian who can contribute thoughts and opinions which may be helpful, I am an American who gives my full support for your noble efforts.

    I look at this like a man looking for a woman, you pass on all untill you find THE one you want to marry….SCOTUS has been looking for the ONE they want to marry and live with for eternity…this one is it!

    Thank you,


  221. Leo wrote:
    ” Cort never challenged any statute as being unconstitutional. Oh contrare, mon frere. The only statute he concerned himself with and relied upon was 9-3 and it is certainly constitutional. ”

    But 9-3 sets forth a legal presumption: ” unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title”

    That means the Conn. law says that pursuant to state law, everything the SOS does is presumed correct UNLESS “otherwise provided by statute”.

    [Ed. Wrong. You’ve grossly misinterpreted the statute. The statute only applies to specific legal instruments ie “regulations” etc and ONLY “if in written form”… The statement by her subordinate to Cort answering his question about what the Secretary did to investigate the eligibility of the candidates “it’s not our job” in a phone conversation does not meet the statute. Her “inaction” as to investigating the eligibility is not a codified “action” which falls under the statute’s presumption. She issued no written documents with aforementioned legal authority as to her failure to investigate the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.]

    Furthermore, a presumption (which doesn’t apply to her inactivity here) would be subject to the overriding Supremacy Clause and therefore her Article 6 Section 3 oath of office demands she uphold the Constitution and so all candidates must be certified by her to meet Article 2, Section1 eligibility.]

    Meaning that there is no STATE cause of action or remedy to raise a FEDERAL Constitutional claim. (That may be very different in NJ – so perhaps one aspect of this case is that the state laws were more favorable in your case).

    The Supreme Court doesn’t have authority to force the STATE courts to consider federal issues — that’s the function of the FEDERAL courts.

    [Ed. It’s the Supremacy Clause which has the authority to do that. The Supreme Court interprets the legal applicability and constitutionality thereto.]

    No matter which way you cut it, you can only raise the issues in the US Supreme Court that were properly raised below. In a way, I think that you would have been better off with a summary denial — once the Conn. appellate court wrote a decision expressly saying they were not considering federal constitutional issues then I think that shut the door.

  222. Curious Student Says:

    [Ed. not sure.]

    Re: Berg. Does the SCOTUS start counting the 10-days on Dec 1st or after the customary five-days allowed for respondent mailing, which would then be counted from Dec 8th, making the 10-days fall on Dec 22nd instead of Dec 15th?

  223. [Ed. From 7 FAM 081

    Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.

    and from 7 FAM 082:

    Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

    You might want to quote all the relevant parts next time. ]

    Furthermore, you acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Manual doesn’t agree with you,

    What’s funny is the selective manner in which you quote the Foreign Affairs Manual. The Manual may agree with you about McCain, but it disagrees with you about Obama.

    For example, it’s treatment of dual citizenship undercuts your notion that Barack is somehow less subject to the laws of the US because Great Britain believed it had a claim on him:

    While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right of the other countries of which he or she may be a national.

    More importantly, however, it supports the notion that it is place of birth (jus soli) that defines natural born status, not the citizenship status of the parents (jus sanguis)

    Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli–the law of the soil-persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

  224. [Ed. Very good point NJ Citizen regarding McCain’s statutory citizenship.]

    To the poster who asked about the McCain situation as “citizen” and as “natural born citizen” go to this link


    The professor is all wet when he tries to use common law notions about only “birth on the soil” being the lone criterion for “natural born” but when he discusses McCain’s situation, he cites to statutory citizenship and the fact that the statute giving John McCain wasn’t even passed until after McCain was born. Here’s his reasoning:

    “In 1936, the Canal Zone fell into a gap in the law, covered neither by the citizenship clause nor Revised Statutes section 1993 (passed as the Act of May 24, 1934), the only statute applicable to births to U.S. citizens outside the United States. As then-Representative John Sparkman explained in 1937: “the Canal Zone is not such foreign territory as to come under the law of 1855 [Revised Statutes section 1993] and, on the other hand, it is not part of the United States which would bring it within the fourteenth amendment.” The problem was well known; Richard W. Flournoy’s 1934 American Bar Association Journal article, Proposed Codification of Our Chaotic Nationality Laws, explained “we have no statutory provisions defining the nationality status of persons born in the Canal Zone . . . .”

    “Because the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” in the words of Representative Sparkman, in 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to “[a]ny person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904” who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. This Act made Senator McCain a U.S. citizen before his first birthday. But again, to be a natural born citizen, one must be a citizen at the moment of birth. Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

    Here is a link to an image of McCain’s birth certificate which shows he was born at the Colon hospital in Panama. The military hospital might not have yet been built.

    Also, someone inquired if Obama — in addition to claiming on his website to be “native” born — had ever made the representation that he was “natural born” and the Petition he filed to be placed on the Arizona ballot seems to be the one that lays out his “oath” the best of the 5 other states’ paperwork I’ve seen.

    First page, which sets forth eligibility requirements

    Second page, which has signature and witnesses

  225. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities.

    [Ed. Nope. They have to go through a process such as in Italy where you have to make an effort to become a citizen, you can’t just go there and be accepted as one. There’s a major difference between being ELIGIBLE to be a citizen of another Country and being born to a father who is a Citizen of another country at the time you are born. The US can’t tell a man, such as Barack Obama, Sr. that his child is not allowed to inherit UK citizenship. That citizenship was automatic. The difference is vast between being eligible to be a citizen via a grandparent and actually being born automatically as a citizen of that Country. Nice try though. And word up, only I get to use BOLD print. 🙂 Seriously, I need to use bold so people know it’s me. Thank you.]

    By your theory, that there cannot be any competing ties, there are people born in the United States to United States Citizens who will be surprised to learn both, as the manual points out, that they are dual citizens by the action of the laws of other countries, but ALSO that they cannot be President!

    Why is this so? Look again at the part of the manual you quote:

    Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law.

    Your theory of no competing ties cannot be limited to those born of United States citizens because there is nothing preventing other countries from passing their own laws and imposing ties on unwilling people! Again, quoting the manual:

    Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent.

  226. [Ed. Derivative nationality does not automatically mean you are a citizen. For example from Spanish law:

    Following the tradition that is predictably becoming more and more
    controversial as Spain turns into a country of immigration (see, for all,
    Lara Aguado 2003), the Spanish regime still distinguishes between ‘na-
    tionality by origin’ (nacionalidad originaria) and ‘derivative nationality’
    (nacionalidad derivativa). Whereas the former used to refer, and still
    does for the most part, to instances of automatic acquisition or acquisi-
    tion at birth, the latter was usually reserved for non-automatic and ac-
    quisition after birth.

    And this from the same Spanish legal page:

    What is commonly known as residence-based acquisition by the
    Spanish legal school, which we will call naturalisation by residence, re-
    fers to a mode of acquisition that entitles the applicant to ‘derivative’
    Spanish nationality conferred by the Department of Justice and re-
    quires individual application (art. 21.2 CC).

    That is derivative nationality in a nutshell.

    They have to go through a process such as in Italy where you have to make an effort to become a citizen, you can’t just go there and be accepted as one.

    Google “jus sanguinis, Leo. OR read the manual YOU posted. The part that you just responded to is quoted directly from that manual – heck YOU quoted it:

    Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities.

    That citizenship was automatic.

    So was citizenship to the grandchildren of English citizens at the founding of the nation, Leo. Ever heard of the war of 1812?

    And the manual you are citing isn’t talking about the right to claim citizenship, it’s talking about being BORN with dual citizenship through one’s GRANDFATHER!

  227. Leo, check out this site:


    Some Risk of “Surprise” Citizenship

    A country may claim a person as a citizen even if the person never requested to be considered a citizen. This type of situation may arise, for instance, when a person travels to an ancestral homeland and discovers that, under that country’s laws, he or she is considered a citizen because a parent or grandparent was a citizen of that country. The country could impose special travel requirements (such as a passport issued from that country), payment of taxes, or even military service before departure. Therefore, you may want to check the citizenship laws carefully before visiting a country where you may be considered a citizen.

    Some countries grant citizenship automatically REGARDLESS of whether your parent or grandparent naturalized as a citizen here in the States.

    So, if your argument is that anyone who is a dual citizen at birth is ineligible to be President, you are going to disqualify people whose parents were citizens.

    [Ed. You fail to mention that the parent would be a US citizen. Having US citizen parents (assuming the spouse was also a US citizen) and the child being born in the US, then the child is a natural born citizen. That is not the case with Obama. His father is not a US citizen. So, the situation is not even close to the same.

    What countries grant citizenship without a person “applying for citizenship” based just on the grandparent’s status and not the parent? Please provide the relevant code provisions. ]

  228. [Ed. snipped for mis-stating my argument.]

    What countries grant citizenship without a person “applying for citizenship” based just on the grandparent’s status

    Google “indefeasible allegiance” or “perpetual allegiance.”

    [Ed. You google them and get back to me. It’s your argument to make.]

    Great Britain at the time of the founding of the United States believed in the theory of perpetual allegiance. A British subject could not, at any time, get rid of his citizenship. Not by taking the nationality of another nation, not by thumbing his nose at England. Not by taking the King’s name in vain. They also believed in jus sanguinis – nationality by blood. The children of Englishmen, or Englishmen who pretended to be Americans, were, themselves, Englishmen. So were their grandchildren.

    – An Act…For Naturalizing the Children of Natural-Born Subjects of the Crown. 4 Geo 2. c. 21 (1731) – see Natural Born in the USA by Sarah Duggin, 85 B.U.L.Rev. 53, 73 n. 84.

    If you cannot renounce your British citizenship, then all the Founders, their children and their grandchildren were considered by Britain to be natural-born citizens of Britain!

    [Ed. Well, you certainly can’t announce your citizenship “at birth” if you can’t talk. The simple fact is that Barack Obama Sr. had every right and law behind him in that his children were citizens of Great Britain when they were born. Obama admits he was “governed” by the British nationality Act of 1948 – his words, not mine. That’s essentially the main issue before the Court.]

    I’m looking for similar current statutes – but for the hypothetical it doesn’t matter – what IF a country claimed, like Britain, that no former citizen could renounce their citizenship and that all progeny born to those allegedly former citizens are, in fact, still their citizens.

    Those hypothetical people would be born with “dual citizenship” imposed on them by the weird workings of another nation’s laws. Their laws, in other words, would trump our Constitution.

    [Ed. Hypotheticals aside, Barack Obama Sr. had a child. As that child’s father the US Government cannot change the fact that the man was Obama’s father. And as such, by law, Obama was “governed” by great Britain “at birth”. Somebody whose citizenship is so powerfully governed by Great Britain at birth cannot be a natural born citizen. That’s the argument before the Honorable Court.]

  229. Papua New Guinea:


    Person Born before 9/16/75: Person born abroad, whose maternal and paternal grandparents were born in the country. Person must also have been registered and, if over 19, have renounced any other citizenship.

    So, their parents could have been born in the US but if the grandparents were born in Papua New Guinea and they sign a registration, they’re dual citizens.

    [Ed. A registration form is an application. Nobody is forcing a person to fill it out. ]

    Uganda Constitution:


    10. The following persons shall be citizens of Uganda by birth-

    (b) every person born in or outside Uganda one of whose parents or grandparents was at the time of birth of that person a citizen of Uganda by birth.

    [Ed. Again, it requires an application form to be filled out. It’s not automatic. The person is “eligible” and must take steps to complete that eligibility. ]

    http://www.immigration.go.ug/citizenship.htm I dig that it says “all fresh applicants”. Fresh = cool. 🙂 ]

    Here’s a list of all the citizenship laws of the world:


    According to this, citizenship by descent (meaning by the fact of birth, as opposed to the fact of location) is grandparent related in (in addition to the ones I’ve listed so far:

    Bahrain, Bangladesh, Libya, Malta, Sierra Leone, and Sri Lanka.

    [Ed. Feel free to forward what you find there.]

  230. A registration form is an application. Nobody is forcing a person to fill it out.

    [Ed. Your reply to the UGANDA application form in another post will be handled here. You said that it wasn’t an “application” but rather a “verification” requirement and that the person is a citizen of Uganda but the Government doesn’t know it. Again, the person must fill out an “application” and the “Citizenship Verification” form clearly states that anybody who fills it out is an “applicant”. Here’s the actual form


    See question number 1 “Particulars of Applicant”.

    The point is the same, you are eligible for the benefits of citizenship only if you apply. If the person is born to two US parents in the US, the person will be a natural born Citizen of the US. The relationship is far enough removed and the person has two generations of US citizenship that is far different than Obama’s case.

    If the person doesn’t fill out the application, he won’t have acted on his eligibility to receive the
    benefits of citizenship.]

    If the proposed candidate’s parents are citizens of the US and the candidate was born in the US, then the candidate is a natural born citizen.

    So, both parents have to be citizens because the Constitution forbids dual citizens, but dual citizens imposed on a child because of the status of the grandfather is okay because the Constitution only requires both parents to be citizens.

    Ever heard of “begging the question,” Leo? Also known as circular reasoning.

    [Ed. The Constitution does not forbid dual citizenship. Nowhere in the Document does it forbid dual citizenship. It forbids a person who is not a natural born Citizen from being President. But it does not forbid dual citizenship. That is a misconception. Your “begging the question” “circular reasoning” comments are unjustified by the fact that you’ve totally mis-stated the law. ]

    Dual citizenship at birth and competing loyalties can’t be the deciding factor if a dual citizen by father’s citizenship is treated differently than a dual citizen by grandfather’s citizenship.

    Look at all the evidence you’ve marshaled about “full and complete jurisdiction” how does it exclude this new situation?

    [Ed. A natural born Citizen has two generations of citizenship to sufficiently tie him to this country – (1) his own citzenship and (2) his parents’ citizenship. Being also eligible to be a citizen of another country for going back a third generation to the grandparents does not stop somebody from being a natural born citizen. ]

    How does this:

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

    Say that we can allow a person to owe an allegiance if they got it through their grandfather but not if they got it through a non-naturalized father?

    [Ed. The Uganda “verification application” is relevant in such a case. If the person doesn’t fill out the application Uganda would never know about them – and therefore if they don’t know about them there wouldn’t be any danger of their claiming any jurisdiction over them. Regardless, the tie to the US is two generations strong, the person is born in the US to parents who are citizens. The person is a nbc.]

    The dual nationality is far enough removed from the candidate and the parents have become citizens prior to candidates birth. Two generations of US citizens are involved.

    See the Ghanaian definition of citizenship:

    a person born in or outside Ghana after the coming into force of this Constitution, shall become a citizen of Ghana at the date of his birth if either of his parents or grandparents is or was a citizen of Ghana.

    [Ed. Please include all relevant parts of statute. Here is what you left out:

    Section “4.(2)” of the applicable Ghana citizenship law:

    4. (2) A person is not a citizen of Ghana for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if at the time of his birth the parent, grandparent or great-grandparent through whom the citizenship is claimed has lost his citizenship of Ghana.

    More requirements of Ghana citizenship:

    (3). A citizen of Ghana who

    (a) loses his Ghanaian citizenship as a result of the acquisition or possession of the citizenship of another country shall on the renunciation of his citizenship of that country become a citizen of Ghana;

    (b) acquires the citizenship of another country in addition to his Ghanaian citizenship shall notify in writing the acquisition of the additional citizenship to the Minister in such form and such manner as may be prescribed.

    (4) A citizen of Ghana who is also a citizen of any other country shall whilst in Ghana be subject to the laws of Ghana as any other citizen.

    (5) A citizen who has lost his citizenship as a result of the law in Ghana which prohibited the holding of dual citizenship by a Ghanaian may on the application to the Minister be issued with a certificate of citizenship which shall be effective from the date of issue.

    (6) A certificate issued under subsection (5) shall specify whether the citizenship is by birth, adoption, registration or naturalization.

    17. (1) If any citizen of Ghana of age and capacity who is also a citizen of another country makes a declaration of renunciation of citizenship of Ghana, the Minister shall cause the declaration to be registered; and upon the registration, that person shall cease to be a citizen of Ghana.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20030729043230/http://www.ghanaiannews.com/Ghanaian+News+July/dualcitizenship.html ]

    Furthermore – according to the Ghanawweb forum post below there was an article in the Feb. 20, Wall Street Journal that said US citizens couldn’t become citizens of Ghana.

    One poster there writes:

    As reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Ghana refuses Black Americans living in Ghana citizenship. This despite a promise two years earlier by the President of Ghana to allow citizenship to Black Americans. He was recently thrown out of office for this stance and other politically incorrect decisions. Even if Black Americans own property or marry a citizen of Ghana, they are refused citizenship….

    Another poster retorts that conditions must be met for citizenship:

    ghanaians have never denied any citizenship to anybody who is worth it. ghana citizenship is not however on a silver plate.if they can fulfill the conditions, they can go where ever they want to.

    http://discussions.ghanaweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=27850& ]

    So, now we can have a US Citizen, born of a naturalized citizen who is also a natural born citizen of Ghana – his parent need only have been, at one time, a citizen of Ghana.

    Now we’ve only got one layer of US citizen.

    [Ed. Incorrect. Being a natural born citizen of another country does not disqualify somebody from US citizenship by naturalization. Where did you get that idea? It’s not true. The person is of course welcome to the US to be naturalized. If he does so, he is a citizen – one generation- and if his child is born on US soil that’s two generations.]

  231. Father in Heaven, our gratitude for Your Hand, show us the way.
    Jesus I trust in You
    Mother of God protect the Americas, who are under your patronage.
    Good St. Joseph guide us

    We wait for you
    Rock On
    December 12, 2008
    Our Lady of Guadalupe
    Mother of the Americas


  233. I have a question dealing with how things would be handled were Obama considered ineligible to be President. Please forgive my ignorance here. I’m not even sure the Constitution even handles this situation. Does it?

    You can see a sample ballot for the state of Delaware at http://electionssc.delaware.gov/2008%20Gen%20Sample%20Ballots/Composit.pdf . We didn’t vote for Obama and Biden (well I didn’t vote for them, but cast my vote for McCain/Palin) as individuals. It is a package deal. Since the electoral votes haven’t yet been given to Obama, he hasn’t been sworn into the office of President, and if he’s deemed ineligible to do so, why would most that I ask around me figure Biden would then be President? How would this work? Would the electors be forced to give their votes to John McCain, making him the President of the US, and Sarah Palin his VP?

  234. Just a tad off-topic, but still a question related to a natural born citizen issue. Many Republicans are rallying around Bobby Jindal, to encourage him to shoot for a presidential run, but with all that I have learned about parental citizenship weighing in as factor regardless of where the child was born, I’m concerned about what was the citizenship status of Jindal’s parents when he was born? They had only been in the U.S. 6 months when Jindal was born. Does anybody know?


  236. just in, Wrotnowski case DENIED!

  237. Joseph Hession Says:


    Application still pending. NOT ON DENIED LIST!!

  238. Wrotnowski petition denied without comment this morning. Perfectly predictable. None of these cases has any legal basis.

    Guess the Supreme Court was not moved by the totally bizarre Chester A. Arthur argument. Maybe they got a good chuckle.

  239. Leo, your are right on that the Supreme Court is no longer Supreme, just a kangaroo court….Hey the country wants Obama, let them have him. Think the Supremes or Congress will act in Jan…Not a chance. Roberts will have a big sheepish smile on while he swears Obama in. Today, the United States is no longer a Republic, but a dictatorship.

  240. denied 😦

  241. Thinking4Myself Says:

    Leo, I don’t know what happened when I clicked the box to notify me of any responses to my comment, my whole comment disappeared. So I will re-post (from memory) and know you will not let a double post go through.
    Leo, I will write to you as I have in the past (once I can put together a cogent response to you) through your email. For now, I am posting my comments that I just left on HotAir.com. I have been commenting there for almost 3 years and now do so only out of frustration because of the DEVOLUTION of what was once an intelligent, fair, politically conservative video blog:

    My Comment: #81 (at: http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=25767#comment-277335 )

    I wasn’t going to waste my time posting anything here, but after I finished writing a comment to post on the CNN site they had closed the comments. So I’ll post it here instead and let all the people who claim this was about the birth certificate and not the fact Obama himself has stated he had DUAL CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. AT BIRTH MEANING AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH. Knuckleheads who claim that status changed when he was 21 need to re-read that last part.


    Here’s the post meant for CNN:


    Once the Supreme Court refuses a case, the lower court’s rulings stand FOREVER AND EVER – ACROSS THE BOARD.







    NightmareOnKStreet on December 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM


    Re: my previous post: NightmareOnKStreet on December 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM

    Just in case it needs to be said, both the Donofrio and the Wrotonowski Supreme Court cases were CHALLENGING NOT ONLY OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY BUT McCAIN’S AND ROGER CALERO’S ELIGIBILITY AS WELL. Both cases started out suing their own state’s secretary of state when they refused to do their constitutional job of making sure the candidates are eligible before placing their name on the state’s ballot. Donofrio’s case started in October & reached SCOTUS on Nov. 3 asking for an emergency stay of the election until this procedure was carried out for all 3 candidates.

    NightmareOnKStreet on December 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM


    Well, the first 80 or so comments came in a rapid clip: one every 2-3 minutes. Now *crickets chirping*. God, I hope that is because MY POST:

    NightmareOnKStreet on December 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM

    Those are but a few of the 1000+ posts, letters, comments to online news sites and emails I have sent regarding this subject. I have not skimmed the surface of what you have done so I can’t imagine how Leo must feel, but I am truly sad for him & this country. I’m just trying to hold onto my faith in ANYTHING.
    MM, your Jersey friend

  242. lutherkeal Says:

    The EC has spoken and Obama will be our next president.

  243. Why isn’t there any coverage of the latest update?


    Wrotnowski’s application denied…

    Constitutional Crisis; here we come.

  244. […] Also be of interest FullcourtThe Prep Beat » Blog Archive » Basketball Season in Full-Court PressWROTNOWSKI APPLICATION REFERRED TO FULL COURT BY JUSTICE SCALIA …Full-Court Internet Marketers | · Web Traffic 101Full-Court Press — Obama Seeks DC Hoops Spot « […]

  245. […] v BYSIEWICZ-SOS of CT) CASE: See Atty Donofrio’s blog for discussion of this case: https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ U.S. Supreme Court Docket for this case: […]

  246. Jon Carlson Says:

    Just suppose Obama was born out of wedlock before Hawaii became a state in August 1959 and/or Obama’s real father was a US Citizen living in Hawaii and his mother was a foreigner living in Hawaii.
    . This Supreme Court case says the mother determines the nationality citizenship in an out of wedlock birth. The father can pass his US citizenship to the chilc if a procedure stated in law is followed before age of maturity.

    I can’t imagine Obama would refuse to show his birth cerificate or certification of live birth if such showed him to be a legitimate offspring of Obama Senior and Ann Dunham born Auguest 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Where are the facts, documents to support the marriage and legitimate birth? ENJOY:


    Petitioner Tuan Anh Nguyen was born out of wedlock in Vietnam to a Vietnamese citizen and copetitioner Joseph Boulais, a United States citizen. Nguyen became a lawful permanent United States resident at age six and was raised by Boulais. At age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty in a Texas state court to two counts of sexual assault on a child. Subsequently, respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against him based on his serious criminal offenses. The Immigration Judge ordered him deportable. Boulais obtained an order of parentage from a state court while Nguyen’s appeal was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, but the Board dismissed the appeal, rejecting Nguyen’s citizenship claim because he had not complied with 8 U. S. C. §1409(a)’s requirements for one born out of wedlock and abroad to a citizen father and a noncitizen mother. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected petitioners’ claim that §1409 violates equal protection by providing different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father.

    Held: Section 1409 is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 3-18.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: