Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.

founderspostimage

Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth.  He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia.  Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US.  (That question will be the focus of my next article.)

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site.  It further stated:

“In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth.  As you can see, it has been admitted.  All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional.  Obama was a British citizen at birth.  Fact. Checked. Established.  The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain.  Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.

Birth and allegiance go together.  Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth.  His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy.  Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed.  According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided.  And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President.   The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government.  The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief.  And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other.  (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons.  They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution.  Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away.  Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional.  There was no declaration of war by Congress.  And the war on terror is a myth.  “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology.  Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene.  But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China.  And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story.  But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture.  But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment.  He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it.  Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment.  But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks.  This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places.  But you only care about Obama?  None of the above bothered so many of you.  But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer.  Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution.  It will continue in name only.  But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President.  But he is President and Commander In Chief.  Nothing will change that.

This country does not have the will power to change it.  The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush…  You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

198 Responses to “Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.”

  1. I think it was ex-Mayor or current Mayor of London joked that since he was born in the USA he can run for President. Republicans thought they can beat Obama over his policies, regain power & thus ignore the Natural Born question before, during & after the 2008 Presidency election. This mentality is so foolish & short sighted. You don’t play around with U.S. Constitution. IMHO they have now opened up a Pandora’s Box.

  2. So all hope is lost? If that’s the case, then what’s the point?

    [Ed. That is my point.]

  3. I think this is your best blog post yet, Leo. 🙂

    God certainly gave you a gift.

    Can I add another one?

    “The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while.” – N.Y. HIstorical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873.

    Looks like that time has come.

  4. Leo,

    I agree the Republic is on the verge of collapse but I disagree the abuse began only in 1988 with Bush 1. Your point may be our culpability in the contemporary acceleration but the alarm has been rung with millions of Americans. We have been lied to, as you say, for decades about the essentials of this nation and I say if it takes a usurper to wake us up to that lie than better late than never.

    I thank you for helping with the awakening.

  5. Mr. Donofrio,

    I hope that you will forgive this dumb Soldier…but your recent post is a semantic nightmare.

    Mr. Obama is a natural born subject of Britain due to his father, regardless of the fact he was most likely born in the U.S. to a U.S. mother.

    Mr. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen due to his father being not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.

    I understand the concept of allegiance in this matter…I just find it very confusing that in one case he is natural born (subject) due to his British father and not so (citizen) due to his British father.

    [Ed. Because we are not subjects, we are citizens. The two systems of Government are so different that no problem exists. The Obama supporters have been trying to convince people that natural born citizen is the same as natural born subject. They are not the same. One is made by the grace of a monarch and so that status follows from submission to the monarch. The other is a citizen = to a monarch and governed by laws. The laws and cases indicate that a natural born citizen is born on the soil to parents who are citizens. You give the other side credit for a false premice. I’m surprised.]

    Fortunately, I drink and will somehow muddle through.

    “God save the Queen, she ain’t no…”

    -Noz

  6. Leo,
    I am guilty as the next guy for not raising to alarm level earlier (thans for the scolding). That said, it doesn’t mean that we should give up all together. While we ignored actions that pushed us to the edge, this guy and the Politicians in office as a whole are pushing us over the edge. I just can’t figure out why supposedly sympathetic Conservative Radio and TV hosts refuse to alert the public to this Legal Constitutional issue. I suspect that they have been threatened with their jobs because of a fear of racial rioting. That is the feeling I get from my interaction with a local radio host whose show you appeared on in S. Fl. I have pleaded with her to have you on her show. All that said, this sounds like another good bye post, I sure hope not, but if it is, Rock on!

  7. In all fairness, many people were trusting and perhaps naive, and didn’t feel they had to watch everything their leaders did so closely. I don’t think it is that they didn’t care or that they only care if it’s a Democrat….I think this past year, it has just escalated so far that it has been a major wake up call.

    Bush got away with more than he should have because people were scared after 9-1-1 and willing to TEMPORARILY make some concessions due to that fear.

    I say better late than never.

  8. Jimmy The C Says:

    Hi Leo,
    Thank you for all you are doing to educate us in these Constitutional matters. Most of us are too busy trying to keep our heads above water and keep the wolves away that we don’t have time to study this stuff. Up until recently I trusted my leaders and officials to do the right thing. Not any more.
    Please hang in there and keep the information flowing. God bless you.
    Jim

  9. Michael R Says:

    I love ‘ya Leo!

    You might want to check this sentence “Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth.”

    He ewas either a citizen of Great Britain or a British citizen, but “Great British citizen” sounds off.

  10. Overall I certainly agree with some of your points … but not all.

    I don’t believe for example that the fact that Obama now holds the office of the President is unchangeable. I believe that the Kerchner action has a very good chance of jogging our 3rd branch into actions that they should have done with the Donofrio case (and even earlier) but didn’t because the excuse was just TOO easy then.

    The populace is much more aware of what is going on now in converting the country into a Communist state and eliminating the Constitution completely. Unlike you, I believe that if the ineligible man is left in office there will be no more (relatively) open and free elections as we have known them in the past (or perhaps even none at all) but that we will have a “king for life” as has been seen attempted in the WWII era in Italy, Germany, and the USSR. Obama is making many efforts clearly directed at this goal.

    The fact that those other prior attempts all eventually failed is no solace since millions and millions of otherwise innocent citizens perished in the maelstroms created. And it took many, many years of oppression and misery for most people before history righted itself.

    That’s not to say that the recently prior administrations were much better. Perhaps to some degree they were “better” (and certainly not so overtly attempting a takeover as is the present crew) but that does not mean they had spotless records. We certainly agree on the fact that between Republicans and Democrats for the last several years any real differences have only been in the spelling of the names and perhaps the breathtaking rapidity and arrogance of the attempted coups.

    For my money, all of the Beltway Bastards should be removed from office – ALL of them; every last one – and firm term limits should be implemented as I believe the founders had the belief that a Copngressman of either house should periodically return to “real life” and find out what real people were thinking. I certainly do not believe the founders ever envisioned the holding of national political office as a “get rich quick and keep doing so for the rest of your life” scheme … but perhaps they were that craven and just wrote the 2 founding documents to fool everyone???

    Unlike you, I guess, I still hold out some hope for our country and I’ll work toward that until I die – which under the Obama DeathCare Plan may not be too long.

  11. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    You are absolutely correct Leo in your summation at the end of the post. Apathy set in a long time ago as to adherence to the Constitution. Long before we were born, and the Constitution has been eroded year after year since its inception.

    I am guilty of everything you described at the end of the article although I haven’t felt like I had a President since Ronald Reagan. Have I done anything, and I mean any political thing to make things better in this country during the Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations. Nope! Did I vote for any of those Presidents, yes, but in the five elections since Reagan left office, I only voted for one of them and only once. I voted for Bush in 2004 (second term). I threw away my vote to a third party candidate in 2000. I was guilty of being afraid.

    When 911 happened it changed me, it changed all of us. As a result of that fear, I became ignorant. I allowed my fear to cloud my judgement. I allowed my fear to distort my beliefs. I lived under an ignorant allusion that the Republicans would protect us better than the Democrats. How stupid and inane am I? My protection rests in myself meaning in my individual liberty, and I gladly gave it away, and now I am somehow begging to have it back. Shame on me.

    I will remain a believer in my God given liberty as guaranteed by my country’s Constitution even if the Constitution has been eroded to the point that it no longer offers me that protection. The saddest part of all is I will live the rest of my life knowing the opportunities I missed to ensure liberty in my future. I only hope that God gives me and all of us a second chance even though I and many of us don’t deserve it.

  12. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Another great lesson and another great butt kicking we desreve…

    Recorded & Accepted!

    Obama Revealed: ‘Natural Born Subject’ of the Great British Crown
    Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on August 7, 2009
    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/obama-natural-born-subject-of-the-great-british-crown/

    According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

    “all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

    Alas! I have been anticipating this article from Leo. Read, learn and spread the word while we wait for the conclusion, of what Obama’s real current citizenship status is, in Leo’s next article.

  13. Leo,

    I agree with much of what you have written here. I choose to believe that there is an “awakening” going on in America, with “revival” to follow.

    I believe that there are a number of “truths” that, when one “connects the dots”, strongly suggest that those who are presently working to destroy our country also had knowledge of the 9/11 plans.

    I challenge anyone to disprove even a single one of the “TRUTH:” statements here:

    A Different “9/11 Truth”

  14. Nancy Salvato stated that U.S. Code defines NATURAL born citizen….Is that correct or is she expanding the boundaries of the code to include NBC instead of mere citizenship?

    She wrote:
    *****************************************************
    U.S. Code definition

    Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

    • Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

    • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

    • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

    • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

    • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    *******************************************************
    If this is true, then it is news to me.

    [Ed. That’s very reckless of her. Now I have to delete the reference from the article. She is dead wrong. The code does not say any such thing. I didn’t see that. Nice spot. Nowhere does US code use the term “natural born citizen” in any current law.]

  15. MissTickly Says:

    Leo-

    Not only did the DoH reject my request, but I got a rejection on my UIPA APPEAL to the Office of Information Practices, as well, and wanted to tell you.

    But, I also wanted to know what you make of the following: I only got a rejection to the first of my three requests and when I inquired about the other two as to whether I was still waiting on ruling on them, she sent this in return:

    “Ms. XXX:

    I don’t know what other requests you are referring to. It appeared that your only request was for President Obama’s birth certificate. Please clarify.

    Very truly yours,
    Dawn Shimabukuro
    Legal Assistant ”

    This was an APPEAL and they didn’t even read my request at all. Obviously. The request was only two pages long, how could they have missed more than HALF of it? WTF?

    Is this worth anything to pursue in court? Please advise.

    [Ed. I would write back and make your request much shorter and to the point. They are either giving you the run around or they stopped reading at the top of your request.]

  16. MissTickly Says:

    I just asked her what happened and this is what followed:

    On Aug 7, 2009, at 5:20 PM, oip@hawaii.gov wrote:

    Please send just this one request to DOH. I think that with the numerous requests that you sent, they may have over looked this one.

    Office of Information Practices

    Begin forwarded message:

    I can’t help oversee a government with laws that say they will operate under the people’s oversight and yet neither the OIP or the DoH read my UIPA request.

    This is unethical.

  17. MissTickly Says:

    That was in response to this question:

    “You know this was an appeal, don’t you? Lyndon told me they would rule on the merits of my argument. They couldn’t have read beyond page 1.

    Please advise to what happened.”

    You don’t have to post all this but I’d love to hear your thoughts.=)

  18. As a follow up to my first comment, you must be reminded that we are now and have been presented with the worst of Political oportunist hacks as a choice for POTUS. They are all figureheads for the Bankers (Goldman Sacks). As bad as Bush was, I cannot imagine ONE WORLD Government candidates Gore or Kerry being any better, and probably being worse for America and our Constitution. It is true that we don’t pay enough attention, but we don’t expect our leaders to be evil (although a lot of us knew this one was, and I will never forgive anyone who voted for him).

  19. I’d love to see term limits and it would solve a lot, but how will you EVER get politicians to vote in favor of term limits? And vote themselves out of a job?

  20. Greg Goss said…

    The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

    EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:

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

    EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

    Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

    [Ed. That is such an interesting point. I haven’t really considered that argument but the capital letters are very interesting indeed.]

    [Ed. That is such an interesting point. I haven’t really considered that argument but the capital letters are very interesting indeed.]

    [Ed. UPDATED – 9:10 AM August 8, 2009 -The above was my original response. After further research I am certain that the capital letters do NOT indicate that Vattell’s treatise is specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8. When I have time I will write this up. When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations” it actually refers to the “universal law of nations” – in this regard it means a code of conduct between nations. The capital letters do not refer to Vattell’s book. And Vattell refers to the “law of nations” in his book on the topic.

    I have seen some far out allegations over the last two days regarding Article 1 Section 8 claiming that Vattell’s treatise was supposed to have been another page of the Constitution. That’s absolutely not true.]

  21. Texmom:

    It would be difficult but it would have to be by pledges from the candidates and statements to that effect in the party platform involved. And it would still have to be followed up on and monitored.

    Perhaps having the “new candidate(s)” offer it up as a Constitutional Amendment would be the best way. If enough voters were irate at the treatment we are now receiving from the corrupt wastrels in Congress that might be a very good way of doing things.

    Overall no matter how done, the masses would have to be heavily (but not universally) behind Term Limits.

  22. General welfare and interstate commerce?

    Didn’t see those mentioned. I think I know why.

  23. Hennie Bogan Says:

    We can all bash ourselves for not raising holy hell during the previous administrations when the Federal Government stepped clearly over the line and out of the grasp of our Constitutional protections. But the numbing and dumbing of America has been working on us for a great while. We felt our Republic was on autopilot being flown by just a document. We are learning now through the accumulation of assaults on the Constitution that “Houston, we have a problem”. We should not beat ourselves up because the straw that broke the camels back was the NBC issue. [Ed. Snipped because I couldnt print this post without doing so. You know why.] I can stomp out to still see with my eyes that we have a “collectivist” president popularly elected who probably is not eligible to host the post. Now, what are we going to do?
    We are going to wait, watch, prepare ourselves and pray to God that if it is his will that we act, that we “Go with God”.

    And meanwhile maybe we should do more introspection to perhaps open our eyes to see better why the collectivists see the world as they do.
    My uncle, a Jesuit, no doubt a liberation theologian, must feel a lifelong frustration with the capitalist system, so many suffering people and so many unsympathetic Americans. Yet I see the good that capitalism has done for the standard of living wherever it has been permitted to flow.
    The best collective is the family. Next would be the church or other well-meaning institutions, and so on… The idea that a central government would implement a collectivist ideal to the betterment of society is ignorant given the recent history of the last 100 years in Russia and other totalitarian systems.

    This NBC issue is a God-send. We are being awakened from a slumber just before it progressed into terminal coma. I wish for Leo Donofrio continued faith and success through his ability to see the silver lining and find solutions. He is brilliant. We must not let him despair. And though the fight for the Republic may seem lost. As they say “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings”.

    I like the positive nature of some new movements, ie http://freedom-force.org/ and http://www.wagthedog2010.com and http://goooh.com/Learn.aspx?pageid=21
    Please, Leo keep the faith and keep posting.
    You have taught us so much. Thank you.

  24. kittycat Says:

    Leo, you had a good article here, but I don’t agree with part of it, which is my choice. And I think that we all have a chance to change things. There’s a chance for repentance of this nation and things will change. Probably a little time left to do that. Of course, it’s not going to be everyone, but hey, read about Sodom and Gomorrah before it happened and Abraham asking Yahweh if he would save for just a few. Plus Yahweh states that if a nation repents, then he will change his purpose regarding that nation. So there is always hope and a chance.

    I do feel that right now is our chance to search for the truth and live by it in every aspect, including scripturally.

  25. No such thing as a war on terror?

    Well then guess what. There’s no such thing as a war on poverty, either. How come trillions got appropriated for that?

    As you can tell, I agree that the constitution has been perverted through the years, but don’t make this out like it started with Bush.

    [Ed. He did his part to hurt the Constitution. That’s clearly the point. And you ill advised defense of him proves the point. Choke on change my friend. It has come and Bush hold plenty of responsibility.]

  26. MissTickly Says:

    [Ed. I would write back and make your request much shorter and to the point. They are either giving you the run around or they stopped reading at the top of your request.]

    I did send a truncated version on appeal.

  27. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    bho boo,

    Very interesting point. Who is Greg Gross whom you are citing who noticed this?

    Accordingly, the constitution also only makes reference to common law in one portion: Amendment VII.

  28. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    p.s. In Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution law of nations is not capitalized.

    [Ed. It certainly is capitalized.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_2.html ]

    [Ed. That is such an interesting point. I haven’t really considered that argument but the capital letters are very interesting indeed.]

    [Ed. The above was my original response. After further research I am certain that the capital letters do NOT indicate that Vattell’s treatise is specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8. When I have time I will write this up. When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations” it actually refers to the “universal law of nations” – in this regard it means a code of conduct between nations. The capital letters do not refer to Vattell’s book. And Vattell refers to the “law of nations” in his book on the topic.

    I have seen some far out allegations over the last two days regarding Article 1 Section 8 claiming that Vattell’s treatise was supposed to have been another page of the Constitution. That’s absolutely not true.]

  29. “Because we are not subjects, we are citizens. The two systems of Government are so different that no problem exists. The Obama supporters have been trying to convince people that natural born citizen is the same as natural born subject. They are not the same. One is made by the grace of a monarch and so that status follows from submission to the monarch. The other is a citizen = to a monarch and governed by laws. The laws and cases indicate that a natural born citizen is born on the soil to parents who are citizens.”

    Thanks, Mr. Donofrio.

    I give no credit to any side other than reason and import. You have provided both (now and over the past many months).

    Do not take offense to my discordant ignorance, I am likely representative of the general electorate…the solace is that I READ your discourse and am better for it (as, perhaps, our republic).

    Here is a reality check that you are unfamiliar with…we do not see the reality that you see (not initially, not in it’s entirety, and certainly not it’s legal contextual understanding).

    “I’m surprised.” You give credit where it is not due. I love my country, my republic, my constitution…but I know now why others have have cognizance on the REALITY of “what it is what it is” and I might not fully. YOU know why and have articulated such as others have lacked. I am not ashamed that you are my intellectual superior and learned leader in many regards…what reservations do you have with my need for your leadership?

    You have a lot to carry…when you say “enough” or it is “lost”…the rest of us take pause and either weigh your judgement or assume that you have evaluated best.

    Ha! No pressure, man.

    -Noz

    MR. DONOFRIO, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF US ARE LESS THAN SMART…WE RECOGNIZE THAT MR. OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HIS CURRENT OFFICE AND ARE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT TO DO…WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE STATUS QUO BUT ARE IMPATIENT AS TO WHEN THE ELECTORATE WILL “MAN UP” AND CALL BS ON THE SITUATION…SOME OF US ARE LOSING HOPE HOPE THAT MERE SENATOR(S) WILL FORGO THERE PROTECTED STATUS AND FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC (AS SO MANY SOLDIERS HAVE DIED FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS)…I BELIEVE, AS YOU DO, A TRAVESTY HAS BEEN PERPETRATED ON THE CONSTITUTION, THE ELECTORATE, AND OUR PROGENY. WELL, ON BEHALF OF THE LESS THAN SMART, WHAT NOW BROWN COW?

    -Noz

    I have messed with you where you have only tried to illuminate. Keep it up…eventually I’ll get it…subject v citizen.

    [ed. I’m just angered that we have been divided and conquered by the political party left right dichotomy of which George Washington spoke in the quoted text I used today. I was going to go with a much longer quote like this:

    “All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

    However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

    Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.] ”

  30. I’ve been reading your blog for several weeks now. I just want to express my gratitude for all the information and knowledge that you and those who comment here have shared. I’m a computer analyst by trade with no law experience, and I’ve been confused by all the misinformation and confusing rhetoric about this eligibility issue. But your website and the way you participate actively in the comment discussions with careful explanations has been so very helpful. Thanks for this!

  31. If the republic is on the verge of collapse it is because the people who installed our British/Kenyan/Indonesian/American Dear Leader desire it to collapse. Economic destabilization has already been accomplished by various machinations, including but not limited to the repeal of Glass Steagall, criminally negligent oversight of the federal regulatory agencies charged with policing banking practices, fraudulent practices of the mortgage industry and the proliferation of subprime mortgages, and the cheap and abundant available credit made available by Mr. Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. Such folly could only have been calculated to invite financial fraud and ruin.

    Constitutional destabilization is now underway at a rapid pace. Mr. Obama is handing off extra-Constitutional power to be wielded at the discretion of his czars. His tactics are beyond “fishy” and appear to be intentional and unconstitutional. His health care plan exempts from taxation health care plans arrived at under collective bargaining agreements, thus delivering an unconstitutional reward to the unions which delivered union votes to his election last November.

    Now, he is going after average Americans who speak out or write and circulate their opinions on how his plan will limit or deny their access to medical care as regulated by his discretionary health care practices board. Since he is a Constitutional expert, one would think that he would understand that both his exemption to the unions and his attempt to deny Americans their free speech and to build a secret data base to be used for his own political advantage is a blatant violation of our legal protections.

    I commend you for your efforts to uphold the Constitution and to bring Mr. Obama to acknowledge and abide by the Constitutional requirements for the office he now holds. Mr. Obama exercises the power of life and death for our servicemen and women as their CIC. Obviously he does not believe that he owes We the People or those who serve and bleed access to his birth, education, employment, client lists, or the record of his service in the Illinois Senate. The Congress understands the definition of natural born citizen as evidenced by the many overtures to ammend the Constitution through drafting a new law to allow any “citizen” to qualify for the highest office. Congress’ feigned ignorance of the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship, their inability to enforce our immigration laws and to protect our borders fits in nicely with the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership treaty with Canada and Mexico. This is an intentional erosion of our Constitution and our national sovereignty as a prelude to our acceptance of the new order of global law and trade.

  32. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Thank you Leo for the clarification. In the online copies I tend to reference the primary one being Cornell University Law School’s it is not capitalized.

    See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

    [Ed. Just look at the actual Constitution. It’s wild. I need to research this issue better.]

  33. Will Barry wait till Sotomayor is on the SC before allowing his citizenship to be questioned?

    [Ed. Souter had the chance to be heard on the merits. He denied my stay application and I don’t appreciate the way he did it either. I felt dirty after that experience. A dirtyness which I fear is never going to see soap.]

  34. The one thing I am disturbed about is that whether we like it or not. Bush I, Clinton and Bush II were at least NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the U.S.

    [Ed. Excellent quotes below, Lawyer – as usual. But but the slippery slope away form the Constitution started way back when… and all are contributing purposefully to the destruction of the Document. Whether done by a natural born citizen or not, each step away from the Constitution sets the standard for the next step away and so on.]

    Obama is not. Usurpation is the problem. It is like the TROJAN HORSE set by the Greek Army to kill and destroy Troy.

    It is upon us and is readily dismantling our Constitution and the republic. However, what is true is what the founding fathers and scholars of that time said when this type of attack comes:

    James Russell Lowell, an American Romantic poet during the 19th Century, states “Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.”

    John Quincy Adams, the Sixth President of the United States and one of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution, states “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association – will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”

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

    Nixon was corrupt, but eventually folks rallied and got his hypocritical ass to resign even though LBJ and Nixon carried on the charade for a long time.

    I don’t know the day nor hour when this will be exposed, but it will.

  35. Excellent article

  36. smrstrauss Says:

    Re:” The Obama supporters have been trying to convince people that natural born citizen is the same as natural born subject. ”

    The part that is the same is the Natural Born part.

    [Ed. That’s not true. Because the born part is different entirely. One is “born” by virtue of the monarch waving his magic scepter over a person’s head and granting him protection in return for allegiance. This is the birth involved with “natural born subject”.
    For an American, this is an aberration – an abortion of our laws if you will and such a birth is anything BUT natural to an American citizen.

    A citizen is born by virtue of natural freedom and equality under God – free and equal to every other citizen. The two concepts aren’t even remotely similar.]

    Subjects and citizens are different in many ways. They are similar, of course, in the fundamental sense of being residents of a country with a legal right to be residents of that country. But Natural Born is exactly the same in both cases, and under British law and US law at the time of the colonies, the meaning of Natural Born was simply someone who was born in the place, in the colony in the US case, in the realm in the British case.

    [Ed. You selectively ignore Vattell’s definition, the definition of a man whose legal works were so heavily relied on by the framers. Very convenient of you to ignore that. but even without Vattell, the history of our SCOTUS cases and various legislation does not support your theory. NO statutes exist under current US law which use the term “natural born citizen”. It’s not like Congress is unfamiliar with the term. Back in 1790 they used those words in the INA of 1790 but then Congress repealed those words in 1795. These words were never included in any other US legislation.

    If Congress sought to include the words “natural born citizen” in legislation – as they did in 1790 – then Congress would have done so. They have not.]

    [Ed. Snipped Wall Street Journal quote of propaganda. Those interested in my analysis of the Wall Street Journal’s coverage please see prior blog posts so titled.]

    As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html

    [Ed. But there are sub-categories of citizens by birth, ie citizens by statue who but for the statute would not be citizens by birth. Naural born citizens do not need statutes for their citizenship to be realized. All they need is to be born.

    As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.]

  37. From the Kenya Independence Act of 1963:

    (3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United
    Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was
    born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his father or his
    father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British
    subject.

    Now section 2.2:

    (2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who
    immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United
    Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a
    citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

    [Ed. Trust me. I have the MOA research coming down the pike on this issue. Not ready to publish yet. But all of the statutes involved will be discussed.]

  38. It’s way too early to throw in the towel. And, to mix metaphors, this pot has not even come to a boil (tho the goose might be feeling some heat by now). All sorts of citizen outrage has yet to be expressed in public and en masse, so take heart, Leo.

    And why give up on the legal front? Why not pursue legal action against Pelosi, who certified Obama as qualified? She is not protected from prosecution as the President is, surely. If she were convicted of false swearing or fraud, it would be a proxy for conviction of Obama, and impeachment could follow.

  39. shoonerz Says:

    I’ve seen small towns get destroyed by people as such. The few come in and take over under change to only benifit themselves to end. My life is fortunate on simplicity itself. You want to change our Country to be culturally sound, like France or Spain??? Our very own Supreme Court Judge said the Constitution is no good and has to be changed during an interveiw. (should had been fired on the spot)
    Take a hard look at the countless cities and towns who tried and failed. This style only comes natural, few and far in between.
    REGRETS??
    NOW YOU PAY!!!
    —OUR COUNTRY IS ONE OF A KIND—
    KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!
    peace

  40. MissTickly Says:

    “Greg Goss said…

    The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries….:”

    Even I get this!!! Is this real?

    [Ed. No it isn’t. See prior comments in this thread. The “Law of Nations” in Article 1 Section 8 is not a reference to the Vattell treatise. It is a reference to the subject of Vattell’s treatise which existed befote Vattell – the universal law of nations. See comments below for links thereto.]

  41. The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots. You, and I, wanted a non-violent answer to questions. This will not happen, you have to see that now. The momentum is toward a nation dividing conflict, perhaps a civil war. The SCOTUS failed us. The media, protectors of liberty, failed us. The prior admistration, probably out of fear, failed the Constitution and us. The current admistration has obviously decided the Constitution is old fashioned and it’s time for ‘change’. The path has been astray for too long, to far from what the founding father intended. Government is everywhere, controlling everything, probably reading what I’m typing right now. I truly wished the SCOTUS would have made a decision, it was irresponsible for them to ignore the issue. I haven’t given up the hope that my children could live in freedom, just the illusion that they do now.

    Honestly, I see a future of Federal Government being bankrupt, and states ‘electing’ to go another way. Perhaps it will just be a peaceful division, one based upon not only finances but the belief in some states that with freedom comes responsibliity. I have to say, it feels like the United States is getting closer to divorce.

    [Ed. I disagree. There will be no violent revolution. No such thing will ever happen again in the US. It would be squashed like a bug.]

  42. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    Couldn’t a governor order a state attorney general to files suit on behalf of the state?

    If this would happen, the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction per Article III, Section 2.

    “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.”

    I think the Framers would have wanted a state to take the initiative in this situation.

    [Ed. What suit? Be more specific.]

  43. article2section1 Says:

    Leo,
    I have followed this issue for over a year now. With the recent attention given by Lou Dobbs to the issue of Obama’s birth, I was hoping you would once again consider filing another law suit.

    Would the British Embassy consider rendering a proclamation that Barack Hussein Obama is a subject of Britain? Has a foreign country ever issued an order demanding one of their citizens respect their own laws regarding country loyalty?

    Thank you,
    Vanessa in Tennessee

    [Ed. The British Embassy won’t get involved even if they have him flat. Obviously it would be in their best interests to have a Brit as POTUS. That’s the whole point of why we don’t want foreigners holding the office.]

  44. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    After reading this article, I had an hour long conversation with my 71 year old mother who remains fairly sharp. I asked her a series of questions in order to quell my present fears. I believe seeking the wisdom of our elders can help us in times of turmoil.

    I first had her concede to the premise that when she was a young girl from the age of approximately 3 years old she was growing up in a time of war (WWII) of which she concurred absolutely yes. I asked her was she afraid? She said no.

    In 1963 when my sister was born, my Mother was recently divorced from my sister’s father and was living in Charlottesville, VA. At the time, she was a nurse working in a hospital (a segregated hospital). My Mother was never into segregation or the differences between races, she had friends of all races. I asked her during the civil rights movement were you afraid? Her answer was another resounding NO!

    Later that same year and the years that immediately followed we had several assassinations in this country beginning with our President John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, and our President’s brother Robert F. Kennedy. I asked my mother, were you afraid? And again she answered no.

    My mother’s brother went to Vietnam. My mother recalls those who avoided enlistment and remembers those who fought. Her small home town of 1000 people in Creston, OH lost many young men to the Vietnam War although my Mother was fortunate to have her brother return from his tour. Again, I asked her during this time were you afraid? Her answer was no.

    I asked her, when you witnessed the anti-war protests and the other turmoil of our country in the early 1970’s, were you afraid? Her answer was no.

    Once the Reagan administration came to pass, I had my own experiences to draw on, and so I did not feel the need to ask her about these times as I had experienced them myself. But I finally asked her, given what is transpiring today, are you afraid? And once again she answered NO!

    She explained to me that once you reach her age, you have seen history continually repeat itself. You draw on your experience of having survived what has passed. And in her opinion, there is no reason to think this time in our history is significantly different from the times in our country’s history that she has experienced.

    She is not saying that as a country we haven’t allowed for the erosion of our Constitution. She is simply saying that “she’s been there and done that” and the political tides always seem to shift back to the other side. The only concession that she would make is that she saw today’s present government as more corrupt (not that the prior were not corrupt) than it had been in the past. Her basic conclusion being that this time is no more special and not substantially different than those tumultuous times that she has already lived through. To think otherwise is to lack the experience of one whom has already lived through our present day experiences.

    As Leo has so accurately described in this piece. You already gave up your Constitution one piece at a time.

    Is this the final piece that eventually makes the Constitution moot? Only time will tell, but to arrogantly think this time is somehow different or more important than the erosion of the Constitution that has already occurred is simply your life experience and is not necessarily grounded in some truth of the specialness of this time. The breach is important no doubt, but so are the other breaches that preceded it.

    We will see how this plays out, and if it has awakened us then great, but history tells us that we will probably repeat the mistakes of the past, and it will take even more than this present breach of the Constitution for a “revolution” to occur. Human beings are fallible, memories are short and passions fade. It will be interesting to see what the future holds, but a false sense of superiority and patriotism with respect to the egregious errors of the present as opposed to those same errors of the past is to dismiss the important lessons of the culmination of the events. All have a profound affect and effect. Some of us will find out what those consequences are, and others of us will no longer be around when they come to fruition.

  45. 08hayabusa Says:

    Once again Leo you have enlightened us.

  46. MissTickly Says:

    If this is a dumbe comment don’t post it and embarrass me.

    But I took a look out of curiosity and Greg Goss’ findings explain the following, too:

    U.S. Constitution: Article I
    Clause 9. Creation of Courts

    Clause 10. Maritime Crimes

    PIRACIES, FELONIES, AND OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS

    Origin of the Clause

    ”When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. . . . The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character. . . .” 1385 These words of the Chancellor Kent expressed the view of the binding character of international law that was generally accepted at the time the Constitution was adopted. During the Revolutionary War, Congress took cognizance of all matters arising under the law of nations and professed obedience to that law. 1386 Under the Articles of Confederation, it was given exclusive power to appoint courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, but no provision was made for dealing with offenses against the law of nations. 1387 The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress ”to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations.” 1388 In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, ”felonies” and the ”law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations. 1389

    [Ed. The reference to the “Law of Nations” in Article 1 Section 8 is not a direct reference to Vattell’s treatise. See other comments below in this thread and my response for links to various sources.]

  47. Diane Bridges Says:

    Dear Leo,

    The Law of Nations was also the title of a book written previously by Christian Wolff, from which Vattel stole (admittingly with admiration) much of the material in his own book by that title. Vattel in fact, began his book by translating Wolff’s treatise and then adding to it while changing from the German to the Swiss vernacular – in French! So an ambiguous book title without an attributed author, would subsume the Framer’s own role in creating this majesterial document to a foreigner. We might not blink today at “Vattel’s Law of Nations – The Movie” but the framers don’t strike me as the kind who wanted their wordsmithing to unveil “Vattel’s Constitution of the United States”.
    The phrase “law of nations” has an extensive history pre-Vattel. It comes up repeatedly in Blackstone and elsewhere, being synonymous with the expression “international law”. In common usage, capitalizing it is merely a stylized way of hinting to all readers that the phrase does not denote a particular law (singular) but instead, a body of law(s).
    If the framers meant exclusively Vattel’s work, their reference to in would have indeed been inclusive of all of its “laws”, but it seems clear from its Constitutional usage context, that they were referring only to the then current international law governing piracy, when they wrote “The Law of Nations”. Because if they were endorsing the entire work, a horror show of inconsistencies would follow.
    Just a few examples of incorporating “all of Vattel’s work’s “laws” would make Constitutional (by reference): Chapter 12 [139] “The sovereign ought to have the inspection of the affairs of religion, and authority over those who teach it.” and Chapter 12 [140] “He is bound to prevent the abuse of the established religion.” and Chapter 9 [122] asserts our country would have “the right to carry off women” , from foreign countries, kidnapping as many as might be needed to provide wives for our excess unmarried men, should a shortage of women rear its unseemly head here in the Land of the Free. My use of capitals for “Land” and “Free” should not mislead you into assuming that I mean any particular book titled, Land of the Free. Thank you for your devotion to this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Diane Bridges

    [Ed. Excellent comment. I agree with you. Please see my comments below in this same thread. I have included other links which prove that the reference in A1 S8 do not refer specifically to Vattell’s treatise.]

  48. Leon Brozyna Says:

    That thought about Art I, §8 – “The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish…Offenses against the Law of Nations;” is indeed something to consider. I noticed this some time ago and I’ve probably over-thought this already. When I first saw this it hit me that it might be more than just a turn of phrase and might mean Vattel’s work. Later, upon further reading of the Constitution, I noticed that there were other words that were capitalized in odd places. While a lawyer might seek to dismiss this reference as just applying to piracy and having no bearing on Vattel’s work, I still think it merits attention. True, it might be just a turn of phrase, but it may just be a turn of phrase based on a common concept that was prevalent in the 18th & 19th centuries, a concept which was expanded upon and formalized in Vattel’s treatise. This then gives us a basis to consider Vattel’s work as a guiding reference used in writing the Constitution and when deciphering what meaning was ascribed to the phrase “natural born Citizen.”

    [Ed. See comments below. It is not a direct reference to Vattell.]

    BTW, you’re absolutely right that our problems didn’t start with Mr. Obama. Starting in the late 19th century and progressing at an accelerating rate since, Constitutional safeguards have been short-circuited and bypassed with such creative thinking as that of Oliver Wendall Holmes, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bushes, et al. And all innocently (and not so innocently) done to placate voters; to be seen as taking care of constituent problems and concerns. We would be wise to remember Dorothy Parker’s words: “The power to do things for you is the power to do things to you.”

  49. Natural Born Citizen v Natural Born Subject.

    Tiebreaker: Original intent is avoid entanglement.

    Entanglement in Fact: Obama went to Kenya and was part of Kenya politics in the 2000’s with Odinga, cousin or not. Obama also dissed the British after becoming president and excluded them at Normandy from some celebration, sent back the Churchill bust, and gave them cheesy insulting gifts. He also wouldn’t have dinner with Sarkozy on that trip. France and Britain are our oldest allies and its British law itself we are citing. We are using our colonial relation to Britain to interpret our laws. But Obama resents Britain’s colonial relation to Kenya and applies that resentment to disrupt the very tie of Britain to America we are using to interpret our laws. Obama is not just entangled in Kenya but in a way to want to disrupt our relation with Britain out of his resentments over Kenya being a colony of Britain. This shows he puts Kenya first.

    Where the feared entanglement is shown by the actual conduct of the candidate in question, the tie is resolved that Obama exhibits in fact the divided loyalty feared. The NBC clause in the Constitution is intended to achieve the result of avoiding entanglement. Substance over form means the tie is broken that Obama is not NBC because he exhibits the entanglement and divided loyalty and even hostile loyalty that is the original intent to avoid. Resolution is that Obama is not NBC in fact and is thus not eligible to be US president in fact.

    [Ed. I agree with conclusion, but not necessarily with the road thereto. But entanglement is very obvious yet totally ignored by our representatives and media who have sold us out.]

  50. MissTickly Says:

    Capitalized or uncapitalized–the definition is the same.

    From the Law of Nations:

    § 3. Definition of the law of nations.

    The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights. (1)

    Oops!! “In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, ”felonies” and the ”law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.”

  51. I’ve a question, concerning a state’s “Sovereign” rights…many states have filed for this to be enacted. Is it possible that if every states did this – that we could, in fact, seize control (in a sense) from the president? If we accept no government money and each state ran itself – we could leave Washington “holding the bag” and take control of our own states then we could more closely hold our own elected officials accountable. I’d like to know more about this? Anyone have any suggestions on sites where I can go to learn more? I think what we need to do is “storm the gates” if-you-will of our elected officials when they come home for “summer break” next week and give them an earful and strongly make this suggestion. If they won’t listen – re-elections are around the corner and let them know – their name won’t be on the ballot!

    I appreciate your help.

    [Ed. The only possible form of revolution is a legal one. No violent form of revolution will take place. But perhaps a legal revolution might. It will take more thought and perhaps a miracle, but a legal revolution using existing laws and powers of the people would be our only shot at having a free country for much longer.]

  52. Interesting, isn’t it, the way the ACORN Mind Police censor dissident thought? And they’re EVERYWHERE, on every web site, even, humiliating & cajoling us “Mentally Ill Birthers,” and the like. What no one seems to comprehend is that this “(Mental)Health Care Bill” is simply the forerunner of our very own KGB Mind Police.
    And, yet, it will insure further terrorist attacks, leading us to civil war, another Big 0 agenda. If NY were nuked with plutonium dust, there would be EXPENSIVE long-term radiation sickness (Entitlements) care – And who will be forced to pay the taxes (After the rich are run broke?) but the rural Western states, who will seceed from the Union. Then marches in the CHICOMS wearing blue berets to “Restore Order.” Simple enough!
    If you’d like your own Obama The Joker Poster, go to http://www.zazzle.com/rickhyatt*
    See the following YouTube video to see what Batman thinks of Obama

    “A little revolution once in a while is a good thing.” Thomas Jefferson

  53. Great article…Personally I knew we were in trouble when I heard the first Bush say “new world order” in his state of the union. I looked at politics and the government in a whole new light after that, opened my eyes so to speak. “Love your country, fear your government”. I had problems with the patriot act as well. I voted for Bush twice, because I always vote no matter what. A conservative? not…… I was not always happy, but I will be honest here… With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again, I felt they loved this country.. Even if I did not agree with policies. I guess for me, it got me through. This one…. not so much, and that is what bothers me the most… Thanks for the lessons.

    [Ed. Birds of a feather flock together. Time and time again. Obama is no different than the others. He looks different but he’s on the same team. Their plan is global from the start. ONE CORP. – Your Source For Everything. ]

  54. “…makes Watergate look like a choir…”

    The first of a series of articles has been released in the Canada Free Press after an eight-month investigation, telling how the media was “menaced” over speaking about the “eligibility” issue last fall…

    http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2966

    A “deep throat” revealed the story, signed an affidavit – the person’s a talk show host whose identity will be protected until the person decides to talk.

    Three one-hour radio podcasts from the Laurie Roth show tonight – August 7th:

    http://therothshow.com/

    Very disturbing. Named TV networks are Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN, plus there are at least two large unnamed radio networks among those that faced threats.

  55. Leo, something weird happened when I started a new thread at Free Republic. It was a post from Orly Taitz …

    I will not rest until everyone perpetrating this fraud and treason, is in prison, serving lengthy term for what they did to this country

    Friday, August 7th, 2009

    Dear Orly,

    This article without a doubt, has left me so irate, I can’t begin to explain to you how much.

    Please Orly, stop these people from attacking you at every turn with their intentional poison. Please try and after reading this article, see if there is any legal remedy for you in bringing a lawsuit for defimation of Character and Libel against these outright lies against your person.

    Thank you Orly for all that you do. Please now, we “birthers” aren’t rednecks, crazy, or demented in any manner. We are American, constitutional believing American Patriots who demand that Our Nation be returned to us from the Usurper who has hijacked it.

    God Bless you Orly and May God continue to shine upon you for your superior wisdom, leadership and Patriotism during these troubling times. morgan

    Response

    Dear Morgan

    We live in a free country and we have freedom of speech. I can’t respond to each and every idiot and obviously this Mark Eades from daily news is a complete idiot.

    Nothing I posted was ever shown to be a forgery. The only forgery according to experts is the garbage posted by Obama. I challenged this Mark Edes to go with me to Obama and request his signature for release of all of his vital records.

    PS My trip was planned well in advance, it is my parent’s 50th wedding anniversary and after I spent a few hours in TelAviv, we continued to Kischinev, Moldova, where I am now for a few days. It is an opportunity for my children to visit the old country and for my parents to relieve their years of youth. This is something I promised my parents long time ago.

    By the way, after 23 hours of travel and sleepless night I gave the interview to MSNBC. They assured me that they will not pull Kitty Pigrim stunt, that they will not defraud the audience and will give me an opportunity to speak. Of course they lied. One could see that David Schuster and Tamryn Hall didn’t know a word of my pleadings. They were ignorant, rude, unprofessional, one could tell they were too lazy to learn the facts and instead they resorted to insults and assault, pushing the same fraud and propaganda coming from the illegitimate puppet Obama regime. These people, together with the president of their network and their board members should be serving lengthy prison terms for aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason. These people better clean up their act or I will not live a stone unturned until they all are in prison for what they are doing to their country

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?cat=15

    After I posted it, I had like 83 views in the first 5 minutes and then it was gone. They pulled it & I was banned. They gave me no explanations.

  56. Leo,

    Don’t give up! I know it is a trying challenge but you serve a more than important purpose.

    The outcome of all this will be exactly what it is suppose to be.
    I can not disagree with anything you have said today. Most of us in this nation were bred, born and take for granted the freedom we so far enjoy. We have grown lazy and thought it was fine to allow the fox to guard the henhouse simply because we were to lazy to do it ourselves.

    You are dead right when you say WE THE PEOPLE deserve this. ALL OF US!

    The question is what are we going to do about it?

    There has been an assault on the Constitution (in some form) from the moment it was fully ratified … why? because the default mode of “we the people” is hedonism. Until the “pain bomb” drops into our own back yard most in the nation either stand idle or with a hand out.

    The stock market dive was the “first bomb” which ushered in the “holy crap” … its continued out of control dive and first bailout started in motion the sleeping giant.

    We are heading for full out WAR here in the USA … it is ramping up as we speak. ALL of Washington is to stupid to realize those bred/born free WILL EVENTUALLY STAND AND FIGHT.

    The choice is FREEDOM or SLAVERY.
    I find it exceedingly ironic a black man is leading the charge.
    How will it end?
    At this point who knows?

    Ignorance is the enemy. I was stunned that much of the population thinks that if Juan and Angela Valdez sneak across the border in the dead of night and drop little Jr. in San Diego’s emergency room little Juan is a “natural born citizen”.

    I have discussed this issue with people who have masters degrees and higher. A very good friend told me today I was deluded to believe little Juan was not a “natural born citizen”. He was so convincing I ALMOST though somehow I had failed “reading comprehension 101” while pouring over what John Bingham wrote from congressional archives.

    I am here and you have confirmed I am not quite ready for a padded cell so I choose to continue a valiant fight for Freedom even if we do not any longer deserve it. I hope you do the same🙂

    GREAT JOB! THANK YOU !

  57. MissTickly Says:

    The sources from whence is to be gathered information — what is the positive Law of Nations generally and permanently binding upon all independent states? are acknowledged to be of three descriptions : First, the long and ordinary PRACTICE of nations, which affords evidence of a general custom, tacitly agreed to be observed until expressly abrogated. Secondly, the RECITALS of what is acknowledged to have been the law or practice of nations, and which recitals will frequently be found in modern treaties. Thirdly, the WRITINGS of eminent authors, who have long, as it were by a concurrence of testimony and opinion, declared what is the existing international jurisprudence.

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm#(01)

    I also found this, I am not sure as to what this means in the notes, please tell me if it has any relevance. But sounds like the Law of Nations by definition falls first to Practices (general custom) then when in doubt consider Recitals of Law (which everyone has been doing concerning the President’s citizenship) but then it ultimately falls, when still in doubt to this:

    “Thirdly, the WRITINGS of eminent authors, who have long, as it were by a concurrence of testimony and opinion, declared what is the existing international jurisprudence.”

    For example de Vattel, was an eminent author who WROTE on the Laws of Nations.

  58. MissTickly Says:

    The positive law of nations consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+nations

    Then apply that to this:
    The sources from whence is to be gathered information — what is the positive Law of Nations generally and permanently binding upon all independent states? are acknowledged to be of three descriptions : …
    ….Thirdly, the WRITINGS of eminent authors, who have long, as it were by a concurrence of testimony and opinion, declared what is the existing international jurisprudence.

    Is de Vattel THE source for guidance on the Laws of Nations? If so, it sounds like he gets the last word to me.

    [Ed. The “law of nations” existed before Vattell wrote his treatise on the topic. A!S8 does not refer to his treatise.]

  59. MissTickly Says:

    Leo-Tell me if the following is sound in logic and organization if you can, this has captured my attention this evening:

    EXCERPT 1: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    EXCERPT 2+: Legal Definition. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+nations
    The positive law of nations consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention.

    Positive law, as used in opposition to natural law, may be considered in a threefold point of view. 1. The universal voluntary law, or those rules which are presumed to be law, by the uniform practice of nations in general, and by the manifest utility of the rules themselves. 2. The customary law, or that which, from motives of convenience, has, by tacit, but implied agreement, prevailed, not generally indeed among all nations, nor with so permanent a utility as to become a portion of the universal voluntary law, but enough to have acquired a prescriptive obligation among certain states so situated as to be mutually benefited by it. 1 Taunt. 241. 3. The conventional law, or that which is agreed between particular states by express treaty, a law binding on the parties among whom such treaties are in force. 1 Chit. Comm. Law, 28. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive

    (2) M. de Vattel then proceeds to state the different heads of international law, which has been variously subdivided by other writers. The clearest division is under two principal heads — First, the natural law of nations; and secondly, the positive. The former is that of God and our conscience, and consequently immutable, and ought to be the basis of the positive laws of nations, The positive is threefold; First the universal voluntary law or uniform practice of nations in general; secondly, the customary law; and thirdly, the conventional law or treaties. (See 1 Chitty’s Commercial Law, 25 to 47.) — C.http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

    EXCERPT 3+: Notes found in de Vattel’s Laws of Nations. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm
    The sources from whence is to be gathered information — what is the positive Law of Nations generally and permanently binding upon all independent states are acknowledged to be of three descriptions : First, the long and ordinary PRACTICE of nations, which affords evidence of a general custom, tacitly agreed to be observed until expressly abrogated. Secondly, the RECITALS of what is acknowledged to have been the law or practice of nations, and which recitals will frequently be found in modern treaties. Thirdly, the WRITINGS of eminent authors, who have long, as it were by a concurrence of testimony and opinion, declared what is the existing international jurisprudence.

    EXCERPT 4: U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1 (By definition: a “Positive law of nations [States]”):
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    EXCERPT 5: Because the Constitution doesn’t define ‘Natural Born Citizen’ anywhere else and; In lieu of the ‘Practice’ of this positive law of nations, and in lieu of the ‘Recital’ of this positive law of nations; the law as it applies to the ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ criteria would fall to ‘Writings’ of eminent authors. For example: Vattel, IF he is the major guide We look to him in order to understand the Laws of Nations.

    THEREFORE….

    EXCERPT 6: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212 (eminent WRITING on the subject of ‘Natural-Born Citizens’ in the “Laws of Nations”):
    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent

    [Ed. See comments below in this thread.]

  60. Leo,
    When I look for references to Article 1 Section 8 Law of Nations, such as in the Federalist Papers nos. 3 and 42 “law of nations” is never capitalized, and is sometimes refered to a “laws of nations”. They are referred to but not explicitly stated with specificity in dealings with foreign powers. It seems that maybe these “laws of nations” from Law of Nations were so well known at the time that no explanation was needed. But is Law of Nations necessarily a book? I found this in WIKI (I know, not always the best source but I think it can be trusted here).

    “In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles (“a”, “an”, “the”), the word “to” as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., “on”, “from”, “and”, “with”), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.”

    Pretty interesting that a book that so many say could have no influence on the founders was codified into th USC.

    I also found this in Federalist Papers #41:

    ” It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.”

    [Ed. See other comments in this thread.]

  61. Just a few thoughts here in response to your article. We Americans have been like the proverbial frog in the pot, and though we may have felt the water warming up, it is now at full boil. I agree to a point with your article, Leo, but not all of it. Yes, we’ve been on a slippery slope away from the Constitution for some time, but we just never had it in our face as it is now. So many of us hated the VietNam war for so many reasons, and then later didn’t know what the heck we were doing fighting two wars in the Middle East without just cause. But, except for Viet Nam, we supported our military if not our elected leaders. That war was horrible for the innocent Vietnamese, but it was horrible for our troops, also, many of whom to this day are still scarred by the overt animosity of Americans upon their return. However, even with the lack of judgement and flaws of previous presidents, I don’t think we really felt any of them (with the possible exception of Nixon) was out to destroy America and to shut off the liberties and freedoms we have been given by God and enunciated in our Constitution. Obama is a first, and guess, what? America is waking up to him. Where we go from here if God does not give us a judge to settle this Constitutional issue is anyone’s guess. I have settled the matter in my own heart. That is to expose this travesty any and every way I can, and refuse to give up or give in! And oh yes, I have sent Obama my e-mail and have “turned myself in.” I pray thousands will do the same thing. We won’t wait for some turncoat to do it; we’ll trump Obama’s ploy and do it ourselves!

    You hate torture but don’t describe it. What is torture? Is chopping off a man’s head in a widely-broadcast video torture? I can still hear Nick Berg’s screams as the bastard’s sword sawed off his neck one sinew at a time. But apparently water-boarding (dunking a terrorist until he fears he is going to drown) those whose aim is to destroy America is torture and not to be done. Well, if that is what you call torture, I part ways with you on that one, Leo. I enjoy when you stick with your legal arguments, but can’t groove with you on your bleeding-heart liberal philosophy.

    [Ed. I don’t appreciate your attack. Your sarcasm is the very death of the nation. I’m not just speaking of water boarding. But I’ve never been water boarded. Have you? Simulating drowning seems cruel and unusual to me. But I guess that’s just my bleeding heart. At least I have a heart that can bleed.]

    You’re right about the wars that our Presidents have initiated without Congressional approval. We have had Constitutionally-flawed men as President for too long, and Congressmen who are just as bad. The blatant, arrogant and ultimately the foolish moves that Obama and the socialist Democrats have taken against Americans in so many ways in 200 days will come back on their own heads. Maybe like others have alluded to here, this really is the end of the “experiment” of a Constitutional Republic, but it is God Almighty who will decide that, not corrupt and evil men. We must never, ever give up the fight to expose this Obamanation. To be a quitter means we don’t have much conviction.

    Patrick Henry said, “… Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!…It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

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

  62. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    Your slugging percentage just went up a notch. And since you won’t say it I will. 911 was an operation carried out by a quasi gov’t inside our gov’t. There is just no way a bunch of guys in a cave half way around the world could have produced nano-thermite, and put it in those buildings.

    I’m reminded of a cartoon my dad showed me when I was a kid. It depicted an eagle swooping down and about to kill a mouse. The mouse was giving the eagle ‘the finger’. The caption read THE LAST GREAT ACT OF DEFIANCE. That mouse Leo is the American People.

    That’s why your cause is so important. Obama is not one of US. He wouldn’t have replied “Nuts” at the battle of the bulge. He wouldn’t have stayed a winter at Valley Forge. But we would, and our ancesters did. And they did all this for us. So we could enjoy our lives as free citizens.

    Fredom has it’s price. It’s work. There will always be threats because some people are power hungry morons. I guess where I’m going with all this is: Don’t give up. Find a way to re-file and get rid of this usurper.

  63. thanks for the opportunity given to comment, I visited another opportunity again

  64. MissTickly Says:

    I also took a look at this from this angle, the capitalization is VERY important because pre-existing at the time was a definition found within de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” for the lowercase ‘law of nations.’

    We would first look to deVattel’s body of work, “Law of Nations,”as Article I, §8 references; which is distinguishable from the term ‘law of nations’ by virtue of capitalization and a preexisting definition for both usages at the time the Constitution was drafted (as both a noun and a proper name).

    We can go straight to the definition of ‘Natural-Born Citizen” within;

    OR we can look then at the legal definition of ‘law of nations’ found within that body of work. It beautifully and naturally leads to the following definitions, notes, laws and applications:

    DEFINITION:
    •§ 3. Definition of the ‘law of nations.’
    The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights. (1)
    FROM THE LAW OF NATIONS: PRELIMINARIES. IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS:
    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

    NOTES FROM THE LAW OF NATIONS: PRELIMINARIES. IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS:
    • (2) M. de Vattel then proceeds to state the different heads of international law, which has been variously subdivided by other writers. The clearest division is under two principal heads — First, the natural law of nations; and secondly, the positive. The former is that of God and our conscience, and consequently immutable, and ought to be the basis of the positive laws of nations, The positive is threefold; First the universal voluntary law or uniform practice of nations in general; secondly, the customary law; and thirdly, the conventional law or treaties. (See 1 Chitty’s Commercial Law, 25 to 47.) — C.http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

    DEFINITION:
    • The positive law of nations consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+nations

    DEFINITION:
    • Positive law, as used in opposition to natural law, may be considered in a threefold point of view. 1. The universal voluntary law, or those rules which are presumed to be law, by the uniform practice of nations* [or states*–see following definition from de Vattel] in general, and by the manifest utility of the rules themselves. 2. The customary law, or that which, from motives of convenience, has, by tacit, but implied agreement, prevailed, not generally indeed among all nations, nor with so permanent a utility as to become a portion of the universal voluntary law, but enough to have acquired a prescriptive obligation among certain states so situated as to be mutually benefited by it. 1 Taunt. 241. 3. The conventional law, or that which is agreed between particular states by express treaty, a law binding on the parties among whom such treaties are in force. 1 Chit. Comm. Law, 28. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive

    DEFINITION (de Vattel, Nation of Laws: Preliminaries):
    • § 1. What is meant by a nation or state.
    NATIONS or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safely and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.
    [ME: Our 50 ‘states’ are also ‘nations’ under this definition]
    FROM THE LAW OF NATIONS: PRELIMINARIES. IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS:
    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

    Natural-Born Citizen Defined:

    EXCERPT 1: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations [in particular the ‘Positive Law of Nations (States)’]

    EXCERPT 2: NOTES FROM THE LAW OF NATIONS: PRELIMINARIES. IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS:
    The sources from whence is to be gathered information — what is the positive Law of Nations generally and permanently binding upon all independent states are acknowledged to be of three descriptions : First, the long and ordinary PRACTICE of nations, which affords evidence of a general custom, tacitly agreed to be observed until expressly abrogated. Secondly, the RECITALS of what is acknowledged to have been the law or practice of nations, and which recitals will frequently be found in modern treaties. Thirdly, the WRITINGS of eminent authors, who have long, as it were by a concurrence of testimony and opinion, declared what is the existing international jurisprudence.
    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1 (By definition: a “Positive law of nations [states]“):
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    THEREFORE…

    EXCERPT 4: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212 (eminent WRITING on the subject of ‘Natural-Born Citizens’ in the “Laws of Nations”):
    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent

    ME: Because the Constitution doesn’t define ‘Natural Born Citizen’ anywhere else and; In lieu of the ‘Practice’ of this positive law of nations, and in lieu of the ‘Recital’ of this positive law of nations; the law as it applies to the ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ criteria would fall to ‘WRITINGS’ of eminent authors.

    AND, because we look to ‘WRITINGS,’ for answers about the “Law of Nations” AND/OR defining/applying the ‘positive law of nations’ the definition of ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ was, indeed, written by de Vattel according to our ‘conventional’ law document (The Constitution), which is subject to consideration of de Vattel’s writings by virtue of him being THE eminent author on the subject relevant to the period the Constitution was drafted.

    [Ed. See other comments in this thread. A!S* does not refer specifically to Vattell’s treatise.]

  65. MissTickly Says:

    “In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, ”felonies” and the ”law of nations,” were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.”

    Does this mean we forfeited our rights to consider the WRITINGS of eminent authors for the Constitutional definition of ‘natural-born citizen’ and allowed Congress to decide? Can we revisit this under new light?

    [Ed. The reference in A1 S8 refers exclusively to the universal laws of nations – ie how nations deal with each other. It has no bearing whatsoever on A1 S2 requirements for President. See other comments in this thread for more on this topic.]

  66. liberty4usa Says:

    I am learning that our Constitution was usurped long before I was born.
    I believe that the creation of the Federal Reserve created a cabal that has led to the present untenable situation.

    Evidently the 16th amendment was never fully ratified by the states either. Our rights and property plundered ever since.

    The internet is like an awakening for the Americans that did not study in depth our Constitution, but only skimmed over its basic shape never realizing that it had been soiled by the drive for power long ago and that considerable damage had previously occured and continues to this day.

    I read Washington’s Farewell address for the first time this last year and how prophetic his warnings on party loyalties turned out to be.

    Time and habit for the love of power, who will prevail ?

    We the People, or they who now wield and abuse it?

    Pursuing the truth seems to be the clearest path to follow.

    [Ed. The Fed is an aberration, no doubt.]

  67. I believe that Bush and Obama are different animals. Obama has stated that he intends to “fundamentally transform” this country. His training and mentors was Marxist from Day One.

    And if you/we want to lament the gradual decline of our adherence to the constitution, why not go back to at least FDR? (Or to earlier progressives like Woodrow Wilson)?

    PS: You don’t get to decide when it’s over…God does🙂

    [Ed. You can go back further than FDR. Bush was after the same goals as Obama. They are on the same team. The team that is establishing a global order of government.]

  68. naturalborncitizen Says:

    bho boo said:

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

    [Ed. That is such an interesting point. I haven’t really considered that argument but the capital letters are very interesting indeed.]

    [Ed. The above was my original response. After further research I am certain that the capital letters do NOT indicate that Vattell’s treatise is specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8. When I have time I will write this up. When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations” it actually refers to the “universal law of nations” – in this regard it means a code of conduct between nations. The capital letters do not refer to Vattell’s book. And Vattell refers to the “law of nations” in his book on the topic.

    I have seen some far out allegations over the last two days regarding Article 1 Section 8 claiming that Vattell’s treatise was supposed to have been another page of the Constitution. That’s absolutely not true.]

  69. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I truely enjoy your logic, but am almost at a loss for words to express how I disagree with your “all is lost” theme. All is not lost. All across the nation citizens are starting to demand their liberty back. And have it back they shall, one way or another.

    As for Republicans? I think the time is ripe for the rise of a third party, but who can one trust? I trusted Collin Powell when he presented the case to go into Iraq. Now listen to that jackass! He shifts his position as often as the wind. The lyrics from an old rock song are ringing in my ears now: “If we don’t get fooled again!”

    I am part of a dying breed myself: the small independant businessman. I must go back to work now. I put in about 80 hrs per week (almost as much as a good lawyer!). Gotta stock up on cold hard cash now before they make it impossible to do so later on.

  70. ‘But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution’

    Maybe we should give back all the property from the Louisanna Purchase and start reparations to the ancestors of all Indians we slaughtered settling that land. After all the deal did not pass the Constitutional sniff test. Maybe all those that supported Thomas Jefferson and settled the land did not deserve the protections of the Constitution either. So by extension , maybe you don’t deserve the protections of the Constitution. We have all beneifited in some way from the murder of a whole indian population native born to this soil. Maybe we should all just pack up and go back to whatever country our ansestors came from and burn the Constitution, after all we didn’t deserve it in the first place.

    [Ed. I wasn’t here for any of that. I’m here now. I can only discuss what is happening in my time. Those who came here did what they did and set up this nation. I was born here. I had no say on where I was born. Born into a country with laws all one can do is try to be a good citizen and correct whatever wrongs are done on my watch. I don’t have a time machine. Furthermore, the framers gave us a system of laws designed to end tryanny. If we do not protect those laws then tyranny will flow form us to other nations as we are the most powerful nation with the ability to destroy all others in a flash. Every step away from us controlling the Government is a step towards final destruction of the whole planet and human race. ]

  71. Mr. Donofrio: I know you’ve no crystal ball, but how do you envision the “end of the republic”? What of some of the most dire predictions? Will there be a civil war? Or will woosy Americans be herded into interment camps and reeducated/shot? Will our properties be confiscated? Will you stay put throughout or leave, and where? Again, any words of wisdom, even a gut feeling, are critical.

    [Ed. I pray for a miracle because the various nightmare scenarios are all in play.]

  72. Our educational system has been taken over by aging hippies and other left-wingers who glamorize communism and Marxism. Talk to the young people today. They don’t even know who Karl Marx is.

    BO got a lot of “young” voters to come to the polls. They aren’t the ones blogging because they have no clue about the Founding Fathers. They now refer to the Pilgrims in school as “the newcomers” which diminishes the religious context for the early settlers here. BO has even used the term in his speeches.

    So, even if we “older” citizens would have stood up to Bush, the “younger” citizens would not be supporting us because they have been brainwashed to think that socialistic policies are “compassionate.”

    They won’t know what they have until it’s gone….

  73. Kathy:

    I agree with you. Beheading by sawing off the head especially with a not-too-sharp knife certainly qualifies as “cruel and unusual punishment”. If you’ve ever watched the video recently on the Web of the beheading of a woman that her male partner/friend/relative was bound and forced to watch I think that certainly qualifies. It went on and on and on and was certainly not a quick death.

    With waterboarding – terrifying or not – at least there is the possibility of the recovery of life while in beheading there is no such possibility at all.

    I also don’t believe that “cruel and unusual punishment” applies to those who are not citizens of this country and who are actively trying to destroy it and the inhabitants thereof. Treating your fellow man decently and humanely is certainly the best, most desired course – but not always possible.

    [Ed. Torture sets a standard that when our soldiers are caught, nobody will have any mercy when the issue of their being tortured is raised. If somebody was torturing you, you’re tell them whatever they wanted to know just to make them stop. It’s not reliable information.]

  74. I have read that negative change has come to America having sold its soul. Having first read Dr. Edwin Vieira’s work in 1983 I was interested in more detail when I became aware of this site;

    http://www.committeesofsafety.org/store/ .

    Watch the free video and see if you agree that this is our only answer. My only fear is that it is to late. The hidden hand was so “in your face” about this obama british thing and as they suspected the people didn’t care about the constitution because they did not know or understand the Constitution. Lower case intentional.

    As far as the BC is concerned – what a distractor. I think Phil covered a discussion about “natural born citizen” by Leo Donofrio as it was some time ago – I may be in error. Anyway I have found some sites which are of interest on the subject:

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
    http://www.thebirthers.org/
    and
    http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

    For this last site see section 212 but also be sure to read …/Vattel.html above as it gives some clarification.
    And as an aside as to why McCain is a natural born citizen see section 217 which for me answers my gut reaction, “of course his farther was on orders for the nation”. I will concede to Mr Donofrio as he probably has researched the subject and I have not.

    And for you other people out there that cannot spell please also use;
    http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?answer=32703&ctx=mi&hl=en or another spell checker.

  75. Leo,

    Is this correct? I found this today:

    U.S. Constitution and Vattel’s Law of Nations: The Answer has been there All the Time!

    In Campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, Capitalism, Economy, Family values, Politics, socialism on August 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    It seems that the answer to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President may just have been right under everyone’s noses. Unless repealed in a subsequent Amendment, ratified by the States, the Constitution (1) requires the President of the United States to be a “natural-born citizen”, and (2) defines that requirement.

    Many scholars have said that “natural-born” is not defined in the Constitution, but that we must look to the laws that subsequently developed. However, this is a wrong premise. The Constitution actually does define the requirement, by incorporation of the Laws of Nations. Vattel’s Laws of Nations is referenced in the Constitution, and through legalese, the precepts of the Laws of Nations are incorporated into the Constitution.

    Greg Goss wrote:

    The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

    EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:

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

    EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:

    The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

    Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

    http://james4america.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/u-s-constitution-and-vattels-law-of-nations-the-answer-has-been-there-all-the-time/

    [Ed. It’s not accurate at all. See my other comments in this thread.]

  76. If I may offer a conjecture (and it is just that; this is based on nothing I have read), this is what I think the problem of our Constitutional republic was and continues to be. Our founding fathers created a Constitution designed to limit the powers of the federal government and guarantee rights to the states and to the people. In order to insure that the Constitution would not be changed on a whim, they made it very difficult to change.

    But the fact that it is very difficult to change the Constitution made it very difficult to solve the problem of the moment, if the only solution to the problem was a time consuming Constitutional amendment. A way had to be found to solve the problem “now”, even if it meant extra-constitutional reasoning.

    In a sense, when writing the Constitution, the founding fathers planted within it the seeds of its own destruction.

    [Ed. We’ve changed it through amendments. I dont see the problem.]

    And this is where we are today. After decades of extra-constitutional reasoning, we are no longer the Constitutional republic created by our founding fathers, if we can be considered a Constitutional republic at all.

  77. Whistleblower Says:

    “And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.”[57] And with respect to the construction and interpretation of that article, the great Bacon gives us the following rule: “As exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in cases not enumerated.”[58] Now, the powers prohibited by the constitution to the states, respectively, are all exceptions to powers, which they before enjoyed; the powers granted to congress, are all enumerations of new powers thereby created: the prohibition on the states, operating, therefore, as an exception, strengthens their claim to all powers not excepted: on the other hand, the grant of powers to the federal government operating only by way of enumeration, weakens it’s claim in all cases not enumerated.”

    St. George Tucker’s notes on Blackstone’s Commentaries. Note E, II (4)

    Tucker cites law of nations often, and directly attributes such to Vattel.

    Who did Tucker learn from? A. George Wythe
    Another student of Wythe was Hamilton.

  78. Sorry, Leo, I didn’t see your previous answer.

  79. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    To Leo & all Patriots at this site:

    I just had a flash of an idea.

    Please move to Oklahoma. We are the redest of the red states AND we have our own stuborn sense of Liberty! Liberal Progressives claim we vote against our own interests by voting down their liberal programs time after time. Not so! We vote liberty first! That IS our best interest.

    As I wrote earlier, Americans shall regain their liberty one way or another. If it takes the stark, harsh, bowel cleansing of a dollar collaspe, so be it!

    If enough Liberty minded people move here, who knows? Perhaps (if all other efforts fail) we can peacefully secede from the sinking ship and install the Constitution as our own. Live our lives in Liberty while the rest of the continent devolves into a facist state.

    BTW, there are LOTS of Native Americans in Oklahoma still pissed about the loss of their ancestral lands in the East. I am sure it would not take much to get them on our side. The Lakotas to the north of here have already declared secession, the US gov. is trying to ignore them.

  80. I haven’t posted a comment here for some time, but pass by to read your latest posts and scan the board to read your thoughts.

    One of the chief reasons I stopped posting was your on again off again appearance. I can only hope this time you plan to stay around to the bitter end of this debacle.

    That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the nibbling away at our Constitution by Bush and Co., Clinton and now Obama. I also concur that these four men are on the same team moving the US to a one world order under One Corp as you’ve stated.

    However, I take issue with your over generalization that many of us are just now awakening. We are not. I’ve known something wasn’t right for many many years now, but couldn’t place my finger on it, so to speak. Bush and Co were way too close to the Saudi’s for my comfort. How Bush Jr. won gave me chills. You’d have to have been deaf, dumb and blind not to see he was owned by others. Same with Clinton and Bush Sr. They served as mere puppets to implement someone else’s dirty deeds.

    For the first time in many years, the electorate is waking up in a way I’ve prayed for and worked towards for sometime now. I don’t believe it is too late, but rather, we’re seeing the beginning of a patriotic and Constitutional movement unlike anything else we’ve experienced in our lifetimes.

    Lifelong D’s and R’s are leaving the fraudulent National Party structures in droves b/c their leadership has defrauded them time and again, and these patriots from the middle are awake and readying themselves for the next step in reclaiming our rights and our beloved US Constitution. I have great faith in the people. It’s never too late. We’ve only just begun.

    [Ed. I hope you are right. I’m just a grouchy pessimist on this issue.]

  81. Truce, Leo! However, if I had a choice between being nearly drowned to death or having my neck sawed off one sinew at a time with my blood-curdling scream ringing in my ears, I’d take the near drowning! Water-boarding is the only “toruture” I’ve heard about. Have we pulled off finger-nails, bitten off ears, or rammed nails in the eyes of enemy combatants (it’s hyperbole, Leo!)?

    [Ed. We’ve done plenty more than just waterboarding. John Woo of the Bush era Justice Department said no treaty could stop our government/military from crushing the testicles of a child to get info from the parent? How do you know what was done and to whom? You think you’re told everything?]

    Now, on another subject; WND posted the following today (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106304) about the “internment” camps, for which the National Guard is currently recruiting positions. Internment? Civilians? Hello! I’m just a little 4’11” woman, but I’ll be darned if I will let the government enslave me! I’ve made my choice, but it is just anathema to hear anyone who loves this country talk about giving up or giving in. We don’t need spineless wimps right now. We need men and women to get a backbone and start supporting candidates who will stand up for the Constitution, continue writing letters, e-mails, making phone calls, signing petitions, and protesting until we get heard. If we don’t get heard, then I am convinced that violence will happen, Leo, even if you don’t think so. In our 233 years we have never had our back against the wall like we find ourselves today.

    I say it is time to stop self-flagellation or flagellating other hapless Americans (most if not all of us) who stood idly by trusting corrupt politicians for decades. Let’s stop crying about this travesty and figure out how to fight it. If Leo or another attorney would set up a fund that we could contribute to to pay for expenses and time, we could get another lawsuit going (I know you don’t want donations, Leo, but how can we feel we are a part of a lawsuit otherwise?). It is still possible that Apuzzo could prevail, but if his case is dismissed, we need to keep hitting that wall again and again until we get through.

    The Israelites had to encircle Jericho 7 times before it fell, not once, twice or even six times. It took 7 times. To give up is to let the bastards win. Patrick Henry and our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves at mach speed to see what is happening now. I’m ready to water the tree, but will fight with all God has given me.

  82. Leo,

    Don’t give up all hope yet. Every day more and more people are realizing that the wool’s been pulled over their eyes. Every day i’m able to ask a question that really stops and makes them think.. That being “did you know Obama admitted he was a dual citizen at birth?” Most of them don’t know and that question really peeks their interest enough that they go confirm it themselves and i’ve fuond that once that question is asked and they confirm it they’re usually not far behind on realizing that he’s not Constitutionally eligible

  83. ElmerFudd Says:

    If you look up British nationality law on Wikipedia, you’ll see it has a lot of categories, and a very complex history, mainly due to the different arrangements made for former colonies (e.g the US, and later Kenya) and dominions (e.g. the Irish Free State) when they gained (full) independence.

    One thing you should notice, however, is that “British Subject”, despite sounding quite grand, is just about the lowest status anyone can have. Not only is it quite a distinct status from “British Citizen” but it doesn’t entitle someone to become a British citizen. It doesn’t even confer a right to live in the UK.

    Also a CUKC (citizen of the UK and colonies) which Obama’s father was until Kenyan independence, is a distinctly different status from British Citizen. The latter was not even offered to Kenyans, as far as I can see.

    Obama probably could have become a Kenyan citizen, but only by renouncing his US citizenship. In which case either the US passport people screwed up or he wouldn’t have a current US passport. I’d imagine they keep pretty good records of who chose not to be an American, don’t you?

    [Ed. If one is a natural born subject owing allegiance to the Monarch, there’s no way in hell that person can also be a natural born citizen.]

  84. Have you seen this:

    U.S. Constitution and Vattel’s Law of Nations: The Answer has been there All the Time!

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared.

    http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-constitution-and-vattels-law-of.html

    http://james4america.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/u-s-constitution-and-vattels-law-of-nations-the-answer-has-been-there-all-the-time/

    [Ed. This is not accurate. See my other comments in this thread.]

  85. “[Ed. If one is a natural born subject owing allegiance to the Monarch, there’s no way in hell that person can also be a natural born citizen.]”
    When I started my radio call-in with Medved along this vein, “How can a person born under British governance be considered a natural born citizen?” he said “why do you ask?” to which I stated that Obama admitted that he was born British (did not say subject or citizen). He flat out said “no he wasn’t” then I read the admission then he pretty much denied/talked over/ pontificated/bloviated but later someone’s call inquired about this British citizenship thing–which Medved said was “complicated”.
    If as you say (and I agree) that Medved is (and others are) a plant propagandist for the destroy-America movement ongoing, then how come we are so naive about it? What is Medved and other’s motivations? Medved always sounded so pro-Israel and Obama is so not pro-Israel…what is their “take”going to be out of the meltdown and destruction of the republic? I just don’t get any of this. They may be puppets yes, but it’s almost like auto-cannibalism, it might taste like great meat until you realize what you’re actually doing. (OK bad analogy)

    [Ed. I’d rather not say.]

  86. “Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, the Moon and the truth.”
    – Buddah

  87. article2section1 Says:

    Leo,
    After all of the law suits and attention given this issue, how in the world will Obama get on the ballot for POTUS in 2012?

    That would seem impossible to me because literally hundreds of people would sue the Secretaries of State in order to prevent his inclusion on the ballot.

    Vanessa in Tennessee

  88. ElmerFudd Says:

    The points are:

    a) The meaning of “British subject” has changed fairly dramatically since Independence of the US.

    b) “British Subject” in the strict sense of British nationality law since 1949 (the only sense in which it could have applied to Obama) does not involve any form of personal allegiance to the Monarch. Maybe offering her the iPod was a treasonable act of submission.

    c) At present (since the British Nationality Act of 1981, which came into force in 1983) there is only one small class of people still called British subjects in law. These are people born in Ireland before 1949 who never took up Irish citizenship. (This detail is interesting to me because an aunt of mine is one). All of the people who were born in the UK, have parents with British citizenship, are naturalized British etc. etc. have been, since 1983, under the law British Citizens. The category “subject” is literally dying out.

    So, to maintain that Obama had an automatic “allegiance” to the Queen or was any form of British national:
    1) I think you should check out whether a CUKC from a colony was able to transmit this status to a child born outside the UK, its colonies, overseas territories, protectorates or the commonwealth in 1961.

    2) Whether that could happen automatically or only on application is the next point.

    3) Following on from that, check whether a CUKC based on a connection to a colony would automatically lose this status on taking up any other citizenship. That did apply to the category of “British Protected Person”.

    I can’t see any sign of Kenyans being eligible for British Citizenship in any shape or form after Independence, at least not simply on the basis of being Kenyans. By that time the Brits were starting to notice that they had immigration issues from former colonies and were being less generous.

    Where’s it all going to lead? Charles and Camilla as leaders of the world?

    [Ed. The issue as to whether Obama is eligible only pertains to his birth status. If he was nbc, he was eligible. Since he was a citizen of the UKC – not through some crazy hypo, but through the blood of his father who was never a US citizen – then Obama was not a natural born citizen and can never be eligible. As to the issue of whether he is now a citizen of any other countries or a subject of Great Britain – that’s an issue the public should know the answer to, although his status now is not the determining factor as to POTUS eligibility. His status at birth controls that. But the people deserve to know whether their President has allegiance, technical or otherwise, to any foreign nations. If he does have such with Great Britain, then at the very least he ought to publicly renounce the same as is required by British law to divest him of the relationship.]

  89. MissTickly Says:

    [When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations” it actually refers to the “universal law of nations” – in this regard it means a code of conduct between nations. The capital letters do not refer to Vattell’s book. And Vattell refers to the “law of nations” in his book on the topic.]

    “The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”

    ME: Does that mean that Congress has the Power through our Constitution to punish universally/globally (which would include the High Seas anyway) those who offend the “U.S. Congress’ definition of the law of Nations?”

    “NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength. ”

    ME: If nations are also ‘states’ would it not stand to reason that Congress has the Power to punish those that offend the law of nations (meaning states) as Congress defines them as well as in maritime offenders of the ‘U.S. law of nations?’

    I guess what I am asking for is a more concrete definition of ‘universal law of nations’ both in regard to ‘universal’ as ‘global’ and also ‘nations’ as ‘states’ vs. ‘international bodies’?

    I hope that makes sense.

    The reason I ask is that the logic I used earlier seems to still apply whether the Article 1 Section 8 reference was meant as a proper name or a noun.

    Or perhaps I just don’t realize how much power Congress really has….

    [Ed. I do not have the specific answer to your question. But the answer certainly only pertains to international laws between us and other nations and it has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility requirements.]

  90. MissTickly Says:

    And, no, I don’t mean Congress must follow de Vattel like he wrote the Constitution. What I mean is that as a definition “law of nations,” is made up of BOTH natural and positive law.

    Positive law, like laws concerning citizenship, are made up of three things: PRACTICE, RECITALS, WRITINGS according to what I understand. Congress must consider these things when defining the universal and positive ‘law of nations’ as it concerns nations as ‘states.’ IF I am reading this correctly.

    We have no consistent PRACTICE and no consistent RECITAL of the law as it pertains to ‘natural-born citizenship’–so shouldn’t we defer to WRITINGS?

    What authors/sources would be most considered if that is case?

    [Ed. A1 S8 does not apply to domestic issues of governance. Look, it would make my job a lot easier if A1 S8 did specifically cite to Vattell. But it doesn’t. I realize the capital letters look sexy in this regard. But the movement is setting itself up for a big downfall if it relies on this bogus interpretation. It’s clever, but misleading and completely legally false.]

  91. Re: […John Woo of the Bush era Justice Department said no treaty could stop our government/military from crushing the testicles of a child to get info from the parent? How do you know what was done and to whom? You think you’re told everything?]

    During a December 2005 debate with noted human rights lawyer Doug Cassel at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Yoo stood by his controversial views on torture. In an apparent recording of the event, which initially seems to have been disseminated on the web by the Revolution blog of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States, Cassel asks Yoo: “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?” Yoo responds saying there was “no treaty” that could stop the president, adding: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.” Efforts by some bloggers, including Simianbrain, to verify the recording, however, raised serious questions about its validity. Both Cassel and a program officer at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations said that they had been unaware of any recording of the debate. When Simianbrain queried Cassel whether the recording was accurate, Cassel responded: “That is my recollection of an exchange during my debate with Yoo before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on Dec. 1, 2005. The Council made no tape or transcript. In fairness, Yoo also said that the U.S. government does not and should not do that; he was making only a point of law (with which I disagree).” http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Yoo_John#_edn6

    [Ed. As far as I know, John Yoo has never denied it.]

    The President’s complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that whether the President “in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief” had appropriately responded to the rebellion of the southern states was a question “to be decided by him” and which the Court could not question, but must leave to “the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted.” (Page 38)
    http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/pdfs/020801.pdf

    It seems that Yoo was arguing a legal point as opposed to advocating the crushing of a child’s testicles.

    As for who knows what about what, if the citizens don’t know then how would other people know what’s “really” going on so they can therefore justify torturing our guys? You know what? They don’t torture people because of us! If you track the outright actions of radical Islam (at Jihad Watch, The Religion of Peace, Atlas Shrugs, etc.) it’s excruciatingly obvious how radically different they treat both prisoners and regular citizens in their own countries–does not compare to anything going on (yet) in the United States. And George Bush didn’t make them do it, they’ve got a long history including this:

    http://www.nevilleawards.com/islamic_rad_history.shtml

    [Ed. Your attitude mirrors that of a judged nation. This country is doomed. Karma is a bitch, America. But it has come. Defend your actions to a higher power. But you can’t. Such thought process and action thereupon does not have the blessing and protection of your creator. I guarantee this to be true. And the punishment is not direct like a slap – it is the clear removal of protection by the creator. This of course is not my legal opinion but rather my personal opinion as a Christian.

    CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA. ]

  92. The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish…. Offenses against the Law of Nations.

    Does thet make The Law of Nations part of the Constitution?

    [Ed. No. This does not refer to Vattell’s treatise. See my other comments in this thread.]

  93. MissTickly Says:

    I am using the division of ‘positive’ and ‘natural’ interchangably with all the sets of divisions in this definition:

    “The law of nations has been divided by writers into necessary and voluntary; or into absolute and arbitrary; by others into primary and secondary, which latter has been divided into customary and conventional. Another division, which is the one more usually employed, is that of the natural and positive law of nation’s. The natural law of nations consists of those rules, which, being universal, apply to all men and to all nations, and which may be deduced by the assistance of revelation or reason, as being of utility to nations, and inseparable from their existence. The positive law of nations consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention.”

    Here is that definition with the word ‘nation’ replaced by ‘states’:

    “The law of states has been divided by writers into necessary and voluntary; or into absolute and arbitrary; by others into primary and secondary, which latter has been divided into customary and conventional. Another division, which is the one more usually employed, is that of the natural and positive law of state’s. The natural law of states consists of those rules, which, being universal, apply to all men and to all states, and which may be deduced by the assistance of revelation or reason, as being of utility to states, and inseparable from their existence. The positive law of states consists of rules and obligations, which owe their origin, not to the divine or natural law, but to human compacts or agreements, either express or implied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention.”

    The note I cited from the de Vattel ‘Law of Nations’ was explicit in the word ‘WRITINGS,’ that’s why I chose it but the words “human agreements..express” (above) I understand as meaning the same thing in this case.

    Using this definition we can say that the law pertaining to ‘natural-born citizenship’ is:
    • NOT defined by convention (The Constitution)
    • NOT found in a human compact either express or implied
    • NOT implied by human agreement (People disagree on this issue–unfortunately it’s on a case-to-case basis)
    • SOMEWHAT established by custom (It’s inconsistent, but ‘custom’ as it pertains to the President is, at MOST, Vattell’s version of ‘natural-born per precedence of most past US presidents.’
    • IS POSSIBLY defined by expressed human agreements (WRITINGS) which in the case of ‘convention’ or the Constitution–there are standards which we look for if we are to look outside of the Constitution itself.

    What authors and works are ‘up to the standards’ and worthy of consideration as it pertains to the Constitution?

    [Ed. You are dealing with a reference to international matters in A1 S8, not domestic issue. This is going nowhere. It’s just clever wordplay of the kind used by those who claim citizenship by statute = nbc. There are a myriad of ways to support a false premice with clever words, but A1 S8 has NOTHING to do with A2 S1 C5.]

  94. liberty4usa Says:

    Concerned citizens of the USA,

    Our “world citizen” president was not kidding.

    I am just learning about this, but see it as related to this discussion.

    The concept of “Sustainable Development” is foreign to most of us, yet it
    is the blueprint of the agenda for control over the people-worldwide, that seems to be marching orders for western leaders now.

    Evidently our “leaders” are sticking to the script, and the US Constitution isn’t part of it.

    Article by Tom Deweese at CFP
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/sustainable-development-the-root-of-all-our-problems1/

    ” Cap N Trade, global warming, population control, gun control, open borders and illegal immigration, higher taxes, higher gas prices, refusal to drill American oil, education restructuring, international IDs, natural health supplement control, food control, farming “reform,” control of private property, NAIS and UN Global Governance are all part of the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 blueprint.”

    Of course the Islamic radicals also have their own agenda that has been in work for centuries.

  95. Tony Stark Says:

    Those Secretary of States will just say, “It’s not our responsibility to verify if BO is eligible or not; it’s the Democratic Party. Besides, if he managed to get into office in 2008, then he must be eligible.”

  96. Voco Indubium Says:

    Attn.: Max

    RE: “This mentality is so foolish & short sighted. You don’t play around with U.S. Constitution.”

    That is one reason why the GOP lost the election. How are you going to fight with an opponent who keeps hitting under the belt? (Look what the media did to Palin and her family.)

    By the way, just heard Michael Medved (radio host) to say that Orly is a “despicable human being” and “she should be disbarred” due to the nbc issue, note not the birthplace issue.

    He called everyone who questions the eligibility equally ghastly names. He called for the media to ignore the issue, because according to Medved this issue is hurting the conservative movement. He did not explain how. He uttered other falsehoods as well.

    The nbc issue is technical and not as simple as the birthplace issue but not rocket science either. How is it possible that highly educated conservative media people are dead set against it? These are not stupid people. The only logical answer is that they have received their marching orders. Does anyone see at differently?

    [Ed. I agree.]

  97. It will never sease to amaze me that people will continue to close the barn door after the cows are out.

    [Ed. Your argument makes no sense. If a candidate was not legally eligible then the election is null and void. KNow your history. Two senators who were elected were found to be ineligible and they were removed and the elections were held to be void and those men were erased from the books as ever having been senators. This is supposed to be a country of laws. I agree it is not, but don’t get all bent out of shape that some us are trying to educate the people. Furthermore, know your history. My law suit was brought prior to the election to have McCain also removed from the ballots.]

    Get over it America wanted Obama and we got him and you do to.

    You wanted Bush and we were stuck with him. Now the country is messed up and many of young die in a war he started.

    God Bless
    Frank

  98. MissTickly Says:

    “U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”

    I am not talking about it referring to anything but the powers Congress is given. Throw out de Vattel all together.

    I don’t see that it’s clear we are talking about international laws or laws that bind the states. Please clarify this by citing something I can look at.

    The fact is, Congress must consider the Constitutional law as it pertains to the ‘natural-born citizenship’ requirement for president when the ratify an election, whether the definition exists by convention or custom. The definition doesn’t exist by convention (the Constitution) but the custom we’ve applied is fairly consistent. This is about Congress’ powers in article I to “define and punish offences against the ‘laws of nations'” AND how it pertains to article II which requires they understand what the law of ‘natural-born citizen’ is, so that they can exercise the power they’re given.

    [Ed. There is no law of natural born citizen in the laws of nations. The only place such a law exists is in A2 S1… A1 S8 has nothing to do with it at all. You came to this forum stating you weren’t a Constitutional scholar. I’m trying to be civil with you about this. You are wrong. Prior to A2 S1 there was no such thing a Presidential requirement relating to natural born citizen. That is a complete creation of the US Constitution and as such the “Law of Nations” referred to in A1 S8 has nothing to do with it.

    The treatise written by Vattell does have something to do with it, but not the way you are alleging. Offences mentioned in A1 S8 are strictly limited to offences perpetrated by those the US may have legal jurisdiction over who are guilty of offences against nations.
    This has nothing to do with usurpation of office which is not a criminal offense. It is listed in the DC Code as a civil action.

    Your argument is unequivocally wrong.]

    And if I understand correctly, given the Congress’ power over defining the offences against the law of nations which are laws that exist by convention or custom; then they violated their power. There is no conventional definition in the Constitution for ‘natural-born citizen’ so they must look at what is customary. Custom weighs heavily in favor of de Vatell’s model because only Chester Arthur may have been the child of only one American Citizen (correct me if I am wrong).

    They understood and defined the ‘law of nations’ outside of their power. The ‘law of nations’ considers ‘custom’ as a ‘complement’ to or in lieu of convention. In every legal definition, not just de Vattel’s.

    According to every definition of ‘law of nations’ Congress would have to consider ‘CUSTOM’ in ‘practice’ as well as ‘relevant writings,’ and the rest, because citizenship is not a natural law, but rather a positive one.

    Therefore, the ratification of BO flies in the face of the following foundation for the ‘natural-born citizenship requirement law’ in article II as we know it per the Constitution’s instructions:

    ‘Law of nations’ as it pertains to the ‘natural-born citizenship’ requirement is:
    • NOT defined by convention (The Constitution)
    • NOT found in a human compact either express or implied
    • NOT implied by human agreement (People disagree on this issue–unfortunately it’s on a case-to-case basis)
    • SOMEWHAT established by custom (Per precedence of most past US presidents.’
    • IS POSSIBLY defined by expressed human agreements (WRITINGS) which in the case of ‘convention’ or the Constitution–there are standards which we look for if we are to look outside of the Constitution itself.

    Congress did not punish the offences of the ‘law of nations’ rather they violated the ‘law of nations.’ BO ratification was illegal.

    Can you clarify why this is wrong?

  99. Att.: bho-boo

    Re: “how do you envision the “end of the republic?”

    The crystal ball, I gaze in, says: Tyranny under Sharia law, coupled with high level of moral and material corruption, as the Constitution will continue to be ignored.

    Look at Europe, they are strongly heading that way. Both US parties seem to like that direction.

  100. leo please comment on this

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/08/conrad-black-why-america-is-sputtering.aspx

    [Ed. The guy is an idiot or a liar. Here is all you need to know about it. he wrote:

    People born on American soil are American citizens, full stop, regardless of their parents’ status in the country. The phrase “natural-born” means that a president cannot be an immigrant himself, not that his parents cannot be immigrants. Nobody imagined that Chester Arthur was ineligible for the presidency because his father was born in Ireland.

    We have NEVER argued that the parents can’t be immigrants. The parents can be immigrants but they must be naturalized US citizens when the child is born so that when the child is born he is not a citizen of another nation.

    As for Chester Arthur, we are not arguing that he was ineligible because his father was an immigrant – we are stating that Chester Arthur was born 14 years before his father became a naturalized citizen – a fact Chester Arthur manged to conceal at the time he was running for VP by giving false statements to the press about his father’s history.
    Regardless, Obama’s father never did.

    If the parents are immigrants who have naturalized as US citizens then then there’s no problem. This person is spreading falsehood propaganda. ]

  101. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “[Ed. I disagree. There will be no violent revolution. No such thing will ever happen again in the US. It would be squashed like a bug.]”

    On this, thank God, you and I agree completely. I support your efforts to bring the case to the Supreme Court. I just don’t think you will win.

    [Ed. It will never get past the Supreme Court to a full review on the merits. Never. They had the chance and passed twice. Cort’s case was even stronger than mine. It was a travesty of justice that they didn’t render an opinion either way.]

  102. Joe The Blogger Says:

    The Constitution Code

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to acknowledge that the use of capital Letters in the Constitution of the united States of America has no Function, other than to denote that the capitalized Word is situated at the beginning of a Sentence or that the capitalized Word is a Noun. Joe the Blogger, 8th August 2009.

    P.S. The Scribe, who had the Honour of writing, in his own Hand, the original Manuscript of the Constitution did, however, lapse into Error on several Occasions. For an Illustration of such an Error, I invite you to peruse the second Line of the said Document, wherein you will discover that the Scribe did not allow sufficient Space to form a capital “D” at the Commencement of the Noun, “Defence”, and was left with the unpalatable Choice of either leaving a glaring Space, which would have drawn Attention to his lack of Foresight, or, in the alternative, forming a small “d” at the Commencement of the Noun, “defence”. The scribe chose the latter Alternative, as the lesser of the two Evils, not least, because Spaces must not be inserted into the Body of legal Documents, which might thereafter be exploited by an unscrupulous Felon to insert, extraneous Words, in order, thereby, to change the original Intent of the Law. This is of absolute Necessity, whether it be in this Law of our Nation or indeed within other Nations or, indeed, in the Law of Nations. Elsewhere the Scribe formed the Noun “nothing” in Error, rather than “Nothing”. I invite you to examine, with close scrutiny, the Entirety of the Constitution, in Order that you might discover further Errors of this Type. These Errors were not considered to be of any significance or importance by the Framers of the Constitution, for if they had been considered to be such, then they would undoubtedly have listed these Errors, along with the Errors of Omission at the Footnote to the original Manuscript of the said Constitution. Joe the Blogger, 8th August 2009.

  103. MissTickly Says:

    Congress isn’t given the power to define the ‘law of nations,’ they define the offences against it.

    The law of nations is static–always made up of the same ingredients (natural and positive law) whether it is applied to the states as political bodies or international political bodies. Positive law, by any name, considers custom (including precedence & writings). In lieu of conventional definition, ‘custom’ is all Congress can consider when they enforce Article II.

    Congress can’t define the law of natural born citizenship without enacting a new law, right, making it conventional? If they ratified BO against our custom, then the ratification is illegal.

  104. “In a State where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.” – Tacitus

    “We are twice armed if we fight with faith.” – Plato

  105. maggiew65 Says:

    The onslaught against our republic began right after the Constitution
    was written in 1790/91 with the enforced nationalization of the war
    debt from the revolution. Some states paid off their debts in a timely
    manner while others did not. Between Hamilton and Madison they came
    up with the Assumption which would force the states to nationalize the
    debt, beginning the stripping the sovereignty from the individual states.
    Virginia the hardest against this threat, but selling out for the price of
    having the new federal capital along the Potomac. So the efforts started
    from the beginning. And then in 1861 the true destruction of our
    constitutional began, and we are now seeing the culmination of the
    destruction done to our governance, liberty, and personal freedoms.

    There is another site that is keeping an update on this travesty.
    http://patdollard.com/2009/08/clearing-the-smoke-on-obamas-birth-certificate/#comment-508397

  106. MissTickly Says:

    Seems to me a ‘universal ‘application of the ‘law of nations’ would include laws against citizens with foreign allegiances infiltrating the governments of other nations.

    [Ed. You would be dead wrong about that. In fact, that very issue was discussed in a letter from Edmund Randolph to George Washington dated May 6, 1793. The letter concerns the law of nations as referenced in the Constitution as well as the treatise by Vattell who is quoted by Randolph in the letter. The letter holds the answer to your question:

    “If the imputations on the prevailing party there were ever so heinous, and her new government ever so unstable, a correspondence must be maintained between the U.S. and her. Ministers are the necessary instruments for such an object. As it can injure no nation, so far to indulge a speculation in favor of the existing authority of a country, as to accept its minister; so the refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65)That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear by the following passages in the same author. (Book 4. C. 5. S. 68) “Before I close this chapter, it will be proper to examine a question, famous for being often debated, whether foreign nations may receive ambassadors and other ministers of an usurper, and send such ministers to him. Here foreign powers, if the advantage of their affairs invites them to it, follow possession; there is no rule more certain, or more agreeable to the law of nations, and the independency of them. As foreigners have no right to interfere in the domestic concerns of a people, they are not obliged to canvass and inspect its oeconomy in those particulars, or to weigh either the justice or injustice of them. They may, if they think proper, suppose the right to be annexed to the possession. When a nation has expelled its sovereign, the other powers, which are not willing to declare against it, and would not draw on themselves its arms or enmity, consider that nation as a free and sovereign state, without taking upon themselves to determine, whether it has acted justly in withdrawing from the allegiance of subjects and dethroning the prince. Cardinal Mazarine received Lockhart, who had been sent as ambassador from the republic of England, and would neither see King Charles the second, nor his ministers. If a nation after driving out its prince, submits to another, or changes the order of succession, and acknowledges a sovereign to the prejudice of the natural and appointed heir; foreign powers may here likewise consider, what has been done, as legal; it is no quarrel or business of theirs.”

  107. MissTickly Says:

    [There is no law of natural born citizen in the laws of nations. ]

    The ‘law of nations’ is a science, not a list of laws. The ingredients as I said are natural and positive laws. You are using it as a proper noun/title/name above–what are you referring to?

    [Ed. I was referring to your post. I thought you were stating that the law of nbc was codified in laws of nations. Regardless, A1 S8 has nothing to do with the meaning of nbc in A2 S1.]

  108. MissTickly,

    We all know the State of Hawaii will not release a certified copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate to anyone who does not have a “tangible interest in the record”.

    But have you tried to get a Letter of Verification instead?

    Letters of Verification

    Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

    Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

    The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

    [Ed. Interesting.]

  109. MissTickly Says:

    [Ed. You would be dead wrong about that. In fact, that very issue was discussed in a letter from Edmund Randolph to George Washington dated May 6, 1973. The letter concerns the law of nations as referenced in the Constitution as well as the treatise by Vattell who is quoted by Randolph in the letter. The letter holds the answer to your question:

    Thank you! This is what I wanted know.

  110. Joe The Blogger Says:

    The Constitution Code – corrected

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to acknowledge that the use of capital Letters in the Constitution of the united States of America has no Function, other than to denote that the capitalized Word is situated at the beginning of a Sentence or that the capitalized Word is a Noun. Joe the Blogger, 8th August 2009.

    P.S. The Scribe, who had the Honour of writing, in his own Hand, the original Manuscript of the Constitution did, however, lapse into Error on several Occasions. For an Illustration of such an Error, I invite you to peruse the second Line of the said Document, wherein you will discover that the Scribe, by the extravagant Formation of the Tail of the Letter “f” of the Word “of” in the Line above, did not allow sufficient Space to form a capital “D” at the Commencement of the Noun, “Defence”, and was left with four unpalatable Choices; firstly, overlapping a capital “D” with the Tail of the “f”, which would have appeared unsightly and confusing; secondly, leaving a glaring Space, which would have drawn Attention to his lack of Foresight; thirdly, forming a small “d” at the Commencement of the Noun, “defence”, which would be inconsistent with his style of writing; or forthly, to tear up the Parchment and begin anew, with a new Parchment, which would have been wasteful of Time and Money. The Scribe chose the third Alternative, as the least of the four Evils, not least, because Spaces must not be inserted into the Body of legal Documents, which might thereafter be exploited by an unscrupulous Felon to insert, extraneous Words, in order, thereby, to change the original Intent of the Law. This is of absolute Necessity, whether it be in this Law of our Nation or indeed within other Nations or, indeed, in the Law of Nations. Elsewhere the Scribe formed the Noun “nothing” in Error, rather than “Nothing”. I invite you to examine, with close scrutiny, the Entirety of the Constitution, in Order that you might discover further Errors of this Type. These Errors were not considered to be of any significance or importance by the Framers of the Constitution, for if they had been considered to be such, then they would undoubtedly have listed these Errors, along with the Errors of Omission at the Footnote to the original Manuscript of the said Constitution. Joe the Blogger, 8th August 2009.

  111. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo.

    For those that are interested, high-quality downloadable jpeg images of the original manuscripts of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights are available here – http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

    Note the original form of NBC in Article II, section 1, clause 5 is – natural born Citizen – with only the noun ‘Citizen’ capitalized, and no hyphen between the adjectives ‘natural’ and ‘born’, which describe the noun ‘Citizen’.

    [Ed. Thank you for the link. Nice to have a readable file of the original C. Also interesting point about the capital. Please explain any significance you may give it.]

  112. maggiew65 Says:

    Is your blog of lower court off line?
    Can’t create/write to file ‘/tmp/#sql2e28_57c8c_c.MYI’ (Errcode: 122)

    The error message when trying to access it.

    Thanks

    [Ed. I’m a bit confused. Please explain. What blog is offline?]

  113. JP-research Says:

    The grocery story tabloid – The Globe – has the eligibility issue for its cover story, with the source claiming O was born in Canada… a new twist.

    [Ed. I was in The Globe twice this year over this issue. You have no idea how surreal it is to go buy groceries and find yourself mentioned in the cover story whilst reading the rag waiting online. Truly insane.]

  114. http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-to-do-a-lot-of-talking/comment-page-40/#comment-2501511
    Read the comments, I threw in my 2 cents…people hate the arrogant ass especially after he sicked his thugs and told Americans to shut up!

  115. WhateverisRight Says:

    LEO – This was posted on Orly’s website from Someone — Your opinion?
    _________________________________________________________

    The Law of Nations is quoted in the Constitution
    This was posted on Citizen Wells and and Natural Born Citizen.

    You Article II s.1′er guys are just going to love this………THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!!

    Greg Goss wrote:

    The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

    EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
    The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
    Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

    EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
    The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

    Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
    ————
    US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment.
    Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis
    Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.

    “In God We Trust” (and ONLY God!)

    [Ed. It’s not accurate at all. See my other comments in this thread about this very issue. Everybody is asking me about this and my answer is that the person espousing this is 100% wrong.]

  116. MissTickly Says:

    The letter you pasted implies the Constitution is, indeed, referring to de Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ …

    [Ed. Snip. This issue is done. It’s going to do more damage than good to keep discussing it. You are wrong. The letter to Washington is dated years after the Constitution was adopted. It’s not even in dispute that the framers relied on Vattell while drafting the Constitution. I’m certainly not disputing that. I’m a proponent of it.

    But Vattell made rerefence to the “law of nations” many times and his treatise is actually called “Law of Nations” and there was a similar legal text published prior to Vattell’s with the same title. The law of nations concerns international affairs and it has NOTHING to do with domestic Presidential requirements.

    If you want to keep discussing this issue, do it somewhere else. I will not allow this blog to become hijacked by a false legal theory. I am a lawyer. I am absolutely certain I am correct on this issue. I am not going to allow it to confuse my readers. Finito.]

    [Ed. PS. Please read my prior post VATTELL DECODED; TWO MINUTE WARNING.]

  117. MissTickly Says:

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

    There were ten U.S. presidents born before the adoption of the Constitution, and who thus could not be “natural born” U.S. citizens but were eligible given the ‘at the time of the Adoption…’ requirement in Article II.

    When Martin Van Buren’s election was ratified, the Article II requirement of “natural born” status to be eligible was enacted for the first time and has been consistent since.

    I know you have pointed out violation of this by Chester Arthur, and now of course Obama but there was no amendment this law–it stays as it was originally enacted: Arthur was not legal, Obama is not legal.

    Whether the Article II NBC requirement was influenced from another nation’s laws and/or eminent author’s doesn’t matter…

    …since the beginning of it’s application in presidential elections it’s always been customary that the president have two parents for us citizens.

    We know from onset of Article II’s application, what the founder’s intended by ‘NBC’.

  118. Doesn’t the fact that A2S1 simply uses the word “OR” between NBC and Citizen @ ratification, powerfully mean they absolutely cannot be the same terms? And so any Citizen defined by 14th cannot be NBC? “OR” in the legal dictionary means alternative or either.

    [Ed. This is the argument I made in my Marbury v. Madison post. I believe you have it correct. If they were the same then A2 S1 C5 would be rendered superfluous.]

  119. MissTickly Says:

    Didn’t you say Chester Arthur obfuscated his father’s citizenship and when he acquired it? Kind of an admission that he understood eligibility to hinge on have TWO parents who are U.S. Citizens.

    [Ed. You should go back through this blog and read my coverage of prior Presidents eligiblity. and the discovery – made right here at this blog – that Chester Arthur was a British Subject at birth and therefore a usurper. There is alot of stuff to catch up on. Your point was made in those posts.]

    Furthermore, his father did eventually become a citizen, so both his parents were at least U.S. citizens when he ran for office.

    [Ed. Correct, but not relevant to the nbc issue since that concerns the status at birth not 14 years later. Regardless, not only was Obama’s father never a US citizen, he was never permanently domiciled here.]

    Anyway, seems there’s room for custom and common law when Congress fails to act. Surely, the founders didn’t expect us to not try to find an answer within the framework if none outside were obvious. They didn’t write Article II if they wanted us to ignore it.

  120. French Montrealer Says:

    Bush kept you safe. There was no other attacks while he was there. The terrorists feared him and respected him. Usurper Obama will get you all killed. But hey! You hate Bush, so why would you care?

    [ed. The Bush administration are guilty of war crimes. The murder of innocent children. BUt you go on thinking he’s a hero and going to church on Sunday. Your God has judged this nation. He has. And if you are a believer you will certainly be privy to a document of spiritual prosecution from on high. Perhaps your name will be indicted. Bush didn’t keep us safe. He made us very unsafe. I don’t hate Bush. I pray for him. You have me confused with somebody that does’t understand the teaching of Lord Jesus Christ who said,

    “Love your enemies.”
    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
    “Turn the other cheek.”

    Fake Christians twist the Lord’s word but I accept them as Gospel for the Lord was Lamb of the world. Lamb. But spiritually a lion.]

  121. ElmerFudd Says:

    “…His status at birth controls that. But the people deserve to know whether their President has allegiance, technical or otherwise, to any foreign nations. If he does have such with Great Britain, then at the very least he ought to publicly renounce the same as is required by British law to divest him of the relationship….”

    Well we don’t know if an explicit act of renunciation is required for that particular category. You’d need to check that point in British law. Naturalized British citizens automatically lose their citizenship if they take up the citizenship of another country. I it quite likely that Obama forfeited whatever entitlement he had to a form of British nationality a) at Kenyan independence or b) the first time he did anything as a US citizen (e.g. first time he was entered into his mother’s passport, etc.).

    Kenyan law will be simpler, being a republic, and it seems that it excluded dual citizenship from the get-go (as most all countries do these days).

    [Ed. I have the law for each stage quite explicitly researched and documented. All t’s wiill be crossed and the i’s dotted.]

    What’s left of your point by this stage is that “natural born citizen” should exclude anyone who had the remotest claim to another nationality at birth. However, what you are doing with that point is making the eligibility for president at least in some cases contingent on what rights other countries extend to persons born within the US, and I don’t think an argument of that type would be admissible in US law.

    [Ed. No. I’ve seen this argument before and it is a red herring as it poses the question backwards. I am relying on US law which recognizes that an alien father has every legal right and effect of conveying citizenship via Jus Sanguinis upon his son. This is not some wacky theory, it’s settled law. The US can’t strip a person of their inherited right of of citizenship within another nation. That’s preposterous.]

    I mean, what if some country unilaterally decided to offer its citizenship to all persons born in the United States – then nobody would ever be eligible for president any more!

    [Ed. That’s not what happened here. This was citizenship by the blood of the father. And such citizenship is not remote or far fetched. It is real. Your hypothetical has been discussed on this blog numerous times. I’ve printed your letter in full. Please do not raise the issue again.]

    Last point of mine, then I’m done: all of what you say applies two- and threefold to John McCain, who unlike Obama was not even born on US administered territory, but in Panama – OUTSIDE the Canal Zone. And of course to President Chester Arthur, without a doubt: his father was an alien when he was born.

    [Ed. You’re preaching to the choir my friend. I sued to have John McCain removed from the ballots in New Jersey as well as Obama – prior to the election. I have made the case over and over that McCain was not eligible. But the main stream media like to forget that fact about me.]

  122. letter from Edmund Randolph to George Washington dated May 6, 1973.
    small note on the date Leo. 1773??

    [Ed. It was a typo. I’ve fixed it. Thanks.]

  123. naturalborncitizen Says:

    To Messenger:

    You have no idea how deep my knowledge is of “all that jazz”. Prophecy is in me.

  124. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    In your comments to Linda Starr, you mention you are a Christian. I am glad to read that. As a Christian, you know that a nation can beg for forgivness, and God will listen and forgive. It is the same for the individual. Perhaps we all need to work on that.

    Yes, our actions in Iraq have gone horribly wrong. We did not, however, operate in a vaccum.

    I followed (and wept over) the atrocities commited by devout Muslims against non-muslims for over eight years BEFORE 9/11. I do not call them “radical”, but devout, because they are only following MO’s example. You will not find the history of Muhammad’s (may peace be upon his victims) actions in the Kor’an, but in the Hadiths. The death toll of Islamic zeal for the 20th century is in the hundreds of thousands (millions if you cover the Armenian genocide.)

    You blame our nation on the questionable accusation of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, but not those who engaged our soldiers in the first place and drew their fire. Why? Where is your compassion for the victims of the other side?

    [Ed. Where do I “not” blame anybody? Either we are a just nation or we are a nation hell bent on revenge at all costs. The simple question you should ask – as a Christian (not speaking of citizen) is what would Jesus do? Who would Jesus bomb? It’s a very simple question. What do you think the answer would be?]

    If we fought WW2 the way Iraq was fought and lost (not to mention how Afganistan is being lost ) things would be much different today. Obama being born in Hawaii would make him a Japanese citizen. Sarah Palin would be either Japanese, or Russian. You, Mr. Donofrio, would most likely be a US citizen, but fluent in German.

    One missionary group, The Voice of the Marytrs, estimates 165,000 Christians have died for their faith every year since 1900. If I had the time, I would supply you with reams of documentation to back up what I have written. Instead, I will forward a few websites if you wish.

    [Ed. Defending others against the Nazis is one thing, invading Iraq as we did and killing all those innocents is something else. Furthermore, I am not sure that Jesus would have even allowed us to pick up arms against invaders like the nazis. He was the lamb and I have always wondered whether he was telling us it is better to be killed than to kill. It’s not easy to answer that question in the face of such evil as the Nazis. I know that. I do not pretend to know the correct answer nor do I believe those who did are going to hell because of their military service in WWII. But striking a nation like Iraq for 911 when the nation of Iraq was not responsible was both immoral and unconstitutional. War can only be declared by Congress against another nation – not against a concept like terrorism or drugs. These are police matters, not matters for our national military. We had a crime scene – the biggest crime scene one could imagine – and the forensic evidence was shipped off to China.

    Our military needs to come home. They are not making us safer by being over there in Iraq or Afghanistan. North Korea just threatened to nuke us. That’s a threat our military needs to address. Stopping terrorism here in the US is a matter for our police and FBI. Killing hundreds of thousand of civilians is wrong. We are not safer because of it. We are in more danger because of it. The ideology of a crusade against Islam has now been stoked beyond repair and that was always the intention of the Iraq war IMHO. It was designed to create hatred of America and it has succeeded. It was also designed to create the conditions which Obama would be accepted as the savior and world leader. And it has succeeded in that regard as well. And yes, this is a conspiracy theory. Nothing I can prove, just something I deeply believe is true.]

  125. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the greatest of all Founding Fathers said: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and Government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

    “When the people fear their Government, there is tyranny; when the Government fears the people, there is liberty.”

    [Ed. Good points. When do you think the last time the Government feared the people was?]

  126. Whistleblower Says:

    Some say; the votes of the Electors have been counted, and the House has determined our president in accordance with the law.

    In 1804 Chief Justice Marshall declared, in the case of The Charming Betsey (2 Cranch,64, US):

    “An act of Congress should never be construed to violate the Law of Nations if any other possible construction remains.”

  127. Leo, you can post this or not, that is up to you.

    Why did Simon Keph (Peter) carry a sword?

    And it says in the NT that no one of mankind has seen Yahweh the father at any time nor has heard his voice. (John 1:18, and Joh 5:37 And the Father (i.e., father Yahweh), the One sending Me, has Himself borne witness concerning Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor have you seen His form. (And see 1 John 4:12.) This is not counting visions or Yahushua before he became a fleshly adam.

    So if no one of mankind (except Yahushua, aka Jesus) has seen father Yahweh at any time, then who was Yahweh that spoke face to face with men, ate with them, etc., in the OT?
    Later after the Israelities crossed the Red Sea (i.e., Suph Sea), they stated: Exo 15:3 Yahweh is a Man of war; Yahweh is His name. The Scriptures are full of people having to go to war, Leo. All of mankind has the right to defend itself and especially when provoked and hit first.

    [Ed. New Covenant.]

  128. Jesus counsel to his disciples in light of His coming crucifixion, when he would no longer be physically present in their lives was:
    Luke 22:35-36 (New International Version)

    35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
    “Nothing,” they answered.

    36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    Individuals will answer for their sins at judgment, unless they have accepted Jesus full payment for their sin on the cross.

    But the point remains – should we now just give up on our constitution because of wrong decisions in the past? Or should we still strive to do better – to correct wrong for the sake of the children who will inherit this nation?
    do we just give up and let total evil rule?

    [Ed. I haven’t told anyone to give up. I still write here and accept no donations or advertising or any proceeds at all. I do it to fight. I just don’t believe it’s going to make any difference. But I write here knowing that I can’t tell the future and perhaps I may be wrong about the will of the people. So I do what I can to the best of my ability to speak legal truth. But I honestly don’t believe this country has any moral authority at all. And I also believe the Creator has removed his protection – not from all poeple – but from this nation as a concept. The people bear responsibility – not as much as the criminals but certainly a share goes to citizens. We have allowed the coming destruction of the nation. I don’t believe it can be reversed. But I don’t believe we should stop trying either. I carry on for this reason. I just don’t see a good ending.]

  129. And the war on terror is a myth. “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology.

    How, pray tell, can a country so disastrously attacked (the intent, as organized, was to do far greater damage, even to the center of government itself, than was realized) by your “ideology” then immediately defend itself against those whose organized whereabouts are known? Wait for eons of international permission when information predicts further attacks? These kinds of situations are also provided for as they do not come under established international agreements. In fact, such groups of our present time are better organized than “foreign states” as known to exist, and therefore demand, by basic natural rights of self defense and preservation, the necessity for countering in order to prevent national ruin.

    At times, going against natural common sense evolving from good, formed conscience, we lag in our duties to protect to the point of losing our reason and such huge displays of this come to us in the very legal right to kill now 50,000,000 of our own citizens – because we somehow find ways to defend the indefensible, protecting the killers rather than the vulnerable.

    [Ed. First you have a proper criminal investigation not a dog and pony show where the case is solved in 24 hours or less by the very same people who “allegedly” failed to stop it. Instead, much of the crime scene was not protected and the evidence was shipped off to China. The video of the Pentagon is seriously lacking compared to what they must have confiscated. So many real questions remain and all of them should have been answered before we killed one person. But the media made the case even telling us about the collapse of Building 7 before it went down, before anyone knew it was coming down. The building wasn’t hit by a plane. I’m not going to allow this blog to become a 911 discussion. There are plenty of places for that. I’m just saying that the nation has allowed itself to be deceived and most people are too arrogant to admit that they could have been deceived. The media has cornered the market at sarcasm

    Jon Stewart
    Bill Maher
    Jon Colbert
    Chris Matthews

    four of the most dangerous men in the country

    if they mock you and people laugh, then the truth be damned.

    When Mos Def was on with Bill Maher, he raises many questions but Maher was respectful because he would have lost street cred for mocking Mos Def – but other “truthers” get the full treatment. Bill Maher is a fraud and a kept ponyboy fed a script and told what to say as are the others.

    In an honest debate, given equal time – the right people would destroy these agents of change. I know I would on the nbc issue and I know of 911 experts who would do the same.

    These shills protect Obama’s change. And change has come.]

  130. So Marbury and the term “OR” in A2s1cl5 mean NBC can never be in the 14th, consistent with Minor. But the term “mutually exclusive” is incorrect since a NBC is a citizen but a citizen is not always an NBC; what is the pure logic expression for this, anyone?

  131. So you’re saying he’s president aint nothin’ SCOTUS could (nor would) do about that, we have an installed usurper, period end of story. If Obamacare passes and TX refuses it and the feds try to push it, might TX secede, might not other states secede given the illegitimacy of POTUS (resident, not president)? Edwyn Viera said that the union based on an contractually illegitimate POTUS is null and void, so any state may secede at will, any treaty, appointment, debt, owing understanding, is illegitimate. Obamacare is so draconian that it will be the “push comes to shove” test of the coup. Can’t the states just go their merry way?

    [Ed. SCOTUS could have done someting about it prior to the election. I don’t think they can do anything about it now except if the issue comes to them in aid of their appellate jurisdiction via Quo Warranto or Impeachment and conviction in the Senate. But seriously folks…]

  132. Leo says:
    [Ed. Torture sets a standard that when our soldiers are caught, nobody will have any mercy when the issue of their being tortured is raised. If somebody was torturing you, you’re tell them whatever they wanted to know just to make them stop. It’s not reliable information.]

    Leo,
    This is what I was raised to believe. When reality is opposite what you have been told you have to look at the evidence. The information obtained from waterboarding 5 subjects was instrumental for the CIA and homeland security. The fact remains, that in EVERY conflict (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Afganistan, and even our own civil war) our soldiers have been tortured. These were uniformed soldiers, and should have been protected under the geneva convention, for many of the conflicts. The reality is that our enemies have no intention of giving up torture, especially the enemies that don’t wear uniforms. The other reality is that specific useful information can be obtained without bodily injury. What I was told, and you profess, doesn’t mesh with real world facts or history. No, I’m not for torture..but I’m not ignorant to the reality around me.

  133. Have you seen the story called “Natural-born’ — The most un-American section of the Constitution” link:http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/08/natural-.html

    [Ed. Propaganda.]

  134. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    I do not take issue with your desire to obey the Lord as best you can. Nor do I wish to try to justify our policies for I have already agreed with you our actions in Iraq have gone wrong. I take issue with the accusation from you and others that our soldiers are guilty of killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I rise to their defense.

    [Ed. I don’t put legal blame on the soldiers. They were following orders supported by the nation at large. I blame the administration NOT the soldiers.]

    Who would Jesus bomb? Tuff question. I think the best Scripture for that is from Paul the Aspostle in the Book of Romans. Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 to 6. This is the foundation for the “Just War Doctrine”.

    “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that wihich God has established.

    [Ed. Whoa! That’s Paul talking – not Jesus. Big difference. I don’t believe everything Paul has to say. That’s just me. I don’t belong to any church. I believe in Jesus and that he gave his life for us and that he was the Messiah. The rest can get very murky for me. Paul is murky.]

    The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebeling against what God has instituted, and those who do so bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Romans 13: 1-6 NIV.

    What God has ordained in our country is a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. When the Twin Towers fell, we rallied ’round the only President we had. His admin. said we had to go into Iraq. They presented evidence of Sadam’s evil crimes (Sadam killed hundreds of thousands and was trying to gain WMD’s). The Baath Party was indeed modeled after the Nazi Party of WW2. CONGRESS APPROVED THAT VENTURE (and can pull the plug on it at any time). Our military toppled Sadam’s govenment and our government sought to establish a new Iraqi government after what God had ordained for us (maybe that is where we went wrong). Elements within the Ummah did not see us as liberators, but occupiers. Opportunists allied with Iran saw this as a chance to settle the score against Sunnis allied with Sadam and the Baathists.

    At every opportunity, in order to keep Iraq as chaotic as possible, THEY ATTACKED OUR SOLDIERS and any Iraqi supporting our soldiers’ mission. Our enemies ( call them terrorist, insurgents, whatever you wish) terrorised as much of the population as they could. They bombed anyone not allied with themselves. They would shoot people in the legs so they could not run away, then draw fire to that location so innocents would be killed by American soldiers just trying to stay alive. They caused as much collateral damage as possible and mounted a propaganda campaign to blame that collateral damage on our military.

    [Ed. Agreed.]

    As a former “grunt”, I refuse to see this from any other perspective than that of a grunt. Once you experience the gut-wrenching guilt of knowing you lived while your comrades died, you no longer give much of a damn who is in a building when some bastard in that building is trying to kill your men. You stop that person from killing your buddies.

    Now, Leo Donofrio, what has God ordained you to do? I sincerely hope it is to preserve our Constitution.

  135. Tony Stark Says:

    Looking at ElmerFudd’s post, I see that he has raised the false issue again of saying that US law can simply ignore Obama’s UK citizenship that he inherited from his father at birth. That’s like saying that it’s okay for other countries, eg. Spain, to strip the US citizenship of a child born to an American couple posted there on business and make it a citizen only of their own country. Civilized nations follow the golden rule when it comes to respecting citizenship laws of other countries especially as it pertains to visiting nationals and jus sanguinis is an accepted principle by nations governed by the rule of law.

  136. [ed. I’m just angered that we have been divided and conquered by the political party left right dichotomy of which George Washington spoke in the quoted text I used today. I was going to go with a much longer quote like this: snip]

    My question is why not bring action only on the DNC, it officers and chairperson at the time?

    What my SOS and I gather from others it was these folks legal duty to make sure those they put forward would meet muster. That might get the foot in the door so to speak.

    [Ed. Nobody is stopping anybody from doing that. I’ve personally lost all faith in our court system. I have none left. IT reeks with corruption and I do not see that changing… ever. That being sais, I don’t believe in the law suit you are contemplating.]

  137. Why not go after both parties?

    Both were frauds on the people.

    [Ed. I agree.]

  138. Wake up America Says:

    It’s time to take action people. Mr. Donofrio, Mr. Phil Berg, Dr. Taitz and several others have and are still working hard to get you people to wake up.
    Organize a one week nationwide protest and demand the truth. Stop the insanity before it’s too late. Your government is totally corrupted and they are affecting the whole world. Get rid of Obama and hold a new election where you can elect someone wth integrity like Ron Paul. He would clean house; get rid of the Federal Reserve and the Security and Exchange Commission, bring back the troops, cut foreign spending, cut government and government spending and stop all the nonsense. You need a real leader but you must start by forcing out the current loonatics running your country.

    [Ed. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Unfortunately, he has shown no spine on the eligibility issue at all.]

    Take the example of Europeans who march right up to the government offices and protest with microphones and banners and demand answers, block the major highway roads by lining up trucks for miles on end, public transportation workers don’t go to work to avoid the majority of the population to go to work. Bring the whole country to a grinding halt to show that enough is enough.

  139. Instead, much of the crime scene was not protected

    Could you please, if you are able to be as specific as you seem to desire others to properly be, describe – specifically – what tthe parameters of this “crime scene/s” for investigation by individual FBI/local crime personnel could have been? The picture of a few serious individuals plowing through mountains of steel and concrete is quite a cartoon. To members of the bereaved it already appeared to contain an overabundance of meticulous “panning for gold” than the human heart could manage to patiently abide. Your proposal does have the appearance of sifting gnats and swallowing camels with a cavalier avoidance of the real time element necessarily involved. Even real one on one local crimes lose their solving potential after 24 hours.

    [Ed. How about not shipping off steel from the WTC to China and investigatig for thermite or other explosives? I suggest everyone read this article concerning very powerful super thermite found at WTC site. ]

    As far as convincing established slanted courts (good grief, look how they must accept the brutality of dismemberment of the unborn solely based on a couple of individual votes) and an established congress made up of seared consciences, the only way to dig ourselves out is by what is happening now. A battle must be waged between good and evil – real choice … by the people. Since no one can stand individually with a spine any longer, there has to be the uprising of the many to “force” some foundation under the usual cowards. And, sadly, with the present ruling powers coming from the philosophy of “might makes right” – at least in our own country – as is the usual modus operandi of Chicago, any such uprising of the usually “silent majority” will cause an ever increasing push back of practiced thuggery. The true rule of law means nothing to them – especially in times of the fruits of generations of disobedience. So, people may just have to undress their proper rules of one sided respect (even knowledge) for the Constitution and be willing to defend their families and moral institutions, literally on the streets, or even in their own homes when it comes to that. Even if the law would ever win out in some honest court, the necessary results would probably cause the same anarchy anyway due to the unbelievable disillusionment and self interest of today’s unruly masses. Just living in that “real world” you mentioned!

    [Ed. It does feel like this is what we are coming to – and by design.]

  140. Whistleblower Says:

    From “Reason over Precedents: Origins of American Legal Thought”
    -by Craig Evan Klafter; Greenwood Press, 1993

    “No doubt, during the colonial period, the civil law was occasionally studied alongside the common law. But its greatest impact and proliferation was achieved after the Revolution when its usefulness in helping to create new law was realized. Among the civil law treatises most frequently read in America’s post-Revolutionary law schools, in order of the number of copies published, were: Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments; Jean Jacques Burlamaqui , The Principles of Natural Law (1748); Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations . . .; Georg Friedrich von Martens, Summary of the Law of Nations . . .; Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron Brède et de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws; Hugo Grotius, The Right of War and Peace; Samuel Freiherr von Pufendorf , The Law of Nature and Nations . . .; Jean Domat, The Civil Law in its Natural Order . . .; and Henry Home, Lord Kames, Principles of Equity. These texts were widely available in America either through the publication of American editions or through the importation of British editions, and all of the foreign language texts were available in English translations. As a result, law students who did not attend vocational law schools also frequently read these treatises.”

    A review of the most published; “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” by Cesare Beccaria; in Chapter 4 “Of the interpretation of laws”, Beccaria says;

    “There is nothing more dangerous than the common axiom, the spirit of the laws is to be considered. To adopt it is to give way to the torrent of opinions. This may seem a paradox to vulgar minds, which are more strongly affected by the smallest disorder before their eyes, than by the most pernicious though remote consequences produced by one false principle adopted by a nation.”

    At the end of that same chapter, Beccaria presents a rather profound and relevant statement;

    “These principles will displease those who have made it a rule with themselves to transmit to their inferiors the tyranny they suffer from their superiors. I should have every thing to fear if tyrants were to read my book; but tyrants never read.”

    The second most published book, “The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, Chapter XII provides us with appropriate insight and direction;

    “There are several sorts of ignorance, and error, whose different divisions it is proper for us to observe. 1. Error, considered in respect to its object, is either of the law or of the fact. 2. With regard to its origin, ignorance is voluntary or involuntary, error is vincible or invincible. 3. In relation to the influence of the error on a particular affair or action, it is esteemed essential or accidental.”

    “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” by Cesare Beccaria was printed and sold by R. Bell, next door to St. Paul’s Church, on Third-Street in Philadelphia, PA. (1778)

    “The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui was translated into English in 1752.

    These were the popular references for the post-revolutionary lawyer. According to government archives, 34 of the 55 who attended the convention were lawyers.

    Leo,

    If you have never read “An Essay on Crimes and Punishment”; you should. WOW! What a great read. -It should be mandatory for Congress.

    BTW -Neither of the two most popular books discuss “natural born citizen”. The Essay, however, does discuss the father-son relationship.

  141. So I do what I can to the best of my ability to speak legal truth.

    And you do a very fine job of that. Well done, good and faithful servant.

    But I honestly don’t believe this country has any moral authority at all. And I also believe the Creator has removed his protection – not from all poeple – but from this nation as a concept.

    A recommend book regarding the Creator and this nation’s history:

    Did Columbus believe that God called him west to undiscovered lands? Does American democracy owe its inception to the handful of Pilgrims that settled at Plymouth? If, indeed, there was a specific, divine call upon this nation, is it still valid today? The Light and the Glory answers these questions and many more for history buffs. As readers look at their nation’s history from God’s point of view, they will begin to have an idea of how much we owe to a very few–and how much is still at stake. Now revised and expanded for the first time in more than thirty years, The Light and the Glory is poised to show new readers just how special their country is.

  142. But have you tried to get a Letter of Verification instead?

    [Ed. Interesting.]

    Supply the information that Obama made public on the COLB, as well as the supposed birth location of Kapi’olani Medical Center.

    If the State of Hawaii can’t verify that information, then the fraud is revealed…

    [Ed. THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT. Somebody do this and do it publicly with some hooplah. Excellent concept.]

    Why is that important? Because even the people who don’t understand or agree that Obama is ineligible because his father and he were British subjects at birth can still understand fraud and cover-up.

    On this thirty-fifth anniversary of the day President Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the Watergate scandal, people are reminded of how much they dislike cover-ups and how they voted for a candidate who promised to be “open, transparent, and accountable”.

    It the State of Hawaii cannot verify that what Obama has said about his own birth is true, then a majority of “We the People” will demand he be removed from office.

    [Ed. The statement was used to get charitable contributions. There are laws demanding that it be true. This is certainly the BEST avenue of BC discovery.]

    I believe that the “original vital record” of Obama’s birth, on record in Hawaii, is nothing more than the sworn statement of one of his relatives. I do not believe that it is a hospital birth certificate signed by a doctor. Even if I am wrong about that, I believe that he was subsequently adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his last name was changed to Soetoro.

    From the very first time I saw the online .JPG of “Obama’s COLB”, I thought it was a forgery.

    We may now have a way, via a “Letter of Verification” to see if the State of Hawaii will verify the story Obama has told.

  143. Jon Stewart
    Bill Maher
    Jon Colbert
    Chris Matthews
    add in Michael Medved
    WHAT IS IN IT FOR THESE EVIL ENEMIES OF AMERICANS?
    Did they take huge payoffs? Were they threatened? Or are they complicit?

    [Ed. Only they can answer that question.]

  144. “Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name.”

    I’m not buying into this theory either. There’s too much evidence against it. This whole Vattel thing is getting totally blown out of proportion to the point where it’s going to be held up like a banner just like the banners that read: “Where’s the birth certificate?” It takes no study. It takes no research. These people look for easy answers instead of taking the time to read the reasons behind the Revolution, the early legislative history and the first judicial records. That’s the only place where the INTENT of the Framers can be found.

    Instead, they rely on a foreign swiss philosopher and beat it like a dead horse. And why? Because they never read anything else. In the end, it’s going to do just as much harm as the focus on birth certificate has turned into.

    I’m really surprised at some people. Vattel was first put up on the net by P.A. Madison as a sequel to his 14th Amendment piece. He wrote it directly after Leo’s case went up, November 17, 2008. It was posted on Leo’s blog and was extremely informative, but it was only ONE piece of the puzzle, not the entire proof. Neither does P.A. Madison ever say that is the only proof.

    I think Justice Story is a far better legal reference that proves the history and judicial record you guys are trying to make. But holding onto just Vattel makes these people seem incapable to me. It’s like some people tagged the first tree they saw and decorated it for Christmas when there’s a whole forest out there with even better trees to look at.

    Vattel is relevant, but to a point. You have to prove where the entire concept of citizenship was applied. It was born out of the revolutionary experience. George Washington saw firsthand what foreign influence could do to his army. He didn’t take Vattel’s word for it. He lived it! The colonists took that experience and then ripped through every law back to even Biblical times during the construction of the Constitution. Justice Story defined what was decided on and it was cemented in our earliest judicial decisions. These decisions are the reflection of what was intended and meant in the Constitution. It’s been written about by our earliest Historians.

    I don’t see the benefit of making Vattel out to be more than he is. I see harm in it, just as I saw happen with this birth certificate fiasco. The birth certificate is only relevant because the Constitution decides who qualifies to be President. In the early days, when there was a discrepancy about if a person qualified, there were hearings with witnesses. Today, they throw up a certification of live birth on the internet no less, and shut the door to a congressional investigation. That’s the problem with the birth certificate issue and nothing else. The fact that there was no investigation into what else was thrown up on the internet, i.e., Obama’s admittance that he was governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of his birth. That’s why he doesn’t qualify to be POTUS and it goes back to the smokescreen they pulled in the Senate with S. 2678 in Feb. 2008, and S.R. 511 in April, 2008. They were all in on it and they all knew about it. It’s outright criminal what went on.

    [Ed. Very well said – as usual.]

  145. In fact – I agree with everything you have said about God turning his back on this nation – the nation has made it’s choice…and choses to be it’s own god, no longer acknowledging what is good from what is evil. America has been blessed like no other nation – yet has chosen increasingly over the years to dismiss the source of those blessings – has chosen worship of self, and has been given over to the choices she has made.

    Romans 1:18-32 (New International Version)

    God’s Wrath Against Mankind
    18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Isaiah 5:20
    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    I do not believe we can turn back either – but we are told to occupy ‘until’. so like soldiers now, in the land of the enemy – we occupy.

    Be encouraged, there is more to life then this nation, this earth.

    Thank you for responding to my post – God bless

    you replied:

    [Ed. I haven’t told anyone to give up. I still write here and accept no donations or advertising or any proceeds at all. I do it to fight. I just don’t believe it’s going to make any difference. But I write here knowing that I can’t tell the future and perhaps I may be wrong about the will of the people. So I do what I can to the best of my ability to speak legal truth. But I honestly don’t believe this country has any moral authority at all. And I also believe the Creator has removed his protection – not from all poeple – but from this nation as a concept. The people bear responsibility – not as much as the criminals but certainly a share goes to citizens. We have allowed the coming destruction of the nation. I don’t believe it can be reversed. But I don’t believe we should stop trying either. I carry on for this reason. I just don’t see a good ending.]

  146. Joss Brown Says:

    Re: Your edit/comment on JC and Paul in Sheikh yer Bu’Tay’s post.

    He isn’t called paulus for nothing.

    But… don’t you also believe in Iustitia?😉

  147. kittycat Says:

    Lots of people think that Saul (Paul) in the NT is teaching something different and he’s not. BUT if you don’t understand the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise (i.e., the Torah of Trust translated as law of faith), then it’s impossible to understand Saul.

    Rom 3:27 Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law?

    1. Of works?

    2. No, but through a Law of faith (i.e., Torah of Trust).

    Note two laws (Torah) here are mentioned. Abraham trusted in Yahweh and it was counted to him as justification. To trust in Yahweh means you are keeping the conditions of his covenant agreement.

    If you don’t understand what the works of the Torah are and why they were augmented to this covenant, which was attached like a codicil in will form, then you will not understand Saul. You have to understand the covenants first. You have to understand that the conditional covenant (that all of mankind is to keep), is the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise and it’s conditional because you have to walk as Abraham did:

    See Gen. 26:1-5, where Yahweh is telling Isaac that he will do this:

    Gen 26:4 And I will increase your seed (sperma in LXX; means the elect, i.e., the 144,000 sons of Israel) like the stars of the heavens, and I will give to your seed all these lands. And all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves in your Seed,

    And he tells Isaac why here, verse 5, where it states:

    Gen 26:5 …. because Abraham listened to My voice and heeded My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My torath (various plural laws).

    It’s easy for people to get confused on which “law” Saul is talking about, but once you understand the covenants that he is talking about, for example, the Torah of Trust (law of faith), then it becomes easy to understand him. He’s not teaching against the commandments (all 10 of them), which is in the Abrahamic covenants of promise. He is staying that we are no longer under the law (at Mt. Sinai) with its works.

    Many of the works are ceremonial matters, like washings, commanded sacrifices, matters of dress, clean meat, fleshly circumcision and things such as these. Some of these things are only for the Levite priesthood anyway and don’t pertain to us.

    1Co 7:18 Was anyone called having been circumcised? Do not be uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Do not be circumcised.
    1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of Yahweh’s commandments is (something).

  148. ElmerFudd Says:

    ” I am relying on US law which recognizes that an alien father has every legal right and effect of conveying citizenship via Jus Sanguinis upon his son. This is not some wacky theory, it’s settled law. The US can’t strip a person of their inherited right of of citizenship within another nation.”

    Indeed – but a right possessed by a person towards a country may not be the same thing as a claim by that country on the person.

    The UK was fairly generous with offering some (mostly second- and third-class) forms of nationality to people from the former colonies, mainly, I’m sure, just as a safety net to make sure people didn’t have to become stateless. If George III said someone was his subject, you bet he wanted allegiance. When the present-day UK calls someone a subject, they’re actually hoping that person doesn’t call…

    OK, that’s it from this alien.

    [Ed. This is first hand conveyance of citizenship from a father – who would have needed a UK passport to travel – to his son.]

  149. Regarding that Breitbart.tv video of Obama telling people to get out of the way, what he’s really doing is telling the Constitution to shut up.

    Obama cleverly doesn’t diss the Constitution because he remembers the fallout of Bush, Jr. calling it a G-d piece of paper, but he’s doing the exact same thing when he tells the people, who are paying these bills, to shut the hell up.

    The both of them are no different. They’re dictators. Don’t you remember when Bush, Jr. joked, “So long as I’m the dictator.”? What’s the difference when Obama says, “I won. I’m the president.”? There’s no difference. You guys need to take off the partisan blinders because it’s a game they play to try to make you feel like YOU won something, when you’re not. In the end, both of them aren’t giving you anything but slavery. When you allow a government to control your life, it’s not freedom. I don’t care if you’re even for that type of ideology and favor someone else telling you what you can get or do, it’s NOT freedom.

    The only hope I see is if people who voted for either of them see the light and decide that freedom takes precedent over who you endorse and fault the both of them for where they deserve blame. If you sit here all day and defend one or the other because somehow you feel allegiance to either, you’re serving a king and you might as well go back to Great Britain yourselves because this is not what this country was founded on.

    This country is founded on freedom and liberty and that’s your common goal. Don’t be led into these partisan games. Divide and conquer is their goal. They WANT us at each other’s throats so we don’t go after their throats. That’s how I see this is being played out.

    [Ed. I’ve got to let Kamira do some guest blogging soon. She’s very eloquent and we are of one mind on this post.]

  150. Zeeshopper Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I was wondering if you’ve already read this :

    [Ed. The first paragraph is just so wrong. Thanks for posting the link. I think I came across this one before but many of my readers may not have seen it.]

  151. Dear Sean Hannity,

    It’s really great that you’re having all these Freedom Concerts this year. It’s a time to reflect on the Founders and everyone who gave their lives so that we could enjoy a better place to live.

    What kills us about you is that your own internet forums damn the people’s freedom to speak about the NBC issue derived from our Constitution and shove it into, what your forums call, “The One and Only Birth Certificate Thread”. If someone dares to try to bring up Donofrio’s point in a separate thread, they are summarily deleted/banned.

    Many wrote your egotistical moderators last year complaining that the birth certificate was not our issue and that it was the constitutional qualifications for POTUS as set forth by Leo Donofrio that we wanted to talk about. Your forum disregarded this request and made sure the NBC issue was lumped into a thread that had nothing to do with the issues we had. Your moderators acted like the Gestapo and still do, by labelling the thread itself as a birth certificate only issue; the title of which, was born from the hand of YOUR moderators. It’s no surprise to us that’s the only thing you air on FOX news.

    We were thinking about going to one of your concerts since it sounded like such a great idea. But since you can’t even practice what you preach online, we thought better of it.

    What your forums have really taught us is that the media, the politicians and all the talking heads (Fukino and Taranto included), are really dumber than the people. At first, we thought that surely this caliber of journalists/commentators would know this research already. Wow, were we mistaken. None of you really have a clue about the real history and laws of this country. Neither have any of you taken the time to study it. We wonder if your buddy Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer, would agree with your actions. We’re thinking, NO. Will he dare say it? Probably not.

  152. [Ed. Nobody is stopping anybody from doing that. I’ve personally lost all faith in our court system….]

    Boy this has been a long read. Leo I like your frame of mind. Not just this quote but through out this blog.

    As I understand, Gandhi said, that you cannot win against the king in the kings court. Now get this, I have it on very good authority (lol) from a night clerk in a quick shop (he was from India) that Gandhi was a lawyer. Regardless it is so true here. I have two file cabinet drawers full of my own cases against the king where-in facts were changed to meet the decision. Stated another way, “There is no rule of law in America”.

    The same thing happened to Mobley M. Milam in v U.S, 524 F.2d 629 – Jan. 29, 1974. I copied the 50 pages in the archive up the hill from SFO airport. Mobley never asked for redemption as created by the court below;

    “9 While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.”

    I met Mr. Milam in his law office in San Diego and he told me that he was advised not to pursue the money issue any further. On top of the file that I copied was a sticky note with “666” written.

    As for the 14th amendment; written by a railroad lawyer as stated in a large book on the ground floor of the New England law library in Boston Mass. I wish I had copied the piece after all I have a dozen law lib copy cards from Boston to Honolulu. Anyway the point is that according to this work there was a lot of discussion about what “person” really was the object of the 14th amendment and went on to say the it was the corporation that the 14th was written for as it gave the corporation “person” the right to sue in court. Without the 14th corps would not be ruling us today. I know – I do not like it when cites are not given.

    In closing I want to say that Obie is just the “spit in the face” for the long train of events to destroy the Constitution. The 1900’s were cruel to her. 16th amendment, 17th, fed res act, and “systems” like the U.S. Trusty system which is patently unconstitutional. Why? Because it gives the federal judicial distract of NC and N. Ala. the privilege of opting into the system therefore not geographically uniform as understood by the S court in a railroad bankruptcy. Again no cite.

    [Ed. The rot has been constant and pervasive. RIP US Constitution.]

  153. 08hayabusa Says:

    It’s time to get involved America.

    It may already be too late, but at least we can say we tried, even though it is in the eleventh hour of losing our nation.

    Obama has already called out the brownshirts and they are beating people up and intimidating others at these town hall meetings. Even the police are helping the union thugs.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-to-do-a-lot-of-talking/comment-page-40/#comment-2501511

    You need to get involved now, not only by attending these gatherings but by writing your Senators and Representatives and getting them involved. And you need to be armed with pertinent questions and information so you are an informed attendee. You will find that information at the following website.

    http://freedomedium.com/2009/08/one-punch-ko-don%2525E2%252580%252599t-let-them-hit-back/

    Sitting around blogging one another is wonderful for gathering information, but if that’s all you are doing, you are passively doing nothing but complaining, and allowing our great nation to be destroyed.

    When it’s gone don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

    By the way, I went to one of these meetings yesterday in Phoenix, and no union thugs were there so it was pretty cordial.

    Once again, thanks Leo, for keeping us informed on this issue. I hope one day we get our day in court, but right now I think it more pressing we get involved in our country and do what we can to stop Obama and his thugs.

  154. holycauseofliberty Says:

    Open letter to Nancy Salvato regarding your articles on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

    Ms Salvato – because you close your postings to comment, I am forced to comment here:

    Please explain why you redefine the term “natural born citizen” as “citizen at birth” when it’s clear from the sources you cite that there is no such definition in the law. Why too, do you describe Title 8, Section 1401 as providing the “current definition of natural-born citizen” when the term to be defined in nowhere contained therein?

    One more question, Would you think it within the intent of the constitution that person born in Cuba whose father is Fidel Castro but whose mother was born in the United States but moved to Cuba at the age of five, would be eligible to become commander-in-chief or America’s armed forces? That is, after all, your argument.

  155. French Montrealer Says:

    Yeah… sure! Jesus said to let EVIL flourish in this world. Yes, I’m sure he said that. Islamic terrorists hate us, they hate our way of living, for them we are the Infidels. Their goal is a Caliphate. They want to install Sharia Law all over this planet. I’m sure Jesus said: “Let them do it”.

    Boy, you sure do not understand your religion. Wars are a lesser evil to fight a greater evil. When you have gangrene in your foot, it is better to cut off your foot than let it spread thru you whole body. Gosh I hate leftist naive pacifists.

    “All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing.”
    Edmund Burke.

    And BTW, most casualties in Iraq were not done by U.S. army, but by terrorists exploding themselves in public places killing their own brothers.

    [Ed. Again, Jesus said we should bomb who?]

  156. maggiew65 Says:

    Leo

    This one:
    #
    PRIOR BLOGS

    * 2ND official Leo Donofrio natural born citizen Blog
    * Original Donofrio “natural born citizen” blog – Lower Court Docs

    [Ed. Yup. That got shut down. It’s news to me. Thanks for pointing it out. ]

  157. kittycat Says:

    Leo, Yahweh has not turned his back on this nation yet. No doubt things are getting set up for when he steps back and allows some things to happen, but he hasn’t done so yet, not yet. We have a few years left, Leo. Say maybe 2016/2017, Abib (spring) reckoning. This appears to be the end of the unconditional blessing period for this nation.

    At that time, he will pull back and not hold things back any longer and let our own ways teach us. He’s not going to allow curses to happen to us until people understand that there’s a such thing as a blessing AND a curse and the stipulations. He does not work this way. I mean, most people don’t even know the 10 commandments yet. A lot of people think to bear a false witness means lying, but it means to testify a witness of falsehood like in a court or accuse someone falsely. For example, if you’re lying to save a life, that’s a good thing as Rahab the innkeeper lied to save the Israelites.

  158. Great articles and posts here. Stick around Leo and don’t take off again for awhile, ok? There is such great education from such gifted minds that as I read, it feels like I am back in college again, being pushed and prodded and challenged (one thing my liberal professors could never break me of, however, was my steadfast faith in Jesus Christ and His infallible Word!). A couple thoughts came to me while perusing the comments–

    –War has been declared overtly and not just covertly now. How we react to this blatant in-your-face attempt at mass subjugation is up to each of us individually. If the town hall protests are any indication, folks are waking up now and are they mad!

    –Continental Congress 2009 (Bob Schulz movement) will take place in November. Don’t know what if any effect that will have, but perhaps it’ll be the catalyst for a Constitutional gov’t. The corrupt ones in DC will fight that vehemently, but if God has not forsaken this country for our lawlessness (He forgave Israel over and over again, so let’s not lose hope), He can do what mere man cannot. We need to stand back and see what God will do. For believers, let’s make it a matter of fervent prayer that God intercedes and delivers this country. Like my pastor reminded us this morning, from Ephesians chapter 6, it is not personalities that we are in a war against; it is powers and principalities in the heavenlies (my paraphrase).

    –Jesus was a Jew and the OT was not destroyed when He came in the flesh; it was fulfilled. So, the OT and NT are either God’s whole counsel given to us, or it is not. For, to pick what one would chose as truth from the Bible, exalts that person as all-knowing and infallible. Only God is that. And if Jesus were just a man-messiah and not also God, then we who trust in Him would still be in our sins. That is because it took a perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. All mankind has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God–except His Son in the flesh. If Jesus were just a messiah-man and not fully God as well as fully man, then the legal requirement to satisfy God’s judgment against sin would have had no effect. There are so many scriptures that illuminate how God’s judgement and mercy kissed at Calvary in the sacrificial atonement for sin by Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, but I will give a few. 1 John chapter one, all of Colosians, John 14.6, John 3:16, et al.

    It is impossible for finite created man to comprehend let alone explain the Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent One who always has been and ever will be. However, permit me to share a simple analogy that has helped me to understand One God in Three Persons. It has a lot of drawbacks for sure, but I have never heard anything more easily grasped for this impossible comprehension than this:

    –we could liken God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to H2O. In its room temperature state it is liquid; at the boiling stage it is steam; and in its freezing state it is ice. Now, from what I understand, the H2O in all three states still possesses the same number of molecules for hydrogen (2) and oxygen (1), so its essence has not changed only its function for the job at hand; i.e., we couldn’t utilize water or ice to fire up a steam engine. God became man to become a flesh and blood sacrifice to save mankind (John 3:16), because there was not one righteous who qualified for the job and one could not put Spirit to death; it had to be flesh. After Jesus died and rose again, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell those who trusted in Him. Only after His resurrection could God be with all believers because Jesus in His humanity was subject to the same constraints of time and space as we all are. That has helped me to understand in my own finite, limited mind how and perhaps why God ordained that He present Himself to His creation in three Persons in the Godhead. He is Father, Saviour-Son, and the ever-present Indwelling One, all equally God, but One God.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks for letting me share Him, Who is the passion of my life and the heartbeat in my chest. Maranatha!

    [Ed. I’m not a Trinity Catholic Christian. Jesus prayed to God, not himself. The Paraclete is a man, like Jesus was. Divinity is in all of us should we get clean enough to grasp it. The rest doesn’t really matter to me – it’s all physics or something like it. Love is God’s law – follow it and Heaven awaits. This is my philosophy, don’t expect anyone to see things differently because of it.]

  159. Leo,

    As Zeeshopper notes, the historical record repeatedly shows an ‘nbc’ must have TWO citizen parents. (Ref. article cited from 2000 by C. Lohman) While I understand your exception to the first paragraph, doesn’t this article offer solid – and simple – support to your Constitutional assertions re ‘nbc’?

    Yes, Lohman’s argument on behalf of foreign born children needs to be ruled upon by SCOTUS, but her arguments provide a solid basis – going back to Our Founders – that two citizen parents are necessary to produce a natural born citizen.

    Robare

    [Ed. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. 2 Citizen parents – born on the soil.]

  160. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Leo,

    You want quotes from Jesus only justifying bombing Iraq. There are none. The most violent thing Jesus did was to make a whip of cords and chase the money changers out of the Temple. Now that Temple was his Father’s house, and it was being corrupted by evildoers. If the Savior was willing to be violent to protect his Father’s house, why should we also not be violent to protect ours?

    You say the court has been corrupted beyound repair, should you not also drive the corruption out?

    Speaking of corruption at the Court… Orly Taitz, Esq. tells the story of speaking to a Justice at a book signing. I think it was Scalia. He had no recollection of any case she memtioned concerning POTUS eligibilty. ARE YOU SURE YOUR CASE WAS REVIEWED BY JUSTICES and not clerks???

    [Ed. yes, I’m absolutely certain of it. When David Schuster of MSNBC is camped out in front of the Supreme Court giving updates on the case for the day the conference upon it was held, then you can be sure the Justices had the case. The case was on every major news network. Don’t be silly. That whole charade with Orly and Scalia means nothing. Stop. Have some common sense please.]

    Another story she tells is of speaking to a SCOTUS clerk who told her she would not allow any eligibility cases to be reviewed by Justices. Would you please comment on that?

  161. @holycauseofliberty

    According to the “citizen at birth” crowd Castro’s kid’s mother wouldn’t even have to be a US citizen. She could be a Cuban also, as long as the kid was born in the US.
    Take this hypothetical:
    A Communist Chinese woman comes here and has a kid in a US hospital. She immediately goes back and raises the kid over there for 50 years. The kid comes back and establishes residency, which is probably as simple as renting an apartment and filing income taxes, for 14 years. At 64 the guy manages to get elected as the VP. A week later some Chinese agent assassinates the Pres.. This guy becomes the POTUS and immediately orders the withdrawal of all US forces in Asia. China invades Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

  162. kittycat Says:

    We’re supposed to fight evil. In many places in the NT, some people were sent out in certain places to do specific things. Those things were not to fight, but they were sent out to teach others the glad tidings (gospel).

    In the book of Matthew, when it refers to “the kingdom of the heavens,” this is a specific gloss to let us know that it’s the kingdom of Yahweh. This is the meaning and most scholars are aware of this. It means the kingdom of Yahweh when it’s here.

    [Ed. That’s your final post on this. This isn’t a blog about Christianity and I couldn’t disagree with you more. If you want to talk about the passage as if Jesus didn’t mean for us to turn the other cheek now in this world – then I think you are delusional. Your interpretation is insane to me. If I want to talk about my faith, I will but please keep your comments to the legal issues discussed. That’s a rule which will be enforced across the board.

    I DONT BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE. SUBMISSION TO VIOLENCE IS SUBMISSION TO THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT. IF WE WOULD ONLY BELIEVE IN NON VIOLENCE COMPLETELY THEN IT WOULD BE MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY BOMB. BUT WE DONT BELIEVE IN IT AND FOLLOW IT. MAKE ALL THE BS EXCEPTION TO JESUS WORD AS YOU LIKE. FIND ALL THE LOOPHOLES THAT YOU LIKE AND WHAT YOU GET IS AMERICA TODAY. A JUDGED NATION ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE AND DEMISE. WORD.]

    The kingdom of Yahweh is not here yet, Leo. Turning the other cheek is talking about in the kingdom of Yahweh, where there will be a resurrection of the justified and unjustified, both and people in a higher form. Mankind cannot be at this place yet. It’s impossible for mankind right now. But what’s possible NOW is to get rid of the evil from you and protect those against it who are being slaughtered day in and day out.

  163. French Montrealer Says:

    God commanded war in many places in the Bible (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13 Numbers 31:2, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Exodus 17:16, 1 Samuel 15:18, and many others.)

    In those cases, war was justified because it was used to stop acts of evil and to protect.

    How, then, is it different to fight those who want to kill Americans?

    It’s not. The concept is the exact same, we are to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves, and while war is never a desirable thing, it is often the only way to stop evil from becoming even greater evil. For example, if Hitler had not been defeated, how many millions more Jews would have been killed?

    [Ed. Coming to the defense of others is noble in the case of WWII. People were being decimated by evil and our brave soldiers gave their lives protecting those who had been attacked by a known enemy. But Striking those in Iraq who did not strike us just to ALLEGEDLY prevent our being struck in the future is damn wrong. And we are going to pay for it.]

  164. Corr:

    There is no evidence that Barack Sr. lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements. Dunham lived there and Obama Sr. lived 7 miles away near the University of Hawaii.

  165. [Ed. Again, Jesus said we should bomb who?]

    I certainly do not claim to know first hand do you?

    [Ed. For sure not women and children. We can start right there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sins. We chose to fight, our soldiers chose to fight – then we fight the enemy soldiers regardless of how long they fight on. We don’t incinerate little babies and old women to stop soldiers. Fuck that! I’m not down with that and Jesus would not be down with that. And because our nation is and was down with that – God has and should judge us accordingly. And that judgment appears to be coming in the form of a loss of our Constitutional rights and control of our nation by a usurprer President and other factions of Government who have sold us out to one beast of a coming world system. And if you are a Christian you should know the Almighty hath prophecied all of this in Revelations. “Who can make war with the beast?”]

    If not then “we both” can guess, hope or spin information gleaned from some scribe long after the master was gone.

    I am not sure why EVERY CHRISTIAN in the world does not understand that what this world is “IS” in reality “by his will”. ALL of the good and evil. Can’t he with the snap of a finger change everything? At what point do we understand when we don’t get what we want the answer was NO?

    Apparently all of us on this planet suck at the learning processes placed before us by the master on cloud 9. Are we all caught in some ether glitch destined to repeat this same crap over and over?

    We can kick, scream, weep and wail … in the end our time is better spend figuring out a solution to the problem and doing something to initiate change without expecting someone else to do it for us.

  166. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    I guess I am a late comer to all this. I totally missed your case at SCOTUS. Would you mind posting a link. I would like to read your pleadings and the Courts response.

  167. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Serious question: If a state’s legislature subpeonas Obama’s records, and he refuses to comply (like he has done to everyone else)… Does this then go to SCOTUS as original jurisdiction? If it does go to SCOTUS as original jurisdiction… do they have to hear the case, or can they refuse to hear it?

    I have already spoken to several legislators in my state, they are willing to give this a serious look. Please let me know if it is a viable option.

    [Ed. They would have original jurisdiction. Funny this – I was using this link to a preview of “Supreme Court Practice” at Google books and I educated many people through that book as to the nature of stay applications during the litigation of my case. Funny that they’ve removed the preview now and I can’t seem to answer part 2 of your question at the moment. I believe if they have original jurisdiction they must accept the case but don’t hold me to it. The Court’s practice in these cases is to appoint a “Master” to hear the evidence, determine facts, and recommend a decision. ]

  168. […I DONT BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE. SUBMISSION TO VIOLENCE IS SUBMISSION TO THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT. IF WE WOULD ONLY BELIEVE IN NON VIOLENCE COMPLETELY THEN IT WOULD BE MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY BOMB…]

    Excerpt from “John Jay on the Biblical View of War””

    If the United States should unanimously resolve never more to use the sword, would a certified copy of it prove to be an effectual Mediterranean passport? Would it reform the predatory rulers of Africa, or persuade the successive potentates of Europe to observe towards us the conduct of real Christians? On the contrary, would it not present new facilities, and consequently produce new excitements, to the gratification of avarice and ambition?

    It is true that even just war is attended with evils, and so likewise is the administration of government and of justice; but is that a good reason for abolishing either of them? They are means by which greater evils are averted. Among the various means necessary to obviate or remove, or repress, or to mitigate the various calamities, dangers, and exigencies, to which in this life we are exposed, how few are to be found which do not subject us to troubles, privations, and inconveniences of one kind or other. To prevent the incursion or continuance of evils, we must submit to the use of those means, whether agreeable or otherwise, which reason and experience prescribe.

    It is also true, and to be lamented, that war, however just and necessary, sends many persons out of this world who are ill prepared for a better. And so also does the law in all countries. So also does navigation, and other occupations. Are they therefore all sinful and forbidden?

    However desirable the abolition of all wars may be, yet until the morals and manners of mankind are greatly changed, it will be found impracticable. We are taught that national sins will be punished, and war is one of the punishments. The prophets predict wars at so late a period as the restoration of the Israelites. Who or what can hinder the occurrence of those wars?

    I nevertheless believe, and have perfect faith in the prophecy, that the time will come when “the nations will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” But does not this prophecy clearly imply, and give us plainly to understand, that in the meanwhile, and until the arrival of that blessed period, the nations will not beat their swords into plowshares, nor their spears into pruning-hooks; that nation will not forbear to lift up sword against nation, nor cease to learn war?

    It may be asked, Are we to do nothing to hasten the arrival of that happy period? Literally, no created being can either accelerate or retard its arrival. It will not arrive sooner nor later than the appointed time.

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64

  169. Forever the Optimist this one is. I totally get your dismay and resignation to the inevitable. I have been there before, personally and professionally, in whatever measure one could take of a man and what he believes in. Do I sense a sellout? More likely a realistic reflection on WTF has happened. The BC loons seem unruffled, although that whole scenario, if played out, would be more publicly awkward.
    Constitutional issues have been overanalyzed and under-utilized for so long that it seems like less of a living document than a living will. And yet, therein lies a simple truth: documents – the written word – cannot take action. They are not alive. We are.

  170. “our soldiers chose to fight”

    Actually 3/4 of the soldiers in WW2 were draftees.

    As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were they any different than the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden? More people were immediately killed in the raid on Tokyo than in both atomic bombings combined. One can make the case that Total War is evil, but in a time without precision weapons and weapons production situated in the cities how do you destroy the factories without leveling the city?

    [Ed. There are lines we just cannot cross and then expect spiritual protection form on high. Jesus was the lamb. Perhaps he was saying something about sacrifice.]

  171. Wait, so you agree that under the 14th amendment and under 8 USC 1401 Obama was a U.S. citizen from the time that he was born — as in he did not have to be naturalized in order to be entitled to vote, reside in the US, etc — but you somehow think that he is not a “natural born citizen”?

    If so, can you cite any cases that actually holds that?

    [Ed. I don’t believe that Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen. If he was born in Hawaii, his citizenship is derived from a federal Statute. Wong Kim Ark is the leading case which dealt with 14th Amendment – born on the soil – citizenship and in that case the holding stated that it pertained to a single question presented. The holding stated that the person born on US soil to parents who are permanently domiciled in the US is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Obama’s father was never permanently domicled here. The case also indicated that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen. ]

  172. So…Quo vadis? I recall some time ago that Quo Warranto was a remedy. I saw that the US Attorney in DC is no longer there, someone else has taken his place. And Mr. Holder seems to be busy dealing with us “cowards” and the CIA, if you believe the news. Apparently, as in many things in life, repetition is key and relentless pursuit the mode. It will be a Herculean feat to distance the clarity of the Constitutional merits from the muddy waters of the “Birther” pool.
    It was posited about a year ago that as long as Obama maintained his value within some “powers that be” (whether Democratic, Progressive, or , he would be untouchable. If he “fell from grace” (used with apologies to the Source of Grace) and became a liability, then those same powers would have no further political use for him. I remember reading that somewhere, and it struck me as a political truth, if you will pardon that oxymoron. I wonder what his political capital gauge is reading now.

  173. liberty4usa Says:

    A word about being a “birther”.

    I find it amusing that the many, many authoritative people that refer to those just seeking the truth to settle a Constitutional requirement question as “crazy birthers”.

    After all isn’t it those pesky Founders and Framers themselves that brought it up in the first place?

    When some of the facts are missing, only a hypothetical theory can be substituted, so the facts must remain missing in the Obama world.

    However, the known facts leave us with two possibilities.

    A person with “born on the soil status”, and only one citizen parent

    or a person with a “not born on the soil status”, with only one citizen parent.

    Now the people on this thread that are known as “birthers” believe either of these scenarios make it a fact that an ineligible person is holding office right now and is posing as POTUS.

    Now the others seem to believe “hey, close enough for government work.”

    However, since Congress does not have the political will to find out, and send the case to the SCOTUS via their delegate the US Attorney or Attorney General we “birthers”, to include our forefathers- all stay crazy!

    Only SCOTUS can tell us what those words really mean, even though everyone knows already!

    So next time someone utters the words “That’s unconstitutional!”, remember to tell them “hey it’s close enough for government work!”

  174. So you agree that when he was born he was a citizen of the United States under then then applicable statue — i.e. he did not have to be naturalized to be eligible to vote, reside, work in the United States?

    But you think that he is still not a “natural born citizen”? I understand that you think that Wong Kim Ark is distinguishable although there is nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment that suggests that citizenship turns on whether your parents were permanently domiciled in the US, as opposed to temporarily domiciled as Obama’s father was — the question is whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as legal residents, no matter how temporary undoubtedly are. And I’ll note that the Wongs’ domicile was not all that permanent, given that they moved back to China 7 years later. But, in any case, are there are any cases, in any court — Supreme court, lower federal courts, immigration courts, state courts — that hold that the distinction you’re drawing here makes a difference?

    Given that it is widely assumed — although I understand it has never been decided by the Supreme Court — that children of illegal aliens are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, it’s hard to imagine that children of a citizen and a legal resident would not be.

    [Ed. Widely assumed is not law and widely assumed is not even true. It’s widely assumed by many people that anchor babies are not citizens. You say widely assumed as if there weren’t two wide bodies of opposing assumptions. Nice try.]

    And more importantly, so what? Under the statutes existing at the time, being born on US soil made him a citizen. Even if Congress could have constitutionally passed a narrower law, limiting citizenship only to people born on US soil both of whose parents were permanently domiciled here, they did not do that. I don’t understand what difference you think it makes in terms of his eligibility to be president that under a different legal regime that did not exist at the time and still does not exist, he would not have been a citizen. The fact is, he is a citizen and has been since the day he was born.

    [Ed. If he was born in the US, then he was a citizen – but as the Constitution makes so very clear, as to Presidential eligibility there is a huge difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. ]

  175. Again, wake up to the Truth. Leo is right -change has come to America. The Creator has taken away His protection because we have been decapitating, burning and dismembering His children in the womb for decades. How can this not be seen?

    Please, Please Please google the pictures of children being aborted in the womb(www.priestsforlife.com). America will never come back again because of what we are allowing to occur. Yes, remember Sodom and Gomorrah . Sodomy was seen as an abomination by God and against His law. Why? Because there is no life giving result-just lust and sickness.

    being I cannot fathom why people don’t view this holocaust of killing children as serious. Just view the pictures and repent.

  176. And to answer Sheikh’s question at 2:02, I don’t know if the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction, but it would definitely be discretionary. I can’t imagine that they would take such a case.

    I don’t really understand the point of subpoenaing Obama, since he can’t be compelled to produce records that are not in his possession. As I understand it, the document that everyone is so eager to see (the long form) is in the possession of the State of Hawaii, so they would be the proper party to subpoena.

    [Ed. So you don’t believe Obama had a long form BC?]

  177. W Grobman Says:

    Leo,

    As a believer in Jesus Christ and God’s Word, the Bible, you should know that there are two worlds that we deal with in life. The spiritual world and the physical world. For his own purpose God has given authority to Satan for a time governing all aspects of this physical world in which we live. It is Satan’s desire to be worshipped as God and thus he orchestrates here on Earth to bring that about.

    Seems to me we are being setup for the ‘one-world’ government that will come to pass. Once that is accomplished, a forced religion (by threat of death) will also happen. The worshiping of the false God – Allah.

    Many of you fret and lament about what is happening to our country but I say to you, ‘Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s’. Do what you must, but above all things, seek the Lord. Do not be caught up in the physical and material things of this world. Seek the spiritual, find the Lord Jesus Christ who died for you, and he will give to you peace. And in that peace you will no longer fret or worry or be concerned with what must come to pass before He returns.

    Peace be with you,

    Bill

  178. First, of all you say [Ed. do not use bold print – that is reserved for my comments.] that there is a huge difference between a “natural born citizen” and a person who was born a citizen (i.e. not naturalized)

    [Ed. The difference is only as to being eligible to be President. No other differences exist under US law.]

    , but despite my requests you haven’t cited anything to suggest that any court from any jurisdiction has ever held that.

    [Ed. Snipped – Please do proper research on my writings before you come here and distort the facts. You are ignorant of my prior Supreme Court application wherein I have argued that there is no directly “on point” decision at to Presidential eligibility – hence that is why I included in my moving papers that the issue was one of first impression. Do you understand what an issue of first impression is? This means that the SCOTUS has not decided it either way.

    There is also no decision which says that Obama is eligible to be President, but you don’t seem all that concerned about this little fact of life.

    Furthermore, while we have no case directly on point supporting either side, we do know that the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett, in a paragraphh discussing the definition of natural born citizen stated that persons born on US soil to alien parents have doubts surrounding their citizenship and we also know that the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark indicated that a native born child of an alien – while having the same civil rights as any other citizen – is not considered natural born.]

  179. Mr. Donofrio,

    Please don’t take this the wrong way; I’m just trying to gather information.

    If the military action in Iraq was wrong, how does that apply to the Constitution, specifically?

    [Ed. What does the Constitution say about declaring war?]

    When you talk about the eligibility issue, you point to a line in the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent to show that Obama almost certainly does not qualify for the position. When you talk about Iraq, you argue from morality and not Constitutional law.

    [Ed. A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. There have only been five declarations of war as far as I am aware and Iraq and Afghanistan are not in the five.]

    I agree with many of your moral arguments, but what I don’t see is how it’s directly connected to the Constitution. Even if Bush was totally in the wrong and guilty of war crimes, I don’t see how he or his supporters are guilty of violating the Constitution on these issues. With Obama and the eligibility issue, it is more clear to me.

    “Bush kept us safe,” does not make his actions Constitutionally valid, but “Bush’s actions lead to the deaths of innocents,” does not make his actions unConstitutional either. Either it’s Constitutional or it’s not, regardless of the outcome or the moral implications. Even if every citizen in the country votes a foreigner into the office of POTUS, this is still unConstitutional. This is the heart of what the rule of law is about. Legally speaking, it trumps democracy, morality, and utility. (Biblically speaking, God’s Law trumps Constitutional law, but that’s a different animal.)

    I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I’d like to know more because the only related sources I can find on the internet are completely useless. Where can I go to find solid, reliable information on these things? Is there someone out there who has nailed the Constitutionality of the Iraq operation in the same way you’ve nailed the Constitutionality of Obama’s eligibility?

    (Of course, I do not question the fact that the constitution has been violated repeatedly throughout the history of the U.S. That point is well understood.)

    JJ

    P.S. You also said, “How do you know what was done and to whom? You think you’re told everything?”

    For what it’s worth, I got it straight from my current federal Representative’s lips that there are some interrogation techniques that are confidential. I can’t remember the exact number, but I think it was around 2-4. No, we certainly are not told everything. I doubt even our Congressmen are told everything. That’s not to say I think we should be told everything; I’m just confirming your suggestion.

  180. Crush T Velour Says:

    [Ed. If he was born in the US, then he was a citizen – but as the Constitution makes so very clear, as to Presidential eligibility there is a huge difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. ]

    Even if this were true, the Constitution would hardly be “very clear” about it. But it isn’t true.

    [Ed. It is very clear that the Constitution allows “citizens” to be Senators and Representatives. But to be President the Document requires one to be a natural born citizen, or a “citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”. How much more clear could it be? They use citizen and nbc right in the same clause to differentiate between two classes of possible POTUS candidates. That is what I was referring to by saying the Constitution makes a clear distinction between C and NBC. You are just 100% wrong and I expect you to face that and report back that you understand the distinction. Thank you.]

    It doesn’t say what you say it says. There is no such think thing as a citizen who is not naturalized and not natural born. The Constitution nowhere defines such an animal.

    [Ed. and both the court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark state the definition of NBC is not in the Document. So, if it were in the Document as you erroneously suggest, then the 14th Amendment would in fact define NBC. But since the Minor decision was handed down 6 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was adopted, and since the Minor court was discussing the 14th Amendment – their declaration – later reiterated in Wong Kim Ark – that the Constitution does not define NBC proves that 14th Amendment citizenship does not mean one is automatically NBC.]

    And the SCOTUS relied on English common law for it’s 1898 verdict granting citizenship by birth to the child of two non-citizen immigrants, subjects of the the Emperor of China, who had been in the country for 7 years. In basing its decision on English common law they stated:
    “Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

    [Ed. Please see my other comments on the definition of natural born subject in previous posts. I’m sick of reiterating the truth. NBS and NBC are very different animals. OBama is a natural born subject of Great Britain’s monarchy so he could never be a natural born US citizen.]

  181. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Leo,

    The scenerio I postulate is between the Executive Branch of the USA and the Legislative Branch of a State. To my way of thinking, the Supreme Court most certainly would have original jurisdiction. The reason to subpeona Obama is Executive Order 13489. That is where Obama sealed all records on his entire family. It does not matter who has posession of documents until the seal is lifted. Subpeona everyone who has documents and they will all fall back behind Obama’s defense. Occidental College is a prime example

    The purpose of such is to bypass the legal hurdles. This issue will never be resolved until SCOTUS finally gives their opinion. A State vs. (de facto) US Prez would fast track all this.

    bailey does not want to imagine the Supremes taking such a case because bailey doesn’t want such a case to succeed. I can not imagine them NOT taking the case for I want to beleive our land is still governed by the rule of law, not men.

    The second part of my question remains: Original jurisdiction being theirs, would the Supremes be forced to hear to such a case?

    [Ed we shall see, but I agree – after having dealt with SCOTUS – that they dont want this issue at all and will avoid it like the plague.]

  182. smrstrauss Says:

    We disagree about Natural Born, but let me say that I profoundly agree with you on your points about just wars, attacks on women and children and on the necessity for US wars to be declared according to the strict format laid down by the Constitution.

  183. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Too bad. This administration shall be like that of Andrew Jackson. The Indian Nations actually won their case at the Supreme Court to declare the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional. Jackson had control of the army and did it anyway.

    Then as now, the rule of law and individual liberty did not matter. What mattered was a sense of “social justice” to settle the score on a percieved injury. Social justice is nothing more than revenge.

    You are right, Obama’s admin. & the current Congress would have been the Founders’ greatest fear.

  184. Mr. Donofrio,

    I’m aware of Article 1, Section 8. I guess I was hoping for something that outlined the limitations of the powers of the President over the military outside of war.

    I understand that if there are no limitations then Article 1, Section 8 seems useless, so it stands to reason that the president is not free to simply do as he wishes with the military. I also understand that our “operation” in Iraq looks like a war, walks like a war, and quacks like a war, regardless of whether they want to technically call it war or not.

    However, if the constitution does not actually limit the power of the president over the military, it’s hard to make a case that the Iraq activity is unconstitutional. At the least, it’s certainly not as clear-cut as the NBC issue.

    JJ

  185. georg amos thalassa Says:

    I know you’ve moved beyond this post to new, pressing issues, but sometimes I like to take strolls backwards through a blog, just to see if anything new is growing. If you’ll allow me the pleasure.

    [ed. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics…]

    Speaking as a gardener, Constitutional Jihadism will have a tough time growing here. Wrong climate. Maybe with enough care, plenty of water, soil amendments, that sort of thing….just a suggestion. You never know.

    Your blog. Your Word. But that’s the beauty of the blogosphere.
    It’s pure, raw human-spirit-creation… (nihilism, beware.)

    Protection already is an ancient relic, didn’t you know?

    Panic is totally unnecessary, and unbecoming to the human heart.
    Composure is the best policy, and even a better reality.
    Putting the dreaded thing in quotes can sometimes alleviate the painful word, like this:

    Nothing can be done to stop the “utter dismantling”…

    See how it feels better? Locks it in and Chains it up somehow.

    The eye peering into the Abyss is frightened, but so is the eye peering out of it. An ear, on the otherhand, has no Abyss, and therefore knows no fear, needs no light. Darkness is not dark to it. Hope that helps.

    Excellent quote from your readership:

    [Constitutional issues have been overanalyzed and under-utilized for so long that it seems like less of a living document than a living will. And yet, therein lies a simple truth: documents – the written word – cannot take action. They are not alive. We are.]

    Hope you have ears to hear the real meaning of what that person is saying, it ought’a put some wind back in your sails (or atleast it ought to be like a breath of fresh air blown upon the venerable document)

    You are an excellent lawyer, leo. Even if i do question your judgment as a fellow citizen.

    Ever consider having two blogs? One as a hub for clean legal analysis, the other as a magnet for para-legal, para-normal, come get the willies scared out of ya site? That way, you’d steer clear of the censorship issue when your spiritual mind wants to speak, and dosen’t want to listen.
    You know, give our demi-urges a little space of their own, so to speak.

    Just a thought.

    Thanks for being there.
    Truth is being birthed. Mankind is getting a better footing.

    Numbered among your blog citizenry,

    g. amos thalassa

  186. Leo, as Sheikh yer Bu’Tay mentioned:

    “…The reason to subpeona Obama is Executive Order 13489. That is where Obama sealed all records on his entire family. It does not matter who has possession of documents until the seal is lifted.”

    To go a step further #13489 also states: Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

    Which is a: FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT

    Leo w/this in mind–my questions are multiple:

    #1 If EOs can effectively override the constitution, what recourse do we have? What recourse will America ever have w/the precedent currently set w/an unknown as POTUS?? Might this affect SCOTUS ever going to *hearing* on ANY case coming forward regarding the current NBC issue? (because the documentation disclosing precise certifications would potentially FORCE them to take an exact stand on the NBC issue…even as they knowingly understand what a dual citizen at birth means?)

    The first EO was issued in 1789 by George Washington. Not until 1907 were EOs given official numbers.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121897.htm

    The first executive order, issued by George Washington on June 8, 1789, instructed the heads of departments to make a “clear account” of matters in their departments.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1

    My! How far we have come w/EO’s !! (*CHOKE* — currently abused to the hilt!)

    #2 Where/when did the abuse of this power take such a detour so as to infringe on the constitutions/framers intent? How did it go undetected only to be escalated & abused? How can we reel it in?

    From what I have researched:
    “Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order
    Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes:
    1. Operational management of the executive branch
    2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
    3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities ”

    #3 Where did we go wrong/off track in allowing the EO’s to supersede these 3 categories–how did we get so far removed from Washington’s first EO? How can we correct this–or can we?

    HOW in heavens name did we allow ANY president to exceed these boundaries:

    Powers of the President
    + Serve as commander in chief of all U.S. armed forces
    + Commission officers of the armed forces
    + Grant pardons and reprieves from Federal offenses (except impeachments)
    + Convene special sessions of Congress
    + Receive foreign ambassadors
    + Take care that Federal laws are faithfully executed
    + Wield the “executive power”
    + Appoint officials to lesser offices

    Powers of the President Shared With the Senate
    + Make treaties
    + Appoint ambassadors, judges, and higher officials

    Powers of the President Shared With Congress as a Whole
    + Approve legislation

    ——————
    Recourse:

    How Executive Orders May be Vacated
    The President can retract an EO at any time. The President may also issue an EO that supersedes an existing one. New incoming Presidents may choose to follow the EOs of their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an EO, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional.

    #4 HOW…if at all possible ….HOW can we get Congress to pass a law that would alter an EO???

    “Thirty days after it is officially published in the Federal Register, an EO becomes law”

    #5 HOW the heck were we suppose to know Barky wrote #13489 on day #1 as he was *usurping* POTUS??? Do we truly have no recourse in ever acquiring ANY records that would point to treason? (seeing as no one w/a brain or gumption to take a stand —understands the entire NBC issue!!!)

    If so, this has set an incredible precedent for any future POTUS …

    God help us all!!!!

    This brain-dump has been bugging me for a while–hoping you can shed some light here!

    [Ed. There is no way in hell any of you anyone – anywhere will get an answer to the question asked of this post. You will choke on your questions and the concept of liberty chokes with you. I’m just writing now out of inertia and soon will stop to do something else. Why? Because I’m tired of not seeing justice or results. And I feel like I’m wasting my time. I will finish the posts I said would come, but I’m losing energy for any of this. It feels like a total waste of time fighting a losing battle against propaganda and fascism. Citizens have NO power. The Republic is dead. RIP USA.]

  187. I certainly hope that you are wrong about the Republic being dead, the futility of any efforts to effect change in this matter, or the power of the people of this great country to be the agents of change which will serve to bring this country back.
    I also couldn’t help but notice that among the many posts upon which you commented, mine from August 10th was one of few that you elected not to opine.
    May the Peace of Our Lord be with you always.
    Ed

  188. […] Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders' Greatest Fear As … […]

  189. […] Donofrio turns in another stellar post explaining why Obama is not a natural born citizen (and it has nothing to do with his place of […]

  190. elephant4life Says:

    Mr. Donofrio:
    I’m afraid I have to take exception to your assertion those of us who failed to stand and fight before have no right to the Constitution now.

    [Ed. I didn’t say you have no right to a constitution… I said you don’t have one. Big difference. I also said that many of you crying over it now had no problem looking the other way during past administration’s abuse of it and that those that did so look away don’t deserve the Constitution.]

    I read elsewhere that you are a retired attorney.

    [Ed. I’m retired from working for pay in the field of law. But my law license is current and active.]

    As such, you have enjoyed access to arenas, with the knowledge and experience to make use of them, that most of us have not. Legal research and document preparation were your bread and butter; filing lawsuits and maneuvering through the judicial system were probably second nature to you. Easy access to law libraries, LexusNexus, training in court procedures, and the ability to pick out subtle nuances in the law have enabled you to carry the fight this far. And you know chapter and verse of what the powers-that-be can get away with in retribution and retaliation, and how to combat that. You don’t have to consult an attorney to know your legal rights, and you don’t have to pay out thousands of dollars for attorney advice to know whether a particular point can be pursued. And you don’t have to worry about losing your job, or being denied a job, because you have challenged the powers-that-be.

    [Ed. I had to learn all of this law just for this issue. It took days and days of research. I didn’t know about quo warranto for example… I had to learn it from the ground up. But I didn’t need to do any research to know that the Bush administration were guilty of war crimes. Every American who had eyes to see could see that. You didn’t need a law school education to see that the official 911 story is a load of crap either.]

    Most of us are not so fortunate. Most of us have had full time jobs just trying to scrape out a living and raise our families – not a shameful pastime, BTW, as we of pride and independence do not expect the government to do it for us – and as you should well understand, keeping track of each and every encroachment into our liberties that is daily perpetrated at all levels of government, not just the Federal level, is a full time job in itself.

    [Ed. For you information, I have to work too. I have to make a living as well. Right now poker is my only form of income and I don’t play online so I have to get to a casino to work. This case and this blog have taken so much of my time and energy. I’ve been living off my poker funds. Every day I tell myself I have to get back in the game and make a living, but every day I find something else that needs to be said and the day is gone and I’m not making any money. Please don’t lecture me about this crap. I don’t want to be writing this blog. It’s not fun. It’s not exciting and there’s NOTHING in it for me except to have my name go on a list of enemies of the Obama administration. I don’t accept donations or any advertising either. But don’t worry, you won’t have to put up with my insensitivity to your plight as a working man for long. The usefulness of this blog and my views are obviously not going to be needed in the new Amerika. I’m getting ready to close up shop here any day now. Word.]

    If we have been aware and active, it has been, at best, on a part-time basis, and of necessity, lest we be fired, persecuted, or blacklisted for our efforts, under the radar. Mostly, we understand that we are powerless because we haven’t the resources in time, treasure, or financial independence, to fight the kind of fights that you, Berg, Taitz – lawyers all – have launched. I personally have been hoping that someone could make a case for a far-reaching class action suit which couldn’t be laughed out of court as being “frivolous”, or “lacking standing”, or just quietly made to go away. But I don’t have the money or the knowledge to pursue it, even if I knew how to get one going, or how to locate an attorney or legal firm sufficiently willing to put their reputations on the line to file it. I have recently read of the Citizen Grand Jury concept, and wonder if it is a possibility that can be pursued.

    Don’t get me wrong. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for doing for all of us what we couldn’t do for ourselves. I pray that you, or another like you, will prevail and get this usurper out of our house. I have watched one lawsuit after another, each with its optimistic possibilities, come up before the Supreme Court, and with each I enjoyed a brief spate of hope that Obama would not reach the Oval Office, or having reached it, would be summarily removed and prosecuted for his crimes. And I have been as dejected as anyone when the suits have been disposed of in ways which seem, in themselves, unconstitutional, or downright illegal.

    But if you, with all of your advantages of time, resources, and knowledge, are now admitting that you are discouraged and ready to give up, how much more reasonable is it if those of us without your advantages know it’s a fight we can’t win, and retire from the lists, hoping that Providence will eventually intervene like the cavalry over the horizon, and save us from ourselves?

    So please, don’t be too hard on us. We’re human, too.

    Thanks.

  191. elephant4life Says:

    Sir:
    I think you missed a good part of what I was saying, and obviously missed that I appreciate what you’ve done. You also missed, I guess, that I have a full appreciation of how much work it takes to be actively involved in these issues. I am one of many people whose knowledge of certain issues – i.e., quo warranto – has been enhanced through your research.

    And I’m sorry, I made the assumption that someone who had retired from the practice of law was lucky enough to not need to work for a living anymore – those things do happen. I never assumed there was anything amiss with your license. So sorry.

    [Ed. No worries. Im just not happy with the fact that so many people are just now starting to care about the Constitution’s rule being watered down to nothing. The slippery slope did not start with Obama… he didn’t fire the first bullet at the Document but his will be the kill shot.]

  192. […] so, Teddy’s last great act was to knowingly ignore the Constitution and  help a man whose British citizenship at the time of his birth clearly made him ineligible for run and hold  the office of President […]

  193. rod class, joyce rosenwald researcher, say Constitution is now null and void and we are not a Democratic Republic anymore, we are a Corporation, as a veteran of ww2, Marine Corps. i took my oath of enlistment on this documents, 1933 president at that time decided to suspend the Constitution and make usa a Corporation, So i took oath of enlistment on a Corporation, how about all the military enlisted and officers, we were told it was the Constitution. Now What?

  194. Leo:
    In response to your question about the request made under FOIA re: SA Dunham, Obama, Soetero passport info. Of course it wasn’t done by phone, and we received a written response. I sent it to Berg. At that time he was the only individual, that I knew of that was involved in the eligibility issue.
    I emailed him and asked him to please send me a copy, as I didn’t keep one. Upon receipt I will send it to you.

    [Ed. Why didn’t you keep a copy? Are you serious? If you don’t have the document, you don’t have an answer.]

  195. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

    Why do people still say Congress did not declare war when it is a matter of public record?? That really mystifies me.

    [Ed. That’s not a formal Constitutional declaration of war…There have only been five.]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: