SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect

RADIO UPDATE: I will be on the Chalice show on PatriotsHeartNetwork.com Wed.  March 18 at 9:05 EST]

cj-marshall

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS  including my own.  It’s true that – technically – Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari.  Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic.  The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

The same is true for Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from becoming “president-elect” and later president.

Once my case stay application was denied, I had exhausted the only emergency procedure available to me and the US Supreme Court Rules would not have facilitated the resolution of a full petition before the candidate was sworn in as President (or become president-elect).

When Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts as President, our Constitutional separation of powers kicked in big time.  Because of the separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has no ability to remove a sitting President.  Nowhere in the Document does it give the Supreme Court (or the judicial branch) any authority to remove a sitting President.

All of the eligibility law suits – brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress – sought to challenge the qualifications of  candidate Obama to be President.  Once he graduated from “candidate Obama” to “President-elect Obama” and later “President Obama”, every single eligibility law suit pending before SCOTUS became moot.

Those actions are moot because SCOTUS has no authority to act on the relief requested in those law suits.  And SCOTUS knows this better than anybody else.

Full petitions or motions to reconsider filed in any of the eligibility suits that went to SCOTUS before Obama became President (including my own) now leave SCOTUS with only one possible course of  action thereto: a Supreme dog and pony show.  And I don’t think Chief Justice Roberts will be calling in the Westminster Kennel Club anytime soon.  Those cases are dead done and dusted.  Call the embalming squad.

POINT I: SCOTUS HAS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRITS OF QUO WARRANTO.

Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution grants SCOTUS its authority as follows:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

There you have it.  SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction over cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, Consuls and where a State is a party to the law suit.  If the action is not in aid of their appellate jurisdiction, then that law suit cannot originate with the United States Supreme Court.  A quo warranto to determine POTUS eligibility brought directly to SCOTUS does not fall within their Constitutional authority.  [Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for her insights on this issue.]

SCOTUS can probably review a quo warranto case under the All Writs Act.  But such review is only available if it comes within their appellate jurisdiction.  Original jurisdiction cannot be invoked for writs of quo warranto and any attempt to institute a proceeding in quo warranto directly with SCOTUS should fail.  It would be a violation of the Constitution.

US Code Section 1651, aka “the all writs act”:

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

In the landmark SCOTUS case, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court dealt with this exact issue, whether SCOTUS had original jurisdiction to entertain one of the extraordinary writs.  In that case, it was a writ of mandamus.  And SCOTUS held they did not have any authority to act under original jurisdiction to issue the writ:

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present  case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that ‘the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.’…

…If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance. (Emphasis added.)

SCOTUS cannot entertain any quo warranto brought directly to it.  They must wait for it to come on appeal.  Please take note of the statement above concerning the Constitution’s grant of Congressional authority to ordain and establish inferior courts.  It is this Congressional power coupled with the exclusive power given to Congress to remove a sitting President which was exercised by Congress within the very text of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute.

In that statute, Congress exclusively authorized the District Court of the District of Columbia with the power to hear cases challenging the eligibility of a sitting officer holding a United States national office located in the District of Columbia.

SCOTUS is constitutionally estopped from issuing a writ of quo warranto regarding Obama’s qualifications to be President if the action is brought directly to them.  Any attempt to do that should certainly be denied.  This is simply a legal fact.  Any attorney who brings such an action to SCOTUS directly will be doing terrible damage to the cause on account of the public relations disaster awaiting certain denial by SCOTUS.

POINT II: UNITED STATES LAW INCLUDES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE HAS A UNIQUE EFFECT OTHER THAN THAT OF A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN.

Chief Justice Marshall (pictured above) delivered the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison.  His “form without substance” quote truly made me wonder what he would say about the natural born citizen clause.

As I thought about it, Chief Justice Marshall’s voice came to me right from the pages of that opinion and I realized suddenly that he did address the issue when he said:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

This must kill the argument that being “a 14th Amendment citizen” has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a “natural born citizen”.  If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect.  As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

Holy cow.  I just had one.  It’s more like the proverbial elephant in the room.

We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”.  It does not use the words “natural born citizen”.  And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US.  Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals.  The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2  Section 1 Clause 5.

Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect.  Such a construction is inadmissible.

Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, “such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it”. The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”.  The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”.  So the exception is irrelevant here.

Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.

INADMISSIBLE.

Inadmissible in this context means such an argument is not competent to be considered.  It’s essentially no different from the situation where a piece of evidence is excluded from trial.  It means you can’t even argue such a thing before the court.  Please think about this carefully.  This means any argument that a “14th Amendment citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen” – for purposes of  effecting POTUS eligibility – is not competent to be considered by the court.

If the natural born citizen issue were ever heard on the merits, the court hearing the case must recognize that a presumption exists requiring the natural born citizen clause to have independent effect from all clauses which just refer to “citizen”.

Effect is the key.

What is the independent effect attributed to the “natural born citizen” clause?  The effect  is that just being a “citizen” isn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen”.

This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”.  And no other construction is even admissible.

You can take all the law review articles, emotional pleas claiming the natural born citizen clause is obsolete, the 14th Amendment arguments, Wong Kim Ark, and every main stream media barker, throw them before the SCOTUS altar, and make them kneel to Chief Justice Marshall and the framers.

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.

This is a point I have failed to make up until right now, so please forgive me for having not locked it down earlier.  But don’t spank me too hard since it appears to be an original argument.  It’s not a point I’ve seen published anywhere else.

Of course it’s well known that each Constitutional clause must have an independent effect.  But I don’t believe any other commentary has been published exposing this legal presumption in favor of the “natural born citizen” clause which also renders other arguments inadmissible.  By other arguments, I refer to all theories claiming that a 14th Amendment “citizen” born on US soil satisfies the Constitutional qualifications for President.

Regardless,  I must give credit to my sister (an ex prosecutor) for having brought the independent legal effect argument to my attention while Donofrio v. Wells was still pending with SCOTUS.  But without having Chief Justice Marshall’s brilliant opinion from Marbury v. Madison in front of me, I didn’t grasp the spectacular power of the presumption.  So I’ll leave you with those words once more.  Please give them your utmost concentration:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

Leo C. Donofrio 03.16.2009

94 Responses to “SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect”

  1. any act be certainly denied…..
    ?
    >>>or perhaps sent to the correct jurisdiction abiding court for rendering???

  2. Leo, I am absolutely convinced that with the help of Almightly God the Framers chose each and every word, phrase, and clause that that put into our precious Constitution. And each one as chosen for a particular reason. Thank you for all your dedicated work!!

  3. Check those comments on a CNN news:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/13/gop-congressman-wants-presidential-candidates-to-prove-citizenship#comments

    This is a comment from an ignorant person:

    Pat MN before, AR now March 13th, 2009 11:18 pm ET

    My Dad was in the U.S. Army during WWII. I was born in England while my Dad was landing on the beaches of France during D-Day. I can’t be president. I had two children overseas in Japan while their Dad was stationed at a U.S. Naval station. This “natural born” citizen crap is just that, crap. If one of your parent’s is a U.S. citizen and you live here and pay taxes here, you are a citizen. This “natural born” citizen stuff is just plain silly. Congressman Posey shouldn’t be toying around with people’s patriotism. Posey, stop being nosey.

    People can be so ignorant, it’s unbelievable.

    Thank you Leo for once again turning the lights on.

    John

  4. Roy Bleckert Says:

    i my laymans legal opinion , theory , understanding,I have stated that my take all along has been all the legal cases to this point have not defined NBC , so as with the Obama as our president with ? about his NBC status, and as you brought out in history of Chester Arthur and the possible ? of him being a NBC , and that scotus ,my understanding, being the final say in interpreting our constitution that the time is now to define exactly what a NBC is , so we have confidence in our current president that he is unquestionably, constitutionally qualified to hold the office potus …scotus needs to define NBC , can you ever give up your NBC status , etc. ,so the states can know exactly who is qualified to run and the american people know when there voting that this person is qualified to hold the job and we need this clause in the constitution defined by scotus so we do not find ourselves in this situation again and that we need to use the best possible means to get that case heard

  5. Leo,
    So Wong and the 14A are distractions, just like the big green sexy billboard! Constitutional Relativists had used the “who in other words is a citizen at birth?” framing of the question to attain the definition of NBC. But that includes all kinds of combinations in USC 8-1401 that could not possibly be NBC, and would be amending the constitution w/o the amendment process. Wong, as you have said, could never have been considered NBC in light of the desire to limit foreign influence. In these past months you have devined this issue to it’s essence. What an education! M v.M also said that SCOTUS had the sole authority to define constitutional terms, correct? So after a determination of the facts in DC I would think it would have to be sent to SCOTUS to determine the Law. Are you sending an appendix of these new arguments to Attorney Taylor?

  6. Leo,
    You just out-did yourself, yet again. While others ramble-on about what “the founders intended” you quote The Source, Chief Justice Marshall. You, once again, clearly document that the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says, in writing! Well done!
    One of the millions and millions of Your Admirers,
    Robare

  7. Leo
    You say all cases (excepting quo warranto) are now moot, what about the cases that were filed- and delayed- before the electoral college met and voted? In the Keyes case, that was filed well before the electoral college voted, if i am not mistaken, but the CA supreme court and obama delayed making a ruling. Now they have a tentative ruling: Moot !

    Isn’t that disingenuous? That is to say delay , delay, and delay and not make a ruling on the issue brought before them in the first case?

    Nice write up on the cross pollenization and separation of “citizen”-ship “wordings” in various sections of the Constitution and Ammendments, well thought out.

    [Ed. My case was filed before the electoral college. My case is moot. So is every other case. The President has been sworn in. Repeat after me, “separation of powers” say it again and again, ’cause that’s what this country is… and needs to stay. Don’t you understand, if the Court removes him outside the separation of powers, that’s just as bad. It would be to me. Within the law… or we have no law. If somebody evil wanted to destroy this country… they would find a way to destroy the Constitution.

    Hypothetically, it would not matter to them if they destroyed it by holding the office or being tossed out… either have the power to destroy the Constitution. Some really smart villain could trick people into destroying it through their hatred of that person by operating to remove him “outside” of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

    If SCOTUS ever did remove a usurper President without Constitutional authority, ie. by writ of quo warranto exercising original jurisdiction (which SCOTUS doesn’t have) — the villain, though he might be removed, would have won — even if he be tossed from office. He would have struck a blow to destroy the separation of powers.

    But a whole bunch of people who hate him would be happy regardless of the Constitution lying bleeding on the steps of justice. ]

  8. Jimmy Ferrell Says:

    Leo, I am not a legal scholar and I have read so much…so what, in layman’s terms, is the bottom line? If BO is not a NBC, then what…????
    THANK YOU.

    [Ed. All of the options available are in parts 1-3 of the QW legal brief. I don’t know what else to say.]

  9. Joss Brown Says:

    A question concerning 14A: The Amendment only speaks of born citizens (= natives of a country), and not natural born citizens. Similarly, it says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and not “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Since Obama—as we can (or must?) assume until proven otherwise—was native-born on US soil and also under US jurisdiction (next to UKC), wouldn’t he then be a 14A born citizen? Sure, this doesn’t make him natural-born, but I’m asking because you mentioned in passing that his status may not even have been covered by 14A. But from the constitutional text itself I can’t seem to deduce that. This is all quite confusing, actually.😉

    [Ed. I don’t think Wong Kim Ark applies to him since the holding was limited to children born of “parents” who were permanently domiciled residents. His father was never permanently domiciled here as far as I can tell. So the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part may not be satisfied for Obama.]

  10. RealAmerica Says:

    Leo,

    I am troubled by the thought that there may be a distinction between removing a sitting President, who was otherwise qualified but got caught in illegal acts, and acknowledging an acting President because the elected, or sitting President is unqualified to serve. In the former case the bills signed into law would be valid, in the latter the bills signed into law would be without effect. So in the case of Obama, should the writ be presented in the proper venue, SCOTUS would merely swear in Biden as President. Since the ides of March have tolled, Congress would not be able to select a different President, and a new VP would need to be confirmed and sworn in.

    [Ed. Actually, Biden might be out as well. If we use the case of Mr. Shileds and Mr. Galatin who were relieved of their Senate seats, the remedy was to void their elections and to retroactively dismiss them from the record books as ever having been Senators. The Senate made it clear that the election wasn’t “voidable”, it was “void”. That means it never happened. If the 2008 election of Obama is void then it never happened and I don’t know how that effects Biden. We’ve never been down this road before. If not for Obama winning for President, then Biden wouldn’t have won for VP, a vote for Obama was a vote for Biden… ]

  11. Leo,

    I need to get you some information without listing it here, is there an email to rach you?

    Thanks

    Please scrub from comments if you can

    [Ed. Just send it through comments and mark it as private. I moderate EVERY comment. So this acts like e mail as well. Start your comment with “PRIVATE” and I won’t post it.]

  12. Leo,

    May I call your attention to the two United States Supreme Court Judicial Oaths affirmed by all 9 Justices:

    I, (my name), do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

    AND

    I, (my name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Notice the second oath. It specifically requires every federal judge to protect the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is clear why the “natural-born” citizen clause was Consituted by its framers. And that is to protect this nation against foreign enemies through usurpation of the office of the presidency. We can go around in circles regarding Amendment XIV and “Separation of Powers”.

    [ed, I don’t think we’re going around in circles. Today’s blog about Marbury v Madison put everything in a very straight line.]

    The bottom line is justices are required to protect the United States first above all other aspects of the U.S. Constitution. If they feel the evidence is sufficient to warrant the execution of that oath, they are allowed to do so.

    [Ed. BS. They don’t have any authority within the Document to grab the power of another branch. The Constitution is the law, the oath supports the Constitution not vice versa.]

  13. “But a whole bunch of people who hate him would be happy regardless of the Constitution lying bleeding on the steps of justice.”
    Either a line in a stark poem or a Death Metal lyric (preferably technical death metal)? Very nicely put.

    Man, you are pinning this Law-stuff down! Ch-ch-ch-checkma- (ooh almost?). What would a chesspiece representing a lawyer look like anyhow? Any ideas? Makes me think of creating a game similar to chess in which instead of capturing the King, one has to capture the Usurper! Ummmm, I’m on it!

    Gamepieces:
    Jury Members
    Judge
    Bailiff
    Lawyers
    Exhibits (evidence pieces)
    Witnesses
    President (player who wins proves opponents President-piece is the Usurper)
    First-Lady
    (each player is a defendant and plaintiff; to themself they are the plaintiff and their opponent is the defendant)

    Well, anyways, keep up the good work. I’ll be linking to your blog when I get my blog up and rolling on the net. Look for it. It’ll be entitled: The Multiple Minds of David.

  14. Leo,

    Thanks for all your brilliant work on this issue I find it both educational and interestingly absorbing. After reading your posts I see this adding up to a very strong case to be brought to AG Holder and DA Taylor but I also believe there is an extremely remote chance either one will allow this its proper day in court. I don’t hold much hope in their independent integrity and wisdom to deem this a necessary cause. If they don’t give their okay and subsequent attempts with leave of DC District Court and “interested persons” fails to bring about a hearing will that then be the close of this quo warranto line? I know you once mentioned the 94 other DA’s but then discarded that possibility and if SCOTUS has no original jurisdiction, well, that would presume to be the end of it.

    I lack faith either Holder or Taylor will want to take the brunt of the scorn by deeming this proper even if they knew deep down it were legitimate.

    [Ed. Well, they have a chance to do the right thing. We shall see. It’s better not to judge anybody until they have acted. Give them a chance and perhaps instead of condemning them here, you might want to take the time to do something which might help instead of spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. This country was built on the backs of men who dared to stand up to tyranny and challenge the great empire of the British monarchy. We’re still standing up today and hopefully tomorrow. We need statesman. Hopefully some will show up.]

  15. The irony of the Marbury v Madison case as being the first to call a statute “unconstitutional” is creepy weird.

    Here we are at a point where the seemingly simple issue of establishing Presidential eligibility has the potential to destroy the Constitution.

    To review: “Separation of Powers” places the ball in Congresses court, all other cases now moot due to this.

    The original jurisdiction lies with the AG of US or US attorney,not SCOTUS, due to the authority vested by Congress for it’s ministerial duties.

    It cannot even be argued that the 14th Amend. applies as it is inadmissible in that it presumes no “effect” of the wording of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and we can rely on this from the precedence of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v Madison.

    Do I have this right?

    [Ed. You have it right. And that makes me feel good because it means I’ve explained it in clear terms. Thank you.]

  16. Leo,
    Marbury v. Madison was 95 years before Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray’s analysis of NBC in relation to the 14A and common law is looking even more wacky in light of what you wrote here.

    [Ed. I honestly believe the M v. M reference completely nullifies the most tangible argument in Obama’s favor. If being a citizen under the 14th Amendment were to be construed as having the same effect as being a natural born citizen, then the A2 S1 C5 nbc clause would have no effect. According to CJ Marhsall in M v. M, that’s an inadmissible argument. Therefore, the nbc clause must have some independent effect and the only effect it could have is to make qualifying for President a double generation burden and that’s exactly what the framers intended.

    The case has now been made. In the pages of this blog, weve found

    1. guaranteed standing (for US Att Taylor and AG Holder)
    2. the mechanism for jury trial as to facts like where Obama was born
    3. the US law which demands that nobody can argue that the nbc requirement is satisfied by showing 14th amendment citizenship

    the case has been made. now we shall see if a statesman shall come forth.

    the toughest decisions require the purest of hearts and minds. pray for your Government officials who may be going through some serious soul searching tonight. it’s not a burden most could abide. ]

  17. Leo, perhaps if the current action to request QW doesn’t go anywhere, we can still get a presentment from a national grand jury, which I understand is to be formed after the Continental Congress 2009 meets.

    [Ed. No, it wouldn’t be enforceable. There’s no authority in the Constitution for the Judicial branch to enforce such a Presentment.]

  18. So where are we at now?…..Quo Warranto first by Taylor?…..If Taylor refuses to act can the people bring quo warranto to DC district court without him?…..If district court refuses to hear it, can it then be taken to SCOTUS or would SCOTUS only be for appeal if district court heard it, but dismissed it?

    [1. taylor or holder on their own motion. there will be a trial.
    2. taylor and holder dont act on their own. large group of third persons should make verified petition to taylor and holder for consent to use name of US in QW

    a. one of them gives consent. must request leave of the court to file. if court agrees, then you can have a trial

    b. taylor and holder wont give consent. out of all the third persons, find some that would be “interested persons” under Newman

    3. interested persons go directly to DC court and request leave to file. if court allows it, you get a trial.

    4. interested persons are denied by DC district court and appeal to scotus. ]

  19. [If the 2008 election of Obama is void then it never happened and I don’t know how that effects Biden. We’ve never been down this road before. If not for Obama winning for President, then Biden wouldn’t have won for VP, a vote for Obama was a vote for Biden… ]

    This is an interesting road to be down. If Biden is voided then the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 could be constitutionally tested for the first time. If it were held that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate are ineligible to act as president as some have suggested there could possibly be no successor since the entire cabinet would also be void I imagine.

  20. Leo,

    I guess my question is that if Holder and Taylor pass on both their own ability to hear the case and on behalf of other “interested persons” and the DC Court refuses to become involved are there any other options past that for quo warranto?

    [Ed. None that I can think of. Seriously, I believe this is it. It’s QW or nothing.]

  21. Leo,

    What a great job you’ve done!

    You say: “the toughest decisions require the purest of hearts and minds. pray for your Government officials who may be going through some serious soul searching tonight.”

    I meekly ask, are your readers in depth and breadth so as to lead you to believe our Government officials will be aware of your research as early as tonight? It’s hard for me to believe that is the case when we only hear jeers as to the “birthers” and I haven’t seen in the MSM where you have been separated out from that as you should be. I heard Neal Boortz compare the “birthers” to the “truthers” today. Sad.

    This story needs more ears that haven’t been numbed by the conspiracy theory slant. Are you getting those readers/ears and we’re just not hearing about it?

    Are there any statesmen out there?

  22. Leo:
    Per your response:

    My case was filed before the electoral college. My case is moot. So is every other case. The President has been sworn in. Repeat after me, “separation of powers” say it again and again
    >>Leo I was the first one back in December to say this, and it was on your website, futhermore I said it was damned if you do, and damned if you don’t situation for the SC, just like you said in your reply. In addition, it is pretty disingenuous for the defense just to let the case be delayed to get a moot decision.

    You wrote above: “The Senate made it clear that the election wasn’t “voidable”, it was “void”. That means it never happened. If the 2008 election of Obama is void then it never happened and I don’t know how that effects Biden.”

    >>I believe you are correct, and furthermore, the Constitution allows the Congress to determine the filling of the office of the president in this situation.

    Also, you are correct in that the SC doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting president. However, if the case is structured in such a manner that a the Supreme Court rules that the BO, whether he be the defendant or the plaintiff, has to reveal the documentation. Then the documentation will have to be revealed. In case of a person being a defendant, which may apply in a military case or a civil case, that defendant may need these documents to extradite themselves from the situation. I don’t see many cases outstide of the military. For the quo warrento cases, as you suggested there seems to be two possible routes, or two steps one after another. The first hurdle is to reveal the documents, the second hurdle is make a call on the NBC issue IF the other party takes exception. In either cases the SC will issue a ruling,

    [Ed. only if they are reviewing the lower court’s action.]

    and , correct me if am wrong, if the ruling is against OBAMA, then it is incumbent – per the Constitution- that Congress handles the situation. Correct?

    [Ed. Incorrect. Congress has already handled it. The President, if he loses in the DC Court will be removed by the power of Congress so exercised via the authority of the quo warranto statute vested in the DC District Court. Congress has already acquiesced by enacting the statue. They have nothing further to say about it. Many people do not grasp this fine point. So it needs repeating.]

    The next problem would arise , say should OBAMA (and his coming 300,000 AmeriCorp all volunteer army) decide that he won’t step down. But lets not go there. Let’s focus on how a ruling by the Supreme Court gets physically executed, it gets kicked back to the Congress to act on? Correct?

    [Ed. The ruling to remove him will NOT come from SCOTUS, it will come from the DC District Court and if SCOTUS hears an appeal and affirms the lower court, then the lower court removes him. This is why the US Attorney and the AG are involved. They are law enforcement. They would be responsible for overseeing the actual physical ejectment.]

    I know you sort of answered this before, but it was in manner of well the law says this, but it didn’t specifically say which branch of government carries out the action.

  23. […] Leo Donofrio’s latest posting: Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other […]

  24. John Jay Says:

    Is this information correct? I know your busy and your time is limited but I have to ask, a person whose knowledge and motives I trust.

    Constitutional law scholar, Nick Szabo wrote: “The writ is not an order from the court to produce… [the proof]. The petition itself is the order to do that, much like a citation in a civil case, to respond to the filed petition. The writ is the finding by the court of whether the official has the authority…”

    [Ed. Basically, Szabo is correct. However, his last word “authority” is not the best choice, “qualifications for office” would be better.]

    He also says, “It should come as no surprise that officials don’t like the right and have done almost everything they can to deny or deprecate it or make people forget about it.”

    [Ed. Can’t argue with him there either.]

    “The question may arise, what happens if the court fails or refuses to hold a hearing, or accepts the authority of the official without the proof?

    [Ed. This is why the US Attorney and the AG are the two people charged with the authority to institute the quo warranto proceeding. They are law enforcement. And traditionally, QW was a criminal action. The statute now makes it a civil action, but law enforcement is necessary to physically “eject” anyone found to be a usurper. If the Court thumbs its nose at law enforcement by invoking a law, then the law officers will appeal to SCOTUS. This is why the action is brought in the name of the United States. The Judge can’t just ignore law enforcement officials acting under proper authority.

    This is why a private qw with “interested persons” is such a long shot. The Judge doesn’t have to allow it. It requires acquiescence from the Court whereas if the law officers bring it, it MUST be heard.]

    This question is critical to an understanding of the role of courts in the Anglo-American legal tradition. The answer, by original standards of due process, is that the writ issues by default if the respondent fails to respond, or even if the court fails to hold a hearing. If the judge accepts the official’s claim of authority without proof, then by those ancient standards, the judge himself may be removed from his position by a writ of quo warranto.”

    “He also demonstrates how quo warranto, as are the other writs, are embedded into our Constitution. The people’s right to petition is not unequal to any authority”…

    [Ed. Good stuff. But as to the President, that creates a separation of powers issue whereas other public offices may not.]

  25. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    Thank you for all you have done to bring light to this issue. I felt that the least I could do was write an original letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor and copy Attorney General Holder based on your research and others. The following is the letter I have penned, but I would appreciate it if you could review it. I am a layperson and do not posses special knowledge of the law. I would like to make sure that I have not misunderstood any of the arguments made and laws regarding this matter. Thank you for time.

    March 16, 2009

    United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
    United States Attorney’s Office
    555 4th Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Taylor,

    During last year’s Presidential election, many of us questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States. It became even more troublesome to some of us when Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website http://fightthesmears.com:

    “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.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

    At that point, some of us saw this statement as the first factual statement that might prove Mr. Obama is in fact not a natural born citizen. Many scholars and legal minds believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution that both parents must be U.S. Citizens and the child must be born on U.S. soil. Although citizenship has been adjudicated in the courts, and has been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, a definition for natural born citizen has never been completely and clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, nor in its amendments nor in the courts. In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would lean more toward the definition above then otherwise.

    As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the office of President of the United States. This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a natural [] nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office. It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.

    Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility. In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join at least one of the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements. In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves to potential prosecution.

    After researching the matter, and in particular reviewing the research of Attorney Leo Donofrio, it has been determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility. What has been determined is that once President Obama was elected (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but) by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute 16-3502. Furthermore the statute states in part that:

    “only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.”

    Furthermore, the following sums up the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:

    1. Due to the separation of powers that is our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress held the power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States. The United States Congress exercised this power by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, [DC Code Sections 16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.]

    2. Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry. You have a special duty to bring forth this action.

    3. No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as they [ed. you don’t need “they”] the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the mater [Ed. “matter”].

    4. Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14th amendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.

    Sir, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Taylor, you and/or Attorney General Holder have a duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute. Lacking such an action on the part of you or Attorney General Holder will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution). It is an awesome burden placed upon you and Attorney General Holder, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws. If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to? A nation without laws is no longer a nation. I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Name withheld in this post

    [Ed. Excellent job. This letter is a wonderful example of why form letters are inferior. It shows the recipient that the citizen is thinking for himself and is vigilant and passionate about the law. Bravo.]

  26. Leo
    The SC in CA as part of their MOOT ruling said, basically what we all surmised in a statement basically “if BO is found to be illegit anything he signs is void…etc.etc.etc.” Now if one were to look at this in the reverse light. Can you think of any scenario in which a US citizen can become a defendant in a case basically by acting in a manner to avoid following one of OBAMA’s executive orders and use the defense that “I don’t believe OBAMA is NBC per the Constitution, and therefore I am not going to follow his executive order….ABC….” get themselves a case from the FEDERAL government and use that case in court to extradict themselves by calling for the bono fide BO docs? For example: class action of group of people don’t pay their FEDERAL INCOME taxes because OBAMA signed into law new tax laws, executive order to use tax money to fund overseas abortions, etc. and say hey I am not paying, the Treasury dept. is under OBAMA and OBAMA has no authority to make this executive order because he is illegit.? What do you think?

    [Ed. This is what I discussed as per the Andrade case. Such actions are “collateral attacks” on eligibility but do not have the authority to remove one from office, whereas quo warranto is a “direct attack” on eligibility to remove one from office. You have to read the Andrade case. This is why there is such a strong public policy to having the qw brought by law officers “one time” as opposed to facing the proverbial floodgate of litigation which is sure to come via these collateral attacks. Good post.

    Having read Andrade would have given you the answer, but this was a good question because the point needs to be repeated.]

  27. Thanks Leo….Your answer was crystal clear and is exactly what I needed to know.

  28. rlqretired Says:

    On behalf of my grandchildren I want to say again, May God Bless and Continue to Keep You Safe, you are our todays founding father. If the QW fails to resolve this issue for what ever reason, won’t this give great strength to the cases that will follow when people charged with crimes signed into law by Obama. Looks like a sure bet to this layman.

    [Ed. see my answer to reader daVerg here.]

  29. Kudos to Big Sis for nudging you into the truth of the matter quicker than you might otherwise have arrived there. If I smoked, I’d offer an expensive Cuban cigar (somewhere I heard that all lawyers smoked cigars) … but I don’t, so a huge “TYVM” from the bottom of my heart will have to suffice.

    Your M v. M explanation of Marshall’s (one of CJ Roberts’ heroes, I think) “inadmissible construction” decision has the ring of good, solid truth that we’ve been needing to fend off the wolves nipping at the edges of the Constitution. Tribe and Olson may very well choke on that.

    Great work to you both!!!!! (Now if we can just have the QW action heard!!!).

    [Ed. I believe that if either Holder or Taylor were inclined to follow the 14th Amenment argument and pass on bringing the qw on that basis, this M v. M revelation will certainly give them something important to think about.]

  30. Dear Leo:
    Thank you for this insightful posting. It improves our understanding of the situation. I remember you said you hate the practice of law, but you do it very well indeed!

    I have some points to make about your logic regarding the separation of powers. I see no reason to assume, prima facie, that SCOTUS won’t hear these cases.

    I work in a branch of science which requires the use of formal logic. So in that matter, I claim “standing.” In all cases, the US Constitution and it’s interpretation must conform to the rules of deductive logic. Deductive logic is branch of mathematics.

    [Ed. Please, the Constitution says nothing about deductive logic. This smells like a syllogism argument. As they say, “Fugghedabout it.” It’s cute as a purely theoretical exercise, and since you aren’t a lawyer I’ll forgive your failure to state your opinion as an opinion, one that is alien and obviously false to professionals of law. Your mathematical theory has no weight of law and the law doesn’t care. The text of the document lists the separation of powers. Done.

    This is the same argument in different clothes… the argument that if he wasn’t eligible to begin with then the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama. Nothing could be more false. Under the Constitution, he’s eligible UNTIL proven ineligible by exclusive Congressional authority. If by the power of Congressional authority his qualifications are later challenged and he’s removed by that authority, then his ineligibility is retroactive, but only at that point and not before.

    Furthermore, on purely practical grounds, no court or Secretary of State was willing to question his eligibility when they actually did have legal authority to do so. so now that he’s sworn in and he has the separation of powers argument to rely on, those same authorities aren’t going to suddenly step up and try to do anything about it. SCOTUS would never allow it anyway but it’s a non-starter ’cause it aint ever going to happen.

    It’s very nice to bring theories to the table with exotic loopholes, but these are distractions to the genuine truth of the law.

    It’s quo warranto via the DC Code or it’s nothing.]

    No legislature or court can proclaim that 2+2=5, and they can’t rewrite the rules of deductive logic either. No human is empowered to rewrite the laws of nature. SCOTUS must also abide by the laws of nature.

    On election day, Obama was either (1) eligible to be President, or (2) not eligible to be President. If a candidate is not eligible, but wins the election, then of course he is still not eligible. Eligibility is determined by the Constitution, not by voting. Furthermore, once the election is over, the eligibility of the candidate on election day cannot be changed.

    No law empowers human beings to change the past. Thus, if Obama was ineligible on election day, he was also ineligible on Inauguration day. Furthermore, he would be ineligible today, and he would be ineligible tomorrow.

    Even retroactive laws must accommodate the nature of time. Retroactive laws can change the impact of the past on the present, but they cannot change the past.

    Therefore, if Obama was ineligible in November, 2008, he did not become President on January 20, 2009. Swearing in an ineligible President does not make him eligible.

    That means SCOTUS cannot claim that it is “too late” to determine Obama’s eligibility. This is NOT about Obama’s current eligibility. This is about Obama’s eligibility as of on election day. SCOTUS cannot change or alter Obama’s eligibility as of November, 2008. It can only make a judgment about what that eligibility was.

    Since time flows in only one direction, SCOTUS cannot refuse to pass judgment now, simply because they may have sworn in an ineligible person as President.

    Logically, there can be no conflict of powers in this case. If Obama was ineligible in November, 2008, then there is no President. There would be no conflict between the powers of SCOTUS and the powers of the President. There is no President.

    On the other hand, if Obama WAS eligible in November, 2008, then he is President. There would be no conflict between the powers of SCOTUS and the powers of the President. Obama is President, and that’s it, that’s all. SCOTUS has no power to change that, because they cannot change the past.

    Therefore, SCOTUS can hear cases regarding Obama’s eligibility as of November 2008. The rules of the separation of powers do not apply in this case, because the laws of nature, and of logic, have a higher standing than the laws of humans.

    [Ed. Incorrect and false. As Justice Scalia said recently, they don’t decide cases on the basis of natural law, they decide cases on the basis of national law.]

    You may claim that SCOTUS will ignore logic and refuse to hear these eligibility cases. You may be right, the courts do sometimes ignore the rules of deductive logic (as well as other branches of mathematics!).

    But I see no reason to assume, prima facie, that SCOTUS will not hear these cases.

    [Ed. If SCOTUS were to remove Obama on the back of any of these cases (other than a DC Code quo warranto), they will be sticking a dagger into the Constitution and twisting it to draw precious blood. There will be justifiable grounds for those who support Obama to scream bloody Constitutional murder. You cannot protect and uphold the Constitution by making it a phantasm through murdering the sepration of powers.]

  31. Leo,

    What time frame would you deem appropriate for both Holder and Taylor to act on their own before we the people assemble a large group of third persons to make verified petition(s) to both of them for consent to use the name of the US in QW?

    Thank you for sharing your “gift” with us via your blog. I have learned a great deal here and I appreciate your hard work, time, and due diligence.

    [Ed. At least two months.]

  32. THE HAMMER WILL DROP Says:

    i also think another angle for this matter to arise to an important nature would be to have someone who is not inclined to follow the cfr and go out on a limb, such as the asians. they should question his ability to represent the usa at g8 or g20 or such matters. or maybe someone who is affected by something he signs into law or treaty or whatever should question his ability from a far. maybe that would get this whole mess started. because it seems that every angle tried from the us citizens end is meet with willing disdain for the rule of law and the constitution. and also the pre and the post cover up tactics deployed by the favored sons media team. remember the media is goverened by the cfr and obama is a member of the cfr as well as mccain and clintons and both bushes. this might seem off the beaten path but you must ask yourself what if? and you know as well as i do one must keep an open mind and query all possibilties and make the best decision for yourself. but at the same time be open minded yet cautious.

    thanks leo

  33. Yep, I forgot that the presentment grand jury is the judicial route, and the QW is through the Congressional system, via the DC Court. Loved your response to Troy. I am copying it down so I can follow whatever comes (or not) from petitioning Holder and Taylor.

    What a fascinating legal doctrine trip you’ve taken us on for the past several months, Leo! When is our exam ?🙂 Seriously, I think many of us can now, after digesting your very palatable offering, easily explain to anyone who asks how the QW process in this situation works–and why (separation of powers). The only remaining question is this: will Eric Holder and/or Jeffrey Taylor show themselves to be true law enforcement officers? I pray they do not keep us waiting too long. This situation has strung us out long enough.

  34. Leo,
    Roy Bleckert, on the second or third comment asked, and this is a very key question to find an answer to also, can a person ever give up NBC and then regain it as status quo, as in having never been taken or given away?

    [Ed. No. “NBC” status, according to the Elg case, cannot be taken away or forfeited. As for “citizenship”, you can’t lose your citizenship except by direct action of divorcing yourself from the US once you reach adult age. Just because Indonesia doesn’t allow dual citizenship doesn’t mean Obama waived his US citizenship, even if it were proved he became an Indo citizen by his own volition as an adult. There’s nothing in US law that forfeits your US citizenship for defrauding another country thereto.]

    I am asking this because Obama not only is NOT an NBC but he also gave up or had taken away that status, if he ever really had it in the first place (which I totally believe he never did have, so the point is also moot, but many people also focus on that part of his life) and there will be people saying that you can regain NBC status just by coming back into the country and reclaiming your “home”….

    [Ed You can’t “regain” or even Gain nbc status… you’re born with it or not. It confers at the time of birth and only at the time of birth.]

    which I happen to think is impossible and not regainable once given away. I have been asked this repeatedly when in conversations about the NBC of Obama and it is pointed out that he also held Indonesian Citizenship, albeit through his Mothers actions, but never-the-less, he was registered in school in Indonesia as a Citizen of Indonesia, and therefore there is a double taking away of NBC status.

    [Ed. Absolutely false. Nothing his parents could do would ever have the power of taking away his nbc status. ]

    I don’t think it is something that can be reclaimed, as in a do-over and I want it back…. type thing.

    I love your most recent addition and light bulb incandecent bright enlightenment in the above article. You are a very amazing person in so many ways, Leo. Your mind just flows over with really informative and interesting things. If you could put t a bit of focus on that question that I just asked, I would appreciate it a bunch. I could get a lot more people really thinking IF I were able to give them an answer to that qustion that made sense to them, as all I can do right now is give my interpretation of an answer that fits the way I was to believe the law was written and why.

    Thank you for all you are doing for every one of us. It means the world to me, and I am sure to many others.

  35. Leo, great job!! Now for the stupid questions.

    I did a search of your site first for M v M but I found no results except your latest entry. This issue has been an exercise in reading everything you can get your hands on and an evolution of finding the right cases that support what you are trying to put forth.

    I don’t know when this opinion was made, does it matter what was the issue before the Court or what context he gave that opinion?

    [Ed. M v. M was in 1802. It’s a landmark case.]

    Does opinions made after his, make his not relavant?

    [Ed. No. It’s one of the most respect and discussed SCOTUS decisons in our history.]

    One obviously must be an expert in Constitutional law to tackle this thing.

    [Ed. Not really. People just have to focus.]

    Our founding fathers were brilliant. Some say the Constitution was divinely inspired. Would guys this smart not have any notes? I mean for lay people, there has just got to be a definition of what a NBC is that they wrote in plain english. Isn’t all of their stuff saved somewhere. And didn’t anybody type it up so that the words would not be lost in case of a fire?

    [Ed. There is some stuff, John Jay’s letter and the federalist Papers, also the comments of those who drafted the 14th amendment shed some light.]

    It just seems that this thing should have been cut and dry. How could they write such a perfect document and not take the extra care to leave a blueprint of their work, drafts and discussions? I’m just saying…

    This latest revelation sounds like the final point in the whole argument.

    [Ed. I believe it is the strongest point. ]

    And all that stuff about Vattel, naturalization law, codes, Elk, Minor, Wong and all that stuff is now not needed. Am I correct about that??

    [Ed. It’s all relevant in one way or another, but none of it is as controlling as the M v. M inadmissible construction statement. Vattell is certainly relevant because it shows that a legal source the framers were very familiar with defined nbc exactly as I have suggested, 2 citizen parents + born on US soil = nbc

    The other SCOTUS cases which make 14th amendment arguments lose their steam if you can’t argue that the nbc clause has no effect other than the citizen clauses of the 14th amendment. The framers of the 14th amendment could have written the words “natural born citizen” into the 14th amendment but they didn’t.

    If those supporting Obama as eligible won’t consider that the 14th amendment framers meant to say “subject ONLY to the jurisdiction thereof” or they would have put the word “ONLY” in the text, then those same people can’t have it both ways and tell us that the 14th amendment framers intended to say anyone born in the US is a “natural born citizen” on the same grounds. But that’s a different argument.

    M v. M is very powerful on this issue. The single most powerful argument.]

    Does this blow all the bamers out of the water??
    Should I go out and buy champaigne??

    thanks so much Leo, man I don’t know where this country would have been if it wasn’t for you. Do you even realize that?? You are a great man.

  36. Unbamboozleus Says:

    What a brilliant letter from CuriOusOnefromthe60s. Thank you for writing and sending it. Maybe it will help to make up for those of us who are not so articulate but no less passionate.

  37. Leo,
    Fascinating write up and way to go. This makes it much harder for a lax ruling on the nbc clause to occur. I completely understand your reasoning and Justice Marshall’s opinion, but it seems that rulings do come down that do not follow the intent of the constitution or precedent. Is it possible for your argument to be thrown out because Marshall was not talking directly about the nbc clause? I think what you are saying is that Marshall’s opinion extends to all language within the constitution and not just the language concerning the establishment of the courts. Couldn’t someone argue that Marshall was only talking about the courts and that you cannot apply his opinion to other sections of the constitution? Do we know for a fact that every judge must accept that the nbc citizen is presumed to be something different than the 14th amendment citizen?

    [Ed. The M v. M holding is not limited to the courts and jurisdiction thereof. No clause can be construed as having zero effect. No clause can be construed to be superfluous. The more you study the Constitution, the more you will understand the wisdom of the Document. Everything has its purpose. Further case law research will prove this to you better than I, so now you have your homework assignment. ;)]

    As far as I am concerned arguing that an nbc is the same thing as a citizen in the 14th amendment is “form without substance”. We have a lot of that going around these days.

  38. Leo,
    In light of what your most recent post, it seems even more ridiculous to me that SCOTUS did not hear your case. Your argument was so cut and dry. Why do you think they did not hear it? Is it because of the procedural manuverings by the lower courts? You did send a letter letting SCOTUS know what had happened in the lower courts so that should not have been an excuse when you have such an important case with such a good argument. And like you said, Cort’s case was even better and did not have this issue – so it is exasperating to me why this was not heard. I think it comes down to the four votes and the partisan bias that I believe is pervasive in our court system. And perhaps a little lack of courage too by the justices.

    [Ed. The case should have been heard. They heard Bush v. Gore and that was a real stretch. Souter almost left SCOTUS becuase of the way they bent precedent to grab authority, but Souter is just as guilty for the Kelo case… they grab power when it suits them. All I can say is they didn’t want this case. So they didn’t take it. ]

  39. I must still believe that the right person on a federal grand jury and 22 others have the investigative powers to solve this issue if, the Quo Warranto doesn’t get ti done .

    [Ed. You’d be wrong and it isn’t going to happen. End of story.]

    at least the they would have through investigation aquired the information and handed down an indictment that congress would have to address,with the facts infront of them and would have no way out of a verdict in favor of the constitution.

    [Ed. Grand juries investigate crimes. Quo warranto actions are now civil cases. It’s not happening. There’s no authority for it in the Constitution. You can “believe” whatever makes your emotionally satisfied. But it’s just a fantasy.]

    Thanks,
    Richard

    P.S. I keep thinking that there is some way the frammers gave us away to gather a federal grand jury all by ourselves in case we ran into a total goverment tyrannital so we could be able to show our military that they were justified and needed to oust the congress and president until we could have another election. Seems they would have done that because the whole intent was to protect WE THE PEOPLE in every way they could.

  40. Thanks to Smokey for his comments: ” Our founding fathers were brilliant. Some say the Constitution was divinely inspired. Would guys this smart not have any notes? I mean for lay people, there has just got to be a definition of what a NBC is that they wrote in plain english. Isn’t all of their stuff saved somewhere. And didn’t anybody type it up so that the words would not be lost in case of a fire?

    It just seems that this thing should have been cut and dry. How could they write such a perfect document and not take the extra care to leave a blueprint of their work, drafts and discussions? I’m just saying…”

    That was what I was trying to ask Leo in another thread.

  41. Leo,

    Is there a way to use the Writ of Mandamus, in DC Court, to force the hand of the US Attorney or USAG to execute the Quo Warranto proceedings…

    I do respect that they have “discretion” but seeking Mandamus not for a given outcome, but for a decision “one way or the other” because of national security, and other valid “non partisan reasons” (protecting the military chain of command; protecting the US from “void” treaties) should at least get it aired, No ?

    [Ed. Absolutely not. The statute and the Newman case make it clear that the decision is in their discretion. Read the Newman case for policy as to why.]

    Maybe proceeding toward forcing them to appoint a “special prosecutor” to evaluate, and proceed…

    or base the Mandamus above their discretion because the Constitution “mandates the eligibility requirements” and since no one is “mandated” by the constitution to “enforce it, and the DC Code, provides the last mechanism to challenge, or prove eligilbility, as Congress authorized, and these “Executives are charged” with enforcing the laws, then they should be forced to “fill” what appears empty, because otherwise it would all be a nullity…some Marshall logic?

    C’mon, Leo, your making me think inside the Constitutional box, but I lurch toward getting into the correct gear…

    [Ed. So many people think they have found loopholes which will force the hands of the Court. The Court is not going to jump through your loophole. Besides I don’t agree the loophole you suggest is even there. But if it was, I’m not interested in bringing cases that are certain to fail just because they look funky on paper. I’m not going to waste my time or the resources of the courts on anything I find legally untrue. Your theory doesn’t move me from the cold hard facts of the law.]

    P.S> Eleanor Holmes Norton has basically put the kabash on USA Jeff Taylor getting the Senate Confirmation “because she did not like some hiring of an assistant US Attorney that Taylor made, so she “questions” his judgment….she has an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Commitee chairman regarding the same on the net…

  42. Question Leo,

    Could one not make application to SCOTUS attached to Quo Warranto that ALL PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED AND/OR DENIED ACTIONS ‘
    “BE MERGED”, I.E., ‘Motion to Consolidate’…?

    Thereby, bringing the Original Quo Warranto as an Result of Appeal Progression?

    [Ed. First of all, you can never add new plaintiffs to a SCOTUS pleading who weren’t plead in for the lower court action. Second, quo warranto has to be brought in the name of the US. Nobody brought a proper quo warranto in the lower courts for SCOTUS to review, so you would be asking for original jurisdiction. They can’t issue a writ for QW this way. Listen, instead of trying to figure out how to get around the laws which are true, you ought to be trying to figure out how to bring influence to seeing the law that is available followed. These loophole situations are laughable. I don’t mean to be rude, but the case has been made with the cold hard facts of the law. ]

  43. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    Once again, you have surpassed yourself. Brilliant. Never before has the law been so exciting. I would really appreciate your comments on the following points.

    MOOTNESS – I understand and agree with the legal arguments that you have made with regard to mootness, but I believe that it is still important to pursue ALL of the timely-made eligibility cases to their ultimate conclusion (apart from those envolving active military Plaintiffs).

    [Ed. I couldn’t disagree with you more. That is a very bad idea. It makes support for the real law and proper method of eligibility review look very bad as more and more of these cases are denied. These cases are getting in the way. People are wasting their money donating to these lost causes. The cases are a waste of judicial resources and taxpayer money. The cases have no chance of success and all the while the same attorneys who are bringing them REFUSE to use the statute designed specifically for challenging a US national office holder’s qualifications.

    THE STATUTE WHICH SAYS “URSURPER” IS BEING IGNORED AND BURIED IN THE MEDIA BY ALL OF THESE LOSING CAUSED. ]

    [Ed. Snipped. I hate to snip your hard work writing that, and I say good job on the stuff below this, but I have spoken as editor of this blog and I will not allow those other cases anymore time here.]

    Your POINT I seems to me to be irrefutable.

    [Ed. It is.]

    Your POINT II is a joy to behold. The unambiguous opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, ie “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…” MUST govern the response of Holder and Taylor.

    [Ed. I hope so.]

    That is the established landmark ruling of SCOTUS and no one can make a serious argument that it does not apply just as much today, as it did when Chief Justice Marshall first made it. Holder and Taylor as ‘sworn upholders of The Constitution’, must be bound by it. The Oath of Office that they swore, requires them to give EFFECT, within their delegated powers, to All clauses in the Constitution. Their Oaths of Office do not contain any caveats that would allow them to shirk this duty. If they fail to instigate the Quo Warranto procedure to test Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS, then they too will be held to account for dereliction of duty.

    The 14th AMENDMENT – Mr Obama has used the 14th Amendment of The Constitution as cover for his bid to be POTUS. The 14th Amendment by extending and guaranteeing citizenship to former slaves and numerous other categories, did have a crucial and very significant effect on the ‘natural born citizen’ issue. Prior to the 14th amendment, it was impossible for the CHILD of a slave, for example, to be eligible to be POTUS because the slave parent, even if born in the USA, was not entitled to be a citizen of the USA – both parents MUST be citizens of the USA in order for the American born child to qualify as ‘nbc’. The effect of the 14th Amendment was to make ALL American citizens equal under the law. For the first time in American history ALL American born children of parents who were also born in the USA or who were Naturalized citizens at the time of the child’s birth, would qualify as ‘natural born citizens’ and therefore would be eligible to serve as POTUS. The race of the American born child or of the child’s parents was no longer an obstacle to serving as POTUS. This is the EFFECT of the 14th Amendment. However, the 14th Amendment did NOT amend Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of The Constitution. Specifically, the 14th Amendment did NOT remove the ‘nbc’ requirement for an American born child, at the time of birth, to have BOTH parents as American citizens (now including 14th Amendment Citizens) – and that applies EQUALLY to the American born children of rich white parents of lofty social status, as well as to American born children of poverty-stricken black parents who are descended from slaves – race is no longer a barrier.

    To serve as President of The United States is a PRIVILEDGE reserved for ALL natural born citizens of the United States regardless of race, religion or creed. In order to preserve the ‘separation of powers’ between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the American Government, the qualification to serve HAD TO BE very simple, otherwise there would, inevitably, have been undue interference, by Congress and SCOTUS in the selection of the POTUS. The Framers stipulated ‘nbc’, as a requirement for POTUS, in order to minimise the risk of a POTUS, having any allegiance other than to The United States of America. This stipulation was originally suggested, in 1787, by John Jay in his letter to George Washington. This is especially important considering that the POTUS would also be ‘Commander in Chief’ of all of The United States armed forces. There were very sound important grounds for the ‘nbc’ requirement in 1787 and these grounds are no less sound or important today, but even if the passage of 222 years had rendered the ‘nbc’ requirement no longer necessary, then The Constitution allows for its repeal – no such Amendment has been implemented.

    I believe that it is essential to acknowledge the original understanding of ‘natural born citizen’. The term comes straight out of VATTEL’s LAW OF NATIONS, published in 1758. This was the standard legal reference work for the Framers of The Constitution. There are numerous references to it at the time of the writing of The Constitution. The term ‘natural born citizen’ was common currency – everyone knew what it meant – ‘born in the Country of parents who were citizens’. There was no alternative definition of ‘nbc’. Subsequently, no Amendment to The Constitution, nor any other legal device, has changed the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’.

    The Law is The Law and Mr Holder and Mr Taylor have sworn to uphold it.

  44. Leo,
    I was reading Marbury v. Madison, it takes me a couple times to grasp some of it, and alot of concentration. The words directly before the “effect”
    clause of the decision says that the words NBC would, be negative or exclusive of other citizens. If it was not exclusive, then it would have no operation (or effect).

    “Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them, or they have no operation at all.

    It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

    [Ed. Interesting point. The effect is that it reduces the field of people who can be president. And that is exactly what the framers intended. I think this is the point you are making and I must agree with it. Good post.]

  45. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    Clarification of ambiguity in my previous post.
    To serve as President of The United States is a PRIVILEGE. Eligibility for this privilege, subsequent to the 14th Amendment is reserved for ALL natural born citizens of the United States regardless of race, religion or creed (provided that they have ‘attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States’) – subject also to election by the Electoral College, as ratified by Congress and then subject to swearing ‘The Oath of Office’.

  46. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    I read your comment about giving Taylor and Holder at least 2 months to review and act on a quo warranto action. If they do not act, I was wondering if the Freedom of Information Act would provide us a method of query to find out further information regarding the consideration they gave to the matter, such as, how many requests they received to bring forth a quo warranto action and any notes they may have made regarding individual requests. Is there any ability here under FOIA to obtain further information from the DOJ?

    [Ed. I have no idea.]

  47. In my post above you dispatched my thoughts on ‘Consolidation’ and suggested;

    “Listen, instead of trying to figure out how to get around the laws which are true, you ought to be trying to figure out how to bring influence to seeing the law that is available followed.”;

    Please, so I am clear and knowledgable in my efforts of support on this subject, ‘Which ‘Law’ and to which ‘Venue’ should I be pursuing?

    [Ed. You read parts 1-3 of the QW legal brief at this blog. And if you don’t know the answer after reading those, then i’ll answer your question. ]

  48. Hoping in NH Says:

    Leo,

    Although SCOTUS is clearly (to me – thanks to your great research) not able to remove BO via a direct QW filing or as the outcome of any other case before them, if one of the now moot cases were used to get SCOTUS to clarify what NBC means, could not that definition then be taken to the AG or US Atny to compel them to go forth with a QW procedure?

    [Ed. SCOTUS has no authority to issue a declaratory judgment which they cannot enforce.]

    (Although I suppose that there is no pole long enough to get SCOTUS to address the meaning of NBC unless it rises up to them as a result of a QW case filed within the US DC district court.)

    In another area you seem to have contradicted yourself, or maybe I just did not get the whole picture from reading your briefs and posts. Within your QW brief (Part 1 I think) you stated that from the Constitution it’s clear that only Congress can remove the POTUS (either through impeachment — for criminal actions — or by direct removal for qualification failures). But within this new brief you indicated that it would be the US DC of DC (or the AG or US Atny) that would remove the POTUS as the result of a QW proceeding.

    [Ed. You misunderstand the issue. The DC Distirct Court is not removing POTUS in this case. Congress is. They provided for the removal per their authority and they have designated the ministerial duty of conducting the trial to the DC District Court.]

    Does the US DC court have to appeal to Congress to get them to execute the removal of POTUS? Please clarify this if you can.

    [Ed. No. Read the Newman case. If the POTUS is found ineligible, the US Attorney or AG will oversee the physical removal. The ejection is carried out by law enforcement who are authorized by Congress.]

    Finally, regarding your briefs, other commenters have inquired about finding you a wider audience. Do you have any plans or desire to submit this research to any of the legal journals?

    [Ed. They wouldn’t touch me with a ten foot pole. Don’t you know? I’m a conspiracy theorist.]

    Although blog entries achieve prompt distribution, there is no data to indicate the longevity — probably more showing the opposite — and long-term impact of materials published only in blogs as opposed to within other published journals. It’s pretty clear that you are not looking for glory in any of this. But if your research and briefs help to lead to what would undoubtedly be a historic case, wouldn’t you at least like to be given due credit for your hard work?

    [Ed. I don’t give a crap. I’m a rock star, poker/chess fanatic and psycho golfer. I also make films and write scripts. I want my life back. The sooner this is over the better. I dont want a career in law. I gave that up years ago.]

  49. After re-reading your blog and the comment posts I ‘get it’ and will attempt to follow the example of “curi0us0nefromthe60s” and find words in letter to Taylor and Holder.

    Please ‘scub this and previous posts if you wish.

  50. Leo,

    A couple more inquiries if you please.

    Now that you have discovered the power of the Chief Justice John Marshall words relating to “effect” in Marbury v Madison, does this change any points you made in your open letter to Taylor/Holder?

    [Ed. No, but I will add the M v. M argument to my open letter.]

    You spoke of a “proper petition” for QW brought by top attorneys, is this still necessary?

    [Ed. Absolutely.]

    For clarity purposes, would it be fair to state that “We the People” have delegated our authority to the three branches of government with our votes- much like Congress has exercised it’s authority by assigning ministerial jurisdiction to the AG of US and US Attorney?

    [Ed. That makes sense.]

    I think people still don’t get why the citizens seem shut out of the whole process.

    In my opinion, to act or not to act by either of these two “deciders” rests on their ability (or willingness) to foresee the chaos of innumerable collateral attacks and the possibility of interested party attacks as well. The problem with this is they can claim that there is no crystal ball and acting would involve presumption of injury.

    However, our framers had no crystal ball either. They designed a system unrivaled in history and had to guess about what future events may bring in the ways of threats to our system of governance.

    Thanks for continuing our education on these matters, civil education I believe is a key for our children’s futures (and our countries too), and they receive less of it than ever(IMHO) in our public schools!

  51. Leo
    As in that commerical…brilliant…just brilliant.

    Enuf of that.

    How does the QW approach avoid the moot(ness) issue, if you addressed this already I apologize ,just point me in right direction and I will look it up. Ty again.

    [Ed. Just read parts 1-3 of the qw brief.]

  52. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “Vattell is certainly relevant because it shows that a legal source the framers were very familiar with defined nbc exactly as I have suggested, 2 citizen parents + born on US soil = nbc”

    Vattel only required one parent and birth on the soil of the country.

    [Ed. for “natural born citizen” status Vattel required 2 citizen parents. For simple “citizen” status he required 1. It appears the idea originated with Vattel and was copied by the framers. And your post really helps elucidate that point. I know you have argued otherwise, but I must thank you for helping me think this out. It certainly adds more weight to the argument that the Framers relied on Vattel when they distinguished between “natural born citizen” and “citizen” for qualifications of various public offices. I will probably do a separate blog post on this at some point.]

    Here is the relevant passage:

    Vattel BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
    Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

    § 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.

    [Ed. “Parents” is plural. If he meant otherwise he would have written “born…of at least one parent who is a citizen.” But he didn’t. He wrote parents. There’s an “s” at the end.]

    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 says “born…of parents who are citizens” and then he says “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER who is a citizen.”

    He could in the second reference easily had said “. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of parents who are citizens,” but he did not. He did not mean parents plural. When he spoke of citizen singular, he said only “father who is a citizen.”

    [Ed. This proves the point even further that you need two citizen parents to be a “Natural-born citizen” as opposed to a simple legal “citizen”. When he mentions “parents” he is speaking of “natural-born citizens”. But when he speaks just of the father, he only uses the word “Citizen”. “Natural-born citizen” status requires “parents” who are citizens whereas to be a citizen only requires, according to Vattel, a father who is a citizen. As to the “of the country” comment, that leads back to simple citizenship. He uses “of the country” in the same part as he uses “citizen”, but as to the “natural-born citizen” definition he finds you need both parents to be citizens. This obviously supports what we’ve been saying all along, that “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” are two different things.

    More proof lies here:

    “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…”

    You can’t renounce being a “natural born citizen”, you’re either born one or you are not. Vattel equates “natural-born citizens” with “natives”. If you are a native, you are a native forever. It’s impossible to renounce. But you can renounce your citizenship. Man, I am grateful for your post. I think you’ve helped me stumble onto a treasure here.

    The framers were known to study Vattel and we can see the possible genesis for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 in Vattel’s definition when we compare the qualifications for President (“natural born citizen”) with the qualifications for Senator and Rep (“citizen”). I think your argument just proves the point. It certainly doesn’t contradict it. P_ _ A _ L _ _ E ]

    [Ed. snip… I don’t really believe that you believe that which I snipped. But feel free to rephrase it in a less confusing manner and I might reprint it. I honestly feel that you were trying to confuse my readers for the sake of confusion. Write it out again, rephrase it, and I’ll consider printing it. I moderate this blog. I read every comment and I try to reply to every comment if the comment calls for a reply. if I don’t believe the comment is intellectually honest, and is just trying to create confusion with bogus word play, I will snip it. I was respectful of the first part of your question which contained a very worthwhile and thought provoking question. But the second part (not the 19th amendment part, the part about “citizen parents” ) doesn’t get posted as written. You’re free to rethink it and try again. If people don’t like this moderation, they can read another blog. I really don’t care. I work hard to be fair while keeping this blog on point at all times. You are welcome to resubmit on that basis.]

  53. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    I hope that all of the Plaintiffs and Attorneys, in the previous eligibility cases, will strongly support the efforts to persuade Holder and Taylor to instigate Quo Warranto proceedings in The District Court of The District of Columbia. Failure to do so would damage their credibility. As for the media, they would gleefully report any withdrawal of the other cases, just as much as they gleefully report the failures of the other cases.

    [Ed. Exactly.]

    Clearly, now that you have proven beyond doubt that the Quo Warranto procedures are the only way, at this stage, to have Mr Obama removed from The White House as a Usurper, then every effort should be made to encourage the media to report on this issue. This would have the effect of adding to the pressure on Holder and Taylor to do their duty. It is a sad fact that in order to get Justice, it is often necessary to persuade the legal practitioners that it is in their own self-interest to do the right thing. The media are so ‘out on a limb’, due to their biased coverage (or lack of coverage) of the POTUS ineligibility issues that even they must eventually ‘do the right thing’ or they themselves will crash. Also, the media must eventually recognize their responsibilities to the Nation as a whole. They just can’t carry on forever with their cheer-leading for Mr Obama. I believe that sooner or later the dam will burst.

  54. Ex-Army Officer Says:

    The case seems very tight now. The only thing could derail this is if Obama could prove his biological father was a U.S. Citizen and not the Kenyan student who married his mother.

    [Ed. Should the day come where Obama resorted to pointing to his own autobiography as a lie, then I don’t think anybody will have to remove him. He would be laughed out of office. But this is a non-starter false issue. His father was Obama Sr. ]

  55. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    I understand the points that you made earlier, highlighting the drawbacks to my suggestion of how to hold the Judges and Justices accountable for their past failures to uphold The Constitution and for their failures to give any reasons for their decisions not to act on the POTUS ineligibility issues (such as in your applications and Cort Wrotnowski’s applications). I myself stated that ‘muddying the waters’ was an inherent problem with my approach.

    Do you have any opinion as to whether or not these Judges and Justices should be held to account?

    [Ed. It’s not a crime for judges to be wrong. With all the noise out there on the nbc issue, and all the partisan law review articles adding to the confusion, there’s no case against these judges, most of whom were correct in their decisions. All of the federal cases were correct on standing. The state cases against the various Secretaries of State were WRONGLY decide. And as to my case in NJ, I was hit with some serious interference. But that discussion is confidential for now. I don’t know of any other cases like mine. Cort was hit with a bogus ruling but that in itself is no grounds for legal action against the Judge.]

    What are the Constitutional mechanisms, if any, for ordinary American citizens to hold to account the Judiciary for failures to uphold and protect the Constitution?

    If they cannot be held to account for this, then what does that mean for the future integrity of The Constitution?

  56. I’m sitting here watching the news tonight and I just saw some congresswoman or senator saying they were going to pass a bill to retroactively get the AIG bonuses back. This seems totally ridiculous to me, but here’s my question:

    If someone from AIG has received a bonus, then it is taken back by Congress, retroactively, wouldn’t this be against the Constitution? Wouldn’t this make these people “interested parties”?

    I’m feeling like a dirty conspiracy theorist here, but doesn’t this all seem a little to well placed in terms of timing and blatant anti-Constitutional actions?

    Things are getting a bit bizarre!

  57. So, I think we now know at least 2 of the deficiencies in the “checks and balances” of our system….namely, (1) who is responsible for vetting a presidential candidate; and (2) to whom do the supreme court justices answer?

    Leo, why would not scotus have issued an opinion on the vetting issue to quell all other lawsuits? Also, scotus had the ability to “control” the law by scheduling cases in at the dates and times that are to it’s advantage. I find this highly outrageous.

    Somehow, scotus has ended up being above any law and not answerable to “the people.” This is a major constitutional flaw in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

    What are the odds that it is true that Scalia and Roberts had/have no knowledge of the eligibility cases as alleged by Orly’s firtsthand account???

    [Ed. 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 squared to 1. Seriously, the odds are probably higher than that meaning it’s impossible to me that they didn’t know. I was there.]

    Liz

  58. Leo,

    In the event, after a multitude of requests to Taylor and Holder are made and a ‘sufficient’ amount of time has passed, is there no ‘Quo Warranto’ process that can be directed at them for failure to take action or respond?

    [ed. None. It’s in their discretion.]

  59. I received a tinfoil hat today. And I had to ask myself, should I put it on.

    I was elated last night about your new find, then I went downhill when I realized how many people have tried, possibly 500,000 communications, to get our reps to pay attention. Have they ever received that many coms before? This is the reason we don’t trust them anymore. Just cruising the internet there are possibly hundreds of blogs or websites all wanting our reps to defend our constitution. Lawsuits going on for 20 years trying to get redress of a grievance. OK so maybe they’re wackos. Are we the next wackos?

    Is it possible that out of 65,000,000 people, only 500,000 are still thinking about this issue?

    I took the hat and put it on. I believe there is truth to this. I just can’t figure out why nobody else sees it.

    I wish there was some way to get rid of these guys who purposely try to pass unconstitutional laws. It should be a crime. But all we do is go back and forth with one party then the next. Spinning our wheels really.

    There must be some secret we don’t know about on Nov. 12. After they are voted in and get their lifetime pension, they don’t need us anymore. And they certainly don’t want our input. They can’t get fired or voted out unless there is some kind of sex scandal.

    One poll I saw said 86% of the people exiting thought Palin said, I can see Russia from my house. We will all go back to our life’s pleasures when this is over and be disenfranchised like everyone else. I was happier not watching the news. As for you Leo, now I know where all the passionate lawyers went. They quit.

  60. historiandude Says:

    I may have missed this if it included in the other comments. I tried to read them all.

    You wrote, “This must kill the argument that being ‘a 14th Amendment citizen’ has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a ‘natural born citizen’. If being a ‘citizen’ had the same exact effect as being a natural born citzen’ then the clause would have no effect. ”

    I’m not certain you thought that through.

    If being a 14th Amendment citizen has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a natural born citizen, then the clause would not have THAT effect. This is not the same thing as saying the cause would have NO effect. Clauses have multiple effects… and the 14th Amendment has specific and clear effects that are unrelated to the issue of Presidential ability completely.

    [Ed. I’m not sure you thought that through. It’s verbal nonsense. If the 14th Amendment citizens are eligible to be President then that has an effect on Presidential eligibility…and that would be the same exact effect as A 2 S 1 C 5. If that were the case, then the natural born citizen clause would be rendered superfluous. It would not be necessary. This is because the natural born citizen clause only has one effect… presidential qualification.

    Had the framers intended “citizens” to be eligible, they would have said “citizen” as they did with Senators and Reps.

    Had the 14th Amendment framers meant for all “citizens” born in the US to be eligible for President they would have called those citizens “natural born citizens”, but they didn’t. I doubt the Amendment would have passed if worded as such.

    It must be presumed therefore, according to M v. M, that the clause has it’s own independent effect and is not superfluous in light of the 14th Amendment. M v. M states that any such argument is inadmissible.]

  61. Mr. Donofrio,

    In my comment relative to Obama, Pelosi committing fraud you stated that interpretation of the NBC clause was subject to “opinion” and until the meaning of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 was settled by SCOTUS it was just that.

    Does your statement from M v. M put the NBC clause into the law category rather than opinion and that SCOTUS has no wiggle room for a judicial activism interpretation?

    [Ed. The M v. M argument was just made two days ago. You can’t hold them to fraud if the argument was made for the first time after they acted as they did. Many respected lawyers have been in disagreement on the meaning of the nbc clause. I believe the honest ones will change their opinion upon further consideration of the M v. M argument. But there are many intellectually dishonest “authorities” who will know or maybe even did know that the M v. M decision runs afoul of their theories of nbc… some of them will NEVER back down. It’s not in their nature. So watch for the best of them throwing verbal jigsaws of deception at you. Just think the words through and you will be able to find the BS among the bits of truth they will weave in. I believe this blog and the comments section have been an education as to how these battles go down. Don’t get emotional. The truth will stand out if you just stay cool under fire.]

  62. SCOTUS may have no (Constitutional) way to ‘remove’ a sitting POTUS, true….however, would it still not be possible for SCOTUS to hear one of the lawsuits and:

    1. Make a determination that yes, Citizens (i.e. the voters), or Keyes or an electorate (forget the name(s))…have standing. Basically, overrule a lower court on simply the issue of standing….thus sending it back down to be adjudicated in the lower court?

    [Ed. No. He has been sworn in. Separation of powers does not allow SCOTUS any authority to remove him now and if they can’t enforce a ruling, they can’t make a ruling.

    If yes, then
    2. The lower court hear’s the case(s). Discovery happens. subpoena’s are issued.

    [Ed. It’s “NO”, so this is a judicial fairytale. ]

    Evidence is found (or the subpoena’s are ignored).
    If ignored, I’ve got to think this is now a major news item.
    If not ignored, and evidence arrises that he either received federal dollars for financial aid as a foreign student and/or was indeed actually NOT born in Hawaii, I’ve got to think that this is also not only a major news item, but that Congress is now forced into action to remove him in order to salvage their own political careers.

    In other words, SCOTUS doesn’t need to determine his eligibility, nor would they need to be involved with a process to remove him. They would only need to decide the issue of standing.

    [Ed. You couldn’t be more wrong. The cases are moot no matter what SCOTUS wants to say about standing. Since the cases are moot, they can’t be entertained. SCOTUS knew this better than you or me or anybody… back when they had judicial authority to decide the issue before Obama was sworn in. Focus on the law available not unicorns and sugar plum fairies.]

  63. b.t.w. Of course, ultimately, it would benefit our country greatly if SCOTUS did eventually define NBC in no uncertain terms (that is, affirm NBC = born in country to 2 citizen parents).
    Just that for now, that may not be entirely necessary in the immediate months ahead.

    [Ed. SCOTUS can only hear cases that come before them properly. They can’t issue an advisory opinion.]

  64. Leo,
    Regarding Vattel. I thought that if the father was a citizen the mother was naturalized upon marraige to father (then anyway).

    [Ed. Yes, but only up until 1922 when that statute was repealed. ]

    In Elg the father is noted as having been naturalized in the year prior to Miss Elg’s birth, and although unsaid, we know that the mother was naturalized because of marriage. Now, I believe, it takes 3 years residence and marriage to a US citizen to be naturalized (but we are talking about the context of the time). I really don’t think that the passage above is saying that being born of 1 citizen parent (father) is a “citizen” (unless maybe the parents weren’t married?). He doesn’t say “Citizen” when speaking of the Citizen father, he says “true citizen by their tacit consent” and “of the country” which I think are descriptiive of NBCs. I think that “Tacit Consent” is what makes those children NBCs. They are subject to the jurisdiction of only one country. If they only had 1 citizen parent (mother), then those children would be “of 2 countries”. I think the basis of his claim is that it is somehow unfair that if the father was a citizen then the child is NBC (if married), but if it was the Mother who was a citizen (like Obama) the child is not NBC. Then he will insist that the 19A gave women the right to have NBCs. (Cutting him off at the pass).
    Also Miss Elg, I thought, could have renounced NBC status if she had not returned in a timely matter after having reached the age of consent.

    [Ed. No. She could have renounced “American citizenship” as an adult but not the fact that she was a “natural born citizen”… being naturally born into a nation is a way of acquiring citizenship, it is not citizenship itself. Natural born citizens acquire their citizenship by “natural birth” in the US… The distinction you must comprehend is that the “natural birth” of a US citizen is a “fact” of a person’s birth. It either happened or it did not happen. The “citizenship” acquired by such birth can be renounced, but it can’t be taken away as a minor by actions of the parents. ]

    As for smrstrauss, I have seen… [Ed. Snip. No insults.]

  65. Kato Says:March 17, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Very interesting, 80% of AIG is owned by the tax payers, are they in effect federal employee’s. In order to be interested party would an exec need to be fired?

  66. bob strauss Says:

    I don’t see my previous comment about usurping the Presidency. I only ask one question. How can Obama be a usurper and the President at the same time?

    [Ed. The same way Mr. Shields was in the Senate was, but you won’t find his name listed as a Senator or that he was expelled. When found to be ineligible – by the Senate – the election was void. Until the Congress makes such a determination, Obama is the President.]

  67. stand up and fight Says:

    Face reality!

    Taylor and Holder will ignore all attempts at Qua Warranto against Obama.
    Leo you have stated in the past you lost all faith in Scotus.

    [Ed. Because SCOTUS was presented with two proper cases and they refused to uphold the Constitution. These men now have their chance to do the right thing. They deserve a chance to do the right thing.]

    How can you have any faith in these two individuals?You educate us on the legal issues then tell us reading between the lines in reality their is nothing that can be done.

    Even if there was a way to remove Obama it would take a long time to achieve that goal.

    Our best chance at removing Obama from office will be in 2012 when he runs for re-selection no typo here.

    [Ed. The quo warranto proceeding wouldn’t take long at all.]

    Get states to pass a law that would require future presidential candidates to prove nbc status.

    [Ed. If the Congress can do that for the 2012 election – when Obama will still be President – they can do it now.]

    We have plenty of time to do that. Legally we would have a better chance of accomplishing that goal.

    Getting some judge to grant a discovery motion regarding Obamas nbc issue is all that is needed to let the cat out of the bag.

    [Ed. It would be nice if it rained $100 bill over my backyard and if my fecal manner smelled like sweet morning dew… but that aint gonna happen and either is a bogus discovery motion. Now go back and hit those donate buttons to whoever is filling your head with that crap. I’m sure they need your money more than you need it.]

    Some end around ploy that could achieve that has a much better chance of success.The answer to this Obama nbs issue is to think outside the box.Smoke and mirrors that’s what Obama uses on us.Why don’t we do the same to him?Think people, any ideas?

    [Ed. Forget the smoke and mirrors, why don’t you just take a blow torch and bore a hole right through the separation of powers to get your way. You don’t care how you remove him, you’re just hell bent on hating his guts so much you’d destroy the Constitution to get him our of office. Not me. I’ll stick with the Constitution, you can have Harry Potter.]

  68. Leo,
    During Vattel’s time I suspect that women did not have many property rights. and were pretty much subject to their husbands. When Vattel is speaking of the citizenship of the father, wasn’t the mother conformed to the father’s citizenship by marraige? Wasn’t the citizenship of the father the citizenship of the parents?

    [Ed. Not in every case, no.]

    Vattel barely speaks of the female at all, he refers to mankind, sons, fathers and parents. He does refer to the nation (or country) in the female sense in Book 1 Chapter 19 section 230, and in other areas (he calls the nation She and Her). He even refers to the “Right of Carrying off Women” (Book 2 Chapter 9 sect.122) from another country, as they are needed for propagation, if the other country did not volutarily supply them. However those women did have the right not to marry the men that carried them off.
    A little barbaric I know, but those were the nature of the times in yhe 1750s.

  69. stand up and fight Says:

    Calm down leo!

    I don’t hate his guts.If it were John Mccain or anyone else i would feel the same way.This is about people who feel their above the law.Strange, Obama used smoke and mirrors to accomplish his goal and you jump all over me.

    [Ed. Yes, because you are suggesting we do the same. Im not into smoke and mirrors and either is the Constitution.]

    So i suppose your comments apply to Obama too?Right?Your attacking the messenger and not the message.Where is your outrage at what Obama has done to the constitution.

    [Ed. Are you serious? Please. What the hell do you think all of this work I have done has been addressed to? But I fight within the law. I do not bend the law into a shape which is alien to my sense of justice. Go get Harry Potter or David Copperfield. Don’t bother me with smoke and mirrors.]

  70. I think that I’m being logical here and not just negative – (as if positive karma is so necessary for the truth to be acknowledged by our poor appointed instruments afflicted with human respect!)

    So I offer mere human logic: Won’t the same Catch 22 come into play in the end here … just as it would have IF SCOTUS actually HAD the jurisdiction to act?

    What I mean is that, once again, (as would have been with SCOTUS “IF” they COULD have been the last means for action) the D.C. District Court is also being asked to PROVIDE the missing evidence to even hear the argument. The request for them to act on “missing or hidden surmised evidence” does not appear strong enough to equal such expected bravery or boldness by the two attorneys in question. And even AFTER such material could be summoned there is still, for their excuse, the fact, as admitted, that NBC is not clearly defined, on paper as yet.

    IF Congress would move to establish that now requested necessity of showing the long form BC for all future candidates, THEN there may be hope for “next time”, but until then EVERYTHING involving all of the time necessary to “abide by the legal procedures themselves” would do nothing in the present – REALISTICALLY.

    [Ed. And what’s going to change “the next time”. In 2012 won’t Obama be the incumbent candidate? If Congress can enact a law to ask him for it in 2012 then they can ask him for it right now. But they won’t. Regardless, if you don’t want to put respectful pressure on the law enforcement officers who can bring QW, then don’t. You get what you settle for.]

    And we all know the character of the present Congress that would continue to act politically, sensing or even knowing themselves the real possibilities re: their candidate’s ineligibility.

    Fools and cowards will continue to learn only through the hard way – those repercussions that are always in obedience to the natural law.

    We are all part ideal and part realistic. Most here are of the ideal and desire for Justice and Truth to constantly abide and rule. Yet, we have not a culture of the moment that would prop up the ideal and keep the scales of Justice balanced. In the end, it is human free will – just as with Pilate – that will rule. Is it possible that a Mr. Taylor will be the one plucked out of the sewer of human respect, on his OWN volition and honor? Because THAT is what would be necessary. If so, what a movie could be made about THAT historical moment!

  71. Leo,

    Joe the Blogger asked earlier:
    What are the Constitutional mechanisms, if any, for ordinary American citizens to hold to account the Judiciary for failures to uphold and protect the Constitution?

    If they cannot be held to account for this, then what does that mean for the future integrity of The Constitution?

    [Ed. You’re supposed to have power through your vote, but do you even have a vote left? Computers can be made to vote for you easily. Honestly, I don’t think the people have any power left all. Through their own apathy and petty political instinctual divisions they have been divided and conquered. Your last resort is to make yourselves heard as best you can. If you had any influence on your elected officials, you could pressure them to legislate accordingly, but you are nothing but sheep to them… and they are not good shepherds.]

    I did not see an answer here, and I am aware that the Judiciary has given itself more immunity than they should be rightly entitled, but seriously, at some point a judicial officer goes too far, and we, the citizens are more than abused, as SCOTUS has said in some of its decisions, “even if the judicial officer tramples upon your constitutional rights, thats the price for judicial independence.”

    I would greatly appreciate your delving into this area, because I am positive one of the reasons I am concerned with this action, and its implications, is because this current “crises” parallels issues I have [civil matter] in the courts, and when people cant get lawful satisfaction, thats when crazy things happen….and Lord knows we could use less crazy, and more justice…and please dont go to Commissions on Judicial Performance, because in the real world they are the foxes guarding the hen house…thanks in advance for some enlightenment

  72. Dear Leo,

    I am so very pleased to see you are continuing, through this blog, to educate people who care about our Constitution and want its provisions to be upheld.

    The M. v M. discussion seems quite brilliant to me — a lay person. And I am particularly delighted to see you take to the airwaves on The Chalice Show with your analysis. Will you be doing additional interviews?

    Is it appropriate for you to amend your open letter to Holder and Taylor to specifically advise them of the M. v M. issue?

    [Ed. Tonight’s interview is the end of this for me.]

  73. If Obama is found to have been ineligible and the election declared void, this would mean that Biden had not been elected either and could not serve as President Pro Tem. If the election is void then the seat of power was never really handed over to Obama/Biden and would still rest in the hands of Bush/Cheney. In this case would term limits apply because they would be serving not as President and Vice President but rather as President Pro Tem and Vice President Pro Tem until a new election could be held and an eligible candidate elected?

    [Ed, I don’t have the succession issue thoroughly resolved. I suggest you read the 25th amendment…]

  74. Regardless of how this turns our with Obama, how can we ensure that future Presidential candidates are properly vetted?

  75. Leo,

    After noting your praise for curi0us0nefromthe60s letter, I have been stymied in attempts to convey the same without plagiarizing both form and substance of his effort.

    My hope is to develop such a letter for distribution via networking and subsequent forwarding to Holder and Taylor directly and to various local, State, Federal and Private individuals of influence soliciting their efforts toward the same goal.

    I noted that part of your praise to curi0us0nefromthe60s was the individual effort as opposed to ‘form letter’.

    Would you, and perhaps in consultation with curi0us0nefromthe60s, assist in finding middle ground that would allow the many who wish to assist but unable to construct an effective letter on their own?

    My thoughts are that America can be saved for $0.84 cents (2 Stamps) and 10 e-mails and Blog posts, with the hope the effort turns ‘Viral”.

    I am not looking to profit or become known individually by these efforts, but rather, I am compelled by the obvious necessity and that inner Guide upon which I depend for all things.

    You thoughts and suggestions are much anticipated.

    Respectfully in gratitude,

    SLC
    SLC

    [Ed. No interested. Write it. Send it and then do more…]

  76. Leo, thanks again for all of your work and education on this issue. Are there any options in making the State of HI or the colleges and universities in releasing the hidden documents on Obama? Or is Obama’s contention of privacy his insurance policy?

    [Ed. No options there. That is a distraction. ]

  77. Info needed:

    If either of the 2 eligible attorneys decide to institute a QW proceeding, I assume the preparing attorney(s) would be from the staff of the Office involved and that the judge would be chosen by whatever rotational system the DCDC has.

    If there is a to be a trial will it be public knowledge by being posted on a docket somewhat as would the SCOTUS matters so we could watch for it (if you know)?

    Would there be any opportunity for you and/or your sister and/or any other attorney to submit amicus briefs or any sort of supplemental briefs to ensure that appropriate bases are covered (e.g., M v. M)? IOW any input aside from the preparing government attorney?

    Assuming a QW trial with the minimal fact finding involved, let’s say the judge rules even under the BNA48 situation that Obama is eligible under the NBC clause. It seems unlikely that the government attorney(s) would appeal the decision. Is there any other way this could be appealed to SCOTUS by any party outside of those involved in the QW proceeding?? Or would that QW decision be the end of the line (no appellate review)??

    [Ed. All good questions, I have no answer for. Not being flippant, I just don’t know. This is next phase type stuff… we’re not there yet and I’m moving on… good questions though.]

  78. Leo,
    I sense the frustration that you are feeling, between us silly posters and the frustration of knowing the answer and not being able to do much about it. Maybe you are right that this is our Karma, but I hope not. Channel the angst into some serious Rock and Roll, play some cards, take a short VayKay (hopefully not too long), and talk to us again down the road. Me? I’m gonna take out my trusty Telecaster, melt my frustration into the walls with some heavy Blues and wake up the neighbors. Maybe Holder and Taylor will feel the love in your heart, and the heat of public opinion, and do the right thing. Maybe not. If they don’t, what may come next is worrisome.

    [ed. For those about to rock, we salute you!]

  79. Joss Brown Says:

    Three little questions:

    (1) If Holder or Taylor don’t act and other follow-up procedures (“interested persons” etc.) fail, would it be possible to apply a new Quo Warranto after Obama’s re-election?

    [Ed. I can’t think that far ahead, but it will be a million times more difficult. Once the people get used to it and allow it, a precedent will be set.]

    (2) You wrote that tonight’s interview will be the last we’re going to hear from you on this issue for some time. Does that include written comments on this blog?

    [Ed. No.]

    (3) Are you still planning to work on a book about Chester Arthur?

    [Ed. PLanning yes, execution is nebulous.]

    In general: Thank you for your great insights over all these months!

    [Ed. Thanks for reading.]

  80. Joe Squarzini Says:

    Given that SCOTUS cannot remove POTUS, don’t we citizens have a right to know, nevertheless, whether SCOTUS is indeed a NBC? Just because he slipped by the grip of the law, we need to know whether he is a usurper cum laude! Is there some investigative procedure to determine once and for all whether POTUS is a IMPOTUS?

    [Ed. No.]

  81. Leo, you have put an incredible amount of time, effort and mental capacity into this issue. Your strong interest is without question. I read your “rock star, etc.” comment, BUT I implore you to carry all the discovery and legal expertise you have discovered and documented further into the process. As you well know, we have a Constitutional crisis which is without parallel and it needs thoughtful and expert petitions going forward. You are in a unique position to do that. I know of no other person who can bring forth all the expertise and well reasoned legal opinions that you can. AND you obviously CARE or you would not have pursued it this far. Please do this for our Country and for our generation and future generations. This is a challenge to which few others in history have been given the opportunity, knowledge, perseverance and support to come to the aid of their country. Please give this careful consideration. America needs YOU.

    [Ed. Listen to my interview tonight. I am moving on for good reason. I will not dilute what has been written here. It is “the” case and I do not want to cram less important things on this blog. This is THE issue… nothing else really matters.]

  82. Seizethecarp Says:

    The following might provide a possible precedent of a Pres or VP born not “completely subject” to the sovereignty of the USA. Such a precedent could help Obama, in as much as you have argued that lack of such a precedent hurts Obama’s apparent lack of nbc status in any quo warranto action.

    Yes, Charles Curtis had two citizen parents (1855 law made his Indian mother a citizen on marrige as you pointed out) yet he and his mother remained none-the-less dual citizens of both the USA and the still sovereign Kaw and Osage Indian nations.

    Wouldn’t Curtis thus be “governed” by the Kaw and Osage as well as the USA at birth and not “completely subject” to the sovereignty of the USA which Justice Gray said was an nbc requirement in the Elk opinion, not just citizenship? Curtis was one-eighth Indian, but there appears to be no lower limit of Indian “quantum blood” for full membership in the Kaw or Osage tribes, as least as of now and Curtis was a registered tribal member.

    See:

    http://thorpe.ou.edu/OILS/blood.html

    Curtis, being aware of the nbc controversy surrounding his contemporary Chester Arthur, and being a very ambitious politician who aspired to be US President, may (as you suggest with Chester Arthur) have taken action to remove or minimize any dual sovereignty issue. Curtis did this by sponsoring the “Curtis Act” in Congress 1898 which was that act that stripped away the sovereignty of the Oklahoma Indian tribes including his own Kaw and Osage tribes!

    This wouldn’t have changed Curtis’ nbc status at birth, but as a practical matter it would have made his former dual citizenship a nullity as he sought the presidency “completely subject” to only one sovereignty going forward. As with Chester Arthur, this looks suspicious to me!

    To recap, Curtis is not on point with Obama, because Curtis has two citizen parents. Yet Curtis could be viewed as being on point and a precedent for Obama by being less than “completely subject ” to US sovereignty as required by Elk for nbc, in which Justice Gray specifically pointed to Indians as subject to foreign sovereignty and not nbc.

    [Ed. The Indian tribes had no power to put Curtis in jail or to tax him. I don’t see where they had any genuine “jurisdiction” over him.]

  83. […] case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes […]

  84. Dear Leo,
    My draft letter below is close to being done. I hope I have posted it “under the wire” given what appears to be your disengagement very soon.

    I must, once again, tell you how so very deeply I appreciate and admire all you have done these past six months. America owes you a deep debt of gratitude, and I, for one, want to Thank You. I will never forget you.
    Warmest regards,
    Robare

    ———————————————————–
    U.S. Attorney General Holder
    and
    U.S. Attorney Taylor

    Apart from any legal validity the questions re the eligibility of Barack Obama may or may not hold, other matters beg for your immediate intercession via the quo warranto statue. Over the past twelve months the U.S. Constitution has been questioned, mocked, violated and placed under assault from several perspectives. Consider:

    1) Senator McCain is not, in my humble opinion, a “natural born citizen” (NBC) simply because he was born either in Panama or on a U.S. military base. A resolution in the Senate last April stated McCain to be an NBC, but this holds no legal value whatsoever much less any Constitutional merit. Any U.S. Senator should know this.

    2) It is conceivable the Supreme Court could, someday, make a ruling that declares children born to U.S. military parents serving overseas will, henceforth, be viewed as if born on American soil. But such an opportunity must be brought before the Supreme Court. A quo warranto process might well find its way there.

    3) As for President Obama, the arguments pro & con regarding his non-citizen father and the website – only – posting of his certificate-of-live-birth are too numerous to include here. Clearly, these require a legal resolution, one way or the other, so as to remove any doubt regarding the validity of President Obama.

    4) Members of the U.S. Military, active & retired, have been questioning whether President Obama meets the Constitutional requirement to be their “Commander in Chief.” These challenges have begun to threaten and erode the military chain-of-command. I cannot imagine a more grievous situation for America’s security both domestically and internationally.

    5) A Florida Congressman has proposed legislation that requires every future candidate for President, as of 2012, to submit their birth certificate as a prerequisite to initiating their campaign. A nice idea, but does it address, on its own, the Constitutional requirement re “natural born citizen”? Impossible to answer since NBC has yet to be clearly, legally defined.

    6) Some view Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal as a potential presidential candidate, but is he a natural born citizen? How can he or his supporters ever know? How can any future candidate for the Presidency know? It must be defined and now is the time to do so.

    7) Countless individuals have made enumerable postings on numerous online blogs. Their writings have shown that many people see absolutely no difference between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as used within the Constitution. Hardly surprising given a legal distinction has never been made. America is becoming ever more multi-cultural; yet another reason this matter must be resolved once and for all.

    The foregoing has resulted in ever greater upset and confusion across this Great Land. I can only imagine the confusion it is causing internationally. This confusion is not going away and will only get worse. This has gone beyond matters of “The Law” and is being driven by passionate emotions causing grave concern and uncertainty for Americans.

    Emotional yes, but it can be resolved legally. You two gentleman have been vested with the authority to initiate such action via the quo warranto statute. Not since slavery has a more urgent matter come to the fore in America, and it took a war to resolve that question. In the months leading up to the Civil War, “so-called-leaders” on both sides arrogantly stated the looming conflict would spill no more blood then what a single handkerchief would absorb. Five years later, nearly 600,000 Americans lay dead, and this horrific 1860’s conflict still reverberates, to some degree, within our body-politic despite the passage of more than 150 years.

    The current matter places a huge burden upon each of you, but it is one America needs you to step-forward and assume. I most respectfully beseech you to do so. Thank you for considering my request.

    Most respectfully yours,

  85. I love how you have distilled this down to a finite and unambiguously actionable issue.
    I have one question though. Doesn’t the constitution have to be interpreted in whole, including the ammendments? I’m just a lowly engineer, but I assume one could point out “internal self inconsistencies” within the original constitution or definitely between the constitution and the ammendments. Although the 14th does not explicity supercede the NBC clause, couldn’t a valid argument be admissable that it does?

  86. Leo,

    I think I found an Important LINK, and it relates to Vattel’s work and the subtle reference to it by SCOTUS; check it out..

    From ELg v Perkins Page 307 US 329 relevant part:

    14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the

    “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law.
    [next sentence moved apart for emphasis]

    As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

    The above last sentence of the paragraph I have separated because it refers to “legal principles” but does not carry a footnote, as do the other parts of the opinion, and it comes erily close to this:

    Vattel also wrote:

    “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.

    “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….” this had to be considerd by SCOTUS in order to write the decision in ELG, even though I also appreciate that they first included treaties and Laws of the nation…

    So SCOTUS IMHO did in fact consider Vattel’s writings as well, don’t ya think???…even if they didn’t exactly give credit to where this “right to renounce came from”

    …and thanks for your patience and dedication

  87. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    In response to SLCraig, I’d like to help those whom are willing to write original correspondence to US Attorney Taylor and AG Holder. I have my own letter posted on my blog. I’d be willing to moderate comments on my blog post (editing those comments like you often do) to assist those writing original correspondence. Please post this if you think it will help.

    My blog post with my letter to US Attorney Taylor cc: AG Holder can be found here:

    http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/request-to-doj-for-quo-warranto-action/

  88. With the exception of Chester Arthur, every previous President has had BOTH

  89. With the exception of Chester Arthur, every previous President has had BOTH parents U.S. Citizens when they were born. Why do we have to make an exception for Obama ?

  90. […] case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall.  That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one […]

  91. If a case brought to the attention before the election is ruled upon after the election in favor of the plaintiffs thus declaring the election itself null and void, are the ‘separation of powers’ rendered void with equal measure because the President would be considered to have never been elected?

    [Ed. The cases became moot once he was sworn in.]

  92. paralegalnm Says:

    Leo, I agree, your ‘mootness’ follows the Political Questions Doctrine. That is why I wrote to the Justices, asking them to forbear the political questions and favor the question of original jurisdiction, an authoritative definition of the term of art ‘natural born citizen.’

    Once that opinion is published, with the help of amicus briefs, the congress, media, and electorate can act constitutionally.

    See http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/hollister-vs-obama/ and related posts.

  93. […] clearly what court holds original jurisdiction, and it is not the Supreme Court. Leo Donofrio explains. Adding ambassadors as witnesses is not going to help. From Orly’s […]

  94. Wow, 2009 revisited…… and ‘Original Jurisdiction’ the subject.

    Since 1st reading your posts of Marbury v. Madison I have ‘clung’ to that and rely on its prescience should I ever get a full hearing.

    28 USC 1251;

    § 1251. Original jurisdiction

    (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
    (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
    (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
    (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
    (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

    While Article III demands MORE, IMO;
    Section 2.
    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    I refer to the 1st line up to the 3rd comma.

    The ‘cause’ of obtaining a Constitutional interpretation of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen arises DIRECTLY from the Constitution, inasmuch as there have been No Amendments to it nor any Legislation or Judicial determinations ‘effecting’ it, notwithstanding the repealed 1790 Act and various dicta not responsive in any case ‘specifically’ concerning it.

    So, IS this adequate presumption to make the INVOCATION for Original Jurisdiction to be taken along with a Motion for an extraordinary Writ of Mandamus directed to (unidentified for now)….?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: