SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story – How War Veterans and Other Citizens “Born In A House” Are Denied Passports Despite Having Birth Certificates.

In an act of unparalleled hypocrisy and disgrace, Obama’s Department of State continues to deny passports to some US citizens who were “born in a house” on US soil – and not in a hospital or other “appropriate medical facility” –  despite the fact that they possess long form birth certificates featuring more factual proof of birth in the US than President Obama’s COLB.


Mario Marroquin is a one hundred percent, service connected, Disabled American Veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam and another in Desert Storm.  He was born in Alice, Texas in 1942 and has resided there his entire life.  Mr. Marroquin’s father was also born in Alice, Texas.  And he too resided there his whole life.  Mario’s grandfather was also born in Alice, Texas.  Mario informed me that his family has lived in Texas since before there was a United States.

Mario Marroquin gave ten years to his country.  As a result, he was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and now has cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory illness, and a host of other ailments all of which are diagnosed to have been caused by the vile chemical exposure.

When Mario was born in Alice, Texas in 1942, a long form birth certificate was issued to his parents – in their home – by the medical doctor who delivered him into this world.  Mario presented this birth certificate to the military as identification when he enlisted and it was accepted by the government as proper ID.

In 2000, Mario applied for a US Passport because he wanted to fulfill a dream to visit Peru and to see the Incan ruins.  But the State Department denied his passport application because he was born in a house.  Had he been born in a hospital and birthed by that same medical doctor, there would have been no problem.  But since he was born in a house, the State Department claimed that his parents were required to bring the BC to a courthouse for registration despite the fact that the medical doctor who signed it was authorized to issue birth certificates for children born at home.

The State Department never returned Mario’s birth certificate to him.  And they continue to deny him a passport.  To this day, he is not considered a citizen by the State Department.  He is deeply hurt and insulted that the US Government would strip him of his citizenship and confiscate his birth certificate, the same document accepted by the military when he enlisted.

So Mario began a letter writing campaign to state and federal representatives.  But nobody returned his letters.

Then, on August 16, 2008, Manuel De La Rosa from KIII, an ABC news affiliate, issued a report on Mr.  Marroquin.  While the video report has been removed from the web site, the text of the story was reprinted by VA Watchdog, and mentioned at Democratic Underground.

There are very few details listed in the one paragraph report, so I contacted Mario Marroquin yesterday, Sunday Feb. 20, 2011.  We spoke for more than an hour on the telephone and Mario graciously answered my questions, provided a few documents by fax, and agreed to allow me to publish his story.

Among many other decorations, Mario Marroquinn’s unit was awarded the prestigious Presidential Unit Citation.   And he has been honorably discharged three times.  He votes in every election.  It is undeniable that this man has led a more  patriotic life as a US citizen than most of us ever will.  But when he applied for a US Passport in the year 2000, he was denied because the State Department determined his birth certificate – which was good enough for the military – was not good enough to establish US citizenship despite the fact that his family has lived in Alice, Texas for multiple generations.

Finally, after trying to establish his US citizenship for more than nine years, on December 16, 2009, Senator John Cornyn wrote back to Mr. Marroquin indicating that he had made an inquiry with the State Department:

“Thank you for providing me with your signed Privacy Form.  I have made an inquiry on your behalf and will contact you again as soon as I receive a reply.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States and to be of service in this matter.”

On December 30, 2009, Mario wrote back requesting that Senator Cornyn sponsor him for citizenship, stating:

“Please let me know if you can help a disabled vet be recognized as a citizen.”

Unfortunately, Mario Marroquin has not heard another word from Senator Cornyn or the State Department.  And his birth certificate remains confiscated in the hands of the State Department.

Before I go any further, I want to add that Mr. Marroquin told me, “I’m not a birther, Leo.”  And I told him that I am not a birther either.  Readers of this blog know that I believe Obama was born in the United States but that despite his place of birth, the President was a dual citizen owing allegiance to a foreign nation and that is why I do not believe he is eligible.

Regardless, the President, who is Commander In Chief, should be under at least as much scrutiny to prove citizenship as veterans of foreign wars.  Since, as you will see below, a COLB from Texas or California isn’t prima facie proof of US citizenship according to the State Department, the President ought to submit to the same exact scrutiny as the citizens of Texas and California.  A true Statesman would step up and put the issue behind him and the nation rather than drag it out for America to suffer over and be distracted by.  This is especially true in light of the double standard which is established in this report.

While President Obama has not offered a single document to prove that he wasn’t born in a house, the State Department continues to deny Mario a passport because he was born in a house.  The Marroquin family is well known in Alice, Texas for over a hundred years.  This is not the case of a fake midwife delivery.  This veteran was – without question – born in Texas and that birth was documented on a long form birth certificate signed by a licensed medical doctor.

On the other hand, we have President Obama, a dual citizen at birth, born — exactly where???  Somewhere in Honolulu apparently.  Birthed by whom?  We have no idea if it was a doctor, midwife or whatever.  We just don’t know.  Yet he is eligible to be President and to command our armed forces, while Mario Marroquin is denied a passport.  That’s hypocrisy defined.

Obama’s State Department fails to recognize Mario as a citizen despite his offering a long form birth certificate, a doctor’s signature and multiple witnesses to his birth in Texas notwithstanding his valor in the line of duty protecting this nation.   The State Department is practicing its very own form of birtherism.   The State Department doesn’t feel comfortable giving Mario and others like him a passport to travel out of the country with.  The reason cited in a video interview with a State Department representative is…wait for it…national security.  Please look at the picture above of Mario Marroquin –  a man whom the State Department considers a potential national security threat –  NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A PASSPORT –  NOT A CITIZEN – NOT PROPERLY DOCUMENTED.

Who’s guilty of being an insane conspiracy theorist now?


Esmerelda Cazares.

On August 20, 2010, KGET TV-17 ran a story about Esmerelda Cazares, another war veteran, born in Los Angeles, birthed by a mid-wife.  She has lived in the U.S. her whole life, but the government won’t allow her a passport because they say she doesn’t have enough proof of citizenship.  Cazares had been trying to get a passport issued for five years when the story ran on KGET, but because her Los Angeles birth certificate – issued by the  county of Los Angeles – was delayed, she was denied a passport.

Unfortunately for Cazares, her delayed birth certificate, Social Security card and service in the US military are not enough to prove her citizenship to Obama’s State Department.

ANOTHER RED FLAG = birth records registered a few days after birth.

President Obama’s COLB has just such a red flag.  According to his COLB, he was born on August 4th, 1961.  But that same COLB lists “date filed by registrar” as August 8th, 1961.  Since his COLB is delayed by less than one year, the State Department won’t automatically reject it as a fraud, but it’s still a red flag.

On January 2, 2010, Jazmine Uloa wrote an article published by The Brownsville Herald concerning a class action suit brought against the Customs and Border Patrol by persons held for long hours at ports of entry in South Texas and denied entry into the country after they presented US birth certificates registered by midwives.  Towards the end of that report, Uloa mentions that midwife birth is not the only red flag used by the State department:
“Others whose applications remain in question are U.S. citizens, mostly seniors, who have delayed birth certificates, or documents registered a few days after their births as was customary in the past.”

(This article by Juloa was republished in its entirety by Thomas Esparza, Jr., a Board Certified Immigration and Nationality Law Specialist.)

Obama’s COLB contains a red flag since it was registered a few days after his birth.  And the COLB doesn’t indicate if he was born in a hospital, a house, or a midwife’s office.

Silvario Vasquez and Felix Rodriguez.

On August 29, 2009, Time Magazine ran a video report concerning the plight of US citizens born in Texas by midwives.  The story highlighted the State Department’s denial of passports to two veterans. One of them – Silvario Vasquez – had been a US Customs and Border Patrol agent for 29 years.  Furthermore, his birth certificate was good enough proof of citizenship for him to have been drafted and sent to Vietnam, but it wasn’t good enough for the State Department to recognize him as a citizen and grant him a passport.

The Time Magazine video actually shows the official long form birth certificates of Mr. Vasquez and another war veteran, Felix Rodriguez.

Time also interviewed Brenda Sprague, Deputy Assistant for Passport Services, on behalf of the State Department.  She comments that due to various midwife scandals in the past, people from border communities – including veterans of foreign wars – were required to provide extra proof of US citizenship:
“So suddenly people in the border communities were faced with this need to document themselves, and they had birth documentation which was, on its face, not as simple or compelling as it might have been.”

Mr. Vasquez was particularly upset because, as he points out in the video, he was drafted at the height of the Vietnam war based upon the federal government’s awareness of his citizenship status and birth certificate.

The official comments by the State Department are hypocritical in the extreme considering the failure of President Obama to completely document the circumstances of his birth with the American people. The State Department sure seem like a bunch of rabid birthers to me.  They are citing the same issue as birthers – national security.  Here is the Obama administration’s official position as stated by Sprague to Time:

“In the aftermath of 911, a decision was made that we had to take steps to regularize the documentation requirements for crossing our land borders… This is not a moral judgment, this is a legal judgment.  And my heart goes out to people who are caught in this…Nevertheless, people get passports who are US citizens.  Not because they’re good people, and not because they love America.  Because they are US citizens.”

National security. Those who question Obama’s eligibility to be Commander In Chief are ridiculed by main stream media stooges and certain members of the House and Senate while decorated war veterans are left groping around in the dark begging to be recognized as US citizens.  The State Department won’t give them a US Passport and won’t acknowledge that they are US citizens –  in the cause of national security.

All of this goes on under the guidance of President Obama whose birth records contain red flags the State Department sometimes marks for extra scrutiny.

Compare the amount of evidence produced by Mario Marroquin to what Obama has offered and it’s not even close.  Mario Marroquin and others like him have proved that they are US citizens with their blood and their birth records and established community histories.  Some, like Silvario Vasquez (who was finally granted a passport after his story got legs) were drafted based upon these documents, but their applications were flagged for denial by the State Department.  That is the absolute pinnacle of bureaucratic depravity.


The following was posted at the Baby Center Community blog on August 27, 2010:

4 of my siblings and I were born at home and of course received a state of TX birth certificate.

My older sister recently applied for a passport and sent in all of the paperwork including a copy of her birth certificate as required.  She received a letter back from the passport office that since she was not born in an “appropriate medical facility” her birth certificate was not valid proof of U.S. citizenship.  WTH!

“Appropriate medical facility”?  What’s that?  I can’t find any federal regulation for it.  But when concerned citizens – aka birthers – point out that there is no evidence in Obama’s COLB that he was born in a hospital, the anti-birther response has always been that no law requires a person to be born in a hospital.   But in practice, the Obama State Department will tag birth in a house as a red flag.

Now consider that former Hawaii elections clerk – Tim Adams – has signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

If Obama wasn’t born in a hospital, that’s a big red flag for the State Department.  And in Mario Marroquin’s case, that fact alone was enough to deprive him of a passport and official status as a US citizen.


The following was posted in the Missouri “City-Data Forum” on March 1, 2010:

I am looking for the name of my midwife who practiced in Mountain Home Arkansas in 1984. I am needing to get info regarding my daughter’s birth for her passport because they are not excepting her birth certificate.

We have moved many times and I cannot find any records with her name on it. I birthed my daughter in the basement of a church in Gainesville, Missouri.

So the State Department’s policy of red flagging birth certificates of people born in a house appears to be nationwide, not just in Texas and California.

The bogus mantra spouted by main stream media propagandists like CNN’s Anderson Cooper – that a COLB is universally accepted as proof of US citizenship for passport issuance – is unequivocally false propaganda bunk.  All one needs to refute said bunk is the Department of State website, which states:

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

See that reference to “short (abstract) versions of birth certificates”, that’s a direct reference to a COLB.  

§ 51.42 of the Federal Regulations lists the required documentary proof for a passport as follows:

§ 51.42   Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

Taken at face value, this appears to qualify any person with such a COLB for a passport.  However, if you read the regulations a bit further:

§ 51.45   Department discretion to require evidence of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.

The Department may require an applicant to provide any evidence that it deems necessary to establish that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national, including evidence in addition to the evidence specified in 22 CFR 51.42 through 51.44.

By reading § 51.45 in conjunction with the State Department’s reference to not accepting “short (abstract) versions”, the propaganda being force fed to the nation – which alleges universal acceptance of COLB’s is proof of US citizenship for passport purposes – is exposed as fraud by the Government’s own regulations.  While some COLB’s may pass the smell test, if your COLB is from Texas or California, it definitely will NOT be accepted as proof of citizenship without further scrutiny.

Passport Visa is a professional expediting company officially recognized and registered with the U.S. Passport Agency.  At their web site, it states:

“Applicants born in California or Texas MUST submit a Long-Form Birth Certificate; short forms or abstract birth certificates are UNACCEPTABLE

The stories of Mexican-American citizens denied passports because they were born to midwives in Texas and California are certainly well known.   And the Obama administration continued to deny a passport to all persons birthed in Texas and California by midwives until the ACLU sued them.

The Government eventually settled the case by waiving extra fees for those forced to re-apply, and by promising to take a closer look at these passport applications, rather than simply rejecting them outright as frauds – which had been the policy all along.  But a short form abstract (aka COLB) from Texas or California is still not considered prima facie proof of citizenship.

As a result of the ACLU’s law suit, the government agreed to take a closer look into such an applicant’s birth history and to provide screeners with a uniform review procedure that subjects these applicants to greater scrutiny.  But official policy still holds that a COLB from Texas or California, by itself, does not establish US Citizenship.

This is because §51.45 gives discretion to the State Department to require more evidence of US citizenship than is listed in 51.42 for those who set off red flags with passport screeners.  But it’s important to note that 51.45 also gives discretion to the State Department to accept whatever evidence it deems necessary to establish citizenship.  So if the State Department wanted to, it could provide Mario Marroquin and other veterans holding long form birth certificates with passports.


Please hold candidates for President up to the same standards as is required by the State Department for all citizens.

Texas is one of the states which has drafted legislation – House Bill 295 – requiring an original birth certificate for listing candidates for President and VP on ballots.

Since the Obama administration won’t honor the COLB’s of person’s born in Texas, why should Texas honor Obama’s COLB?

Please contact legislators in those states with pending birther bills and forward this report to them.  The sentence above provides an important soundbite.  Any votes sitting on the fence might be interested.


Please call on Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn to help Mario Marroquin and other veterans have their US citizenship status restored in the nation to which they have risked their lives in protection thereof.

Happy Presidents day.  Comments are open.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Old Federal Building
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306
Everett, Washington 98201



104 Responses to “SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story – How War Veterans and Other Citizens “Born In A House” Are Denied Passports Despite Having Birth Certificates.”

  1. If Obama was a Republican you best believe the media would be hounding him everyday about this story.

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    I will be releasing much of my old research by making it public again on this blog.

    Also, please link to this article and write letters supporting Mario. He deserves to have his citizenship dignity restored. Please help in any way you can.


  3. Bill Cutting Says:

    Maybe if Harry Reid were to choose Mr. Marroquin to run for (D) President in 2012 this will all get cleared up.
    So much for equal protection under the law.
    36 years after the fall of Saigon and Viet vets are still getting disrepected by the USG.
    No matter what side of the Obama NBC issue you are on everyone should be outraged at the treatment of American Veterans/Citizens in this way.

  4. Glad to see you back in cyberland…Looking forward to your astute analyses and fact finding.

  5. naturalborncitizen Says:

    I’ve now re-published a number of prior research reports which are available here according to when they were released. Eventually I will release everything, but I want to focus on certain things right now and the posts I’ve made public again have preference to me.

  6. I hope to see some injured parties spending time with Royce C. Lamberth in the near future….

  7. The Health and Human Services Department/Agency/Bureau/Service/Authority in all its various permutations probably have a lot to do with the scrutiny applied to the ‘home-birth’ documents as they have a strangle hold on the ‘Birthing Center/Hospital/Clinic/Hospice “Certification” process and has become the in home eyes of ‘big brother’ through the ‘Vital Statistics’ arm.

    When I made the N-600 Application I sent not only my BC but also those of both parents.

    So, in spite of the Denial of the N-600 and subsequent Appeal specifying my being an American natural born Citizen I have two ‘Decisions’ from the Homeland Security and USCIS that I am a ‘native born US Citizen’

    I had thought about applying for a Passport requesting acknowledgment of NBC status but I’ve never really given much thought to ‘crossing a US Border’.

    I, along with a great many others I’m sure, are heartened that you’re back at the Blog and on top of the issues.

  8. His military record alone should be enough to satisfy the State Department of his citizenship. Anyone who serves honorably in the military should have their citizenship recognized.

    What I don’t understand is, if he first applied in 2000, why didn’t the Clinton or Bush Administration’s State Departments grant his application. Is part of the story is missing? Was his birth certificate certified by the state? Why can’t he get a new birth certifcate from the state of Texas? Is Texas also denying that he is a citizen?

  9. So, what of the anchor babies? If they’re born in a U.S. hospital and have the appropriate birth documentation, they may later have their passport. However, should they be born in the house of a relative in the U.S. or burst forth just over the border, they’ll be out of luck. Oh, the outrage that will come of this! Anchor babies will be captive in the U.S. unless the foreign national parents can get a passport for their child through the country of their origin.

  10. Hey Leo, Thanks for making a few links in my articles go live again! I will say that you have selected quite the forte of articles to bring back online.

    Now, back to business. Interesting 1904 book that was received by the Harvard Law Library in 1925: Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 2 By West Publishing Company. Now mind you that all the Obama supporters claim our citizenship laws follow that of England. Well, if so, then they are just plain wrong about “jus soli” as the difinitive for “natural born” status. The following is under citizen:

    “Females and infants do not personally possess those rights and privileges In any state In the Union, but they are generally dependent upon adult males, through whom they enjoy the benefits of those rights and privileges; and It is a rule of common law, as well as of common sense, that females and Infants should in this respect partake of the quality of those adult males who belong to the same class and condition in society, and, of course, they will or will not be citizens as the adult males of the same class are or are not so. Nor do we mean to say that It Is necessary even for an adult male, to be a citizen, that he should be In the actual enjoyment of all those rights and privileges; but he may even not possess those qualifications of property, of age, or of residence which most of the states prescribe as requisites to the enjoyment of some of their highest privileges and Immunities, and yet be a citizen. But to be a citizen It is necessary that he should be entitled to the enjoyment of those privileges and immunities upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens, and, unless he is so entitled, he cannot, in the proper sense of the term, be a ‘citizen.’ In England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject Even a villein or a slave born within the King’s allegiance is according to the principles of the common law a subject, but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth as well as a subject, but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man’s birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen.

    Now going further into the statutory definitions, we find this with reference to a S.C. court case:

    A “denizen” is in a middle state between an alien and a natural-born citizen, and although subject to some of the disabilities of the former, is entitled to many of the privileges of the latter. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not, but cannot take by inheritance; for his parent through whom he must claim, being an alien, has no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the child. From a like defect of hereditary blood the issue of a denizen born before denizenation cannot inherit from him, but his issue born after may. McClenaghan v. McClenagban (S. C.) 1 Strob. Eq. 295, 319, 47 Am. Dec 632.

    Which all makes sense why Virginia adopted this in 1779:

    Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth May 1779

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    It was all in keeping with English common law as acknowledged in “Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases – Harvard Law Library Jan 13, 1925”

  11. I don’t know, sounds like a strawman…set up the premise to knock it down and thus allow BO’s next story.

  12. On the Toobin thing…

    I keep wondering when the light bulb is going to go on for some folks. Cooper and Toobin may very well have been twisting the language up on purpose. Did I hear Anderson Cooper utter the words “naturalized born american citizen?” Who screws up that bad??? On the other hand, Rep. Wagner was not capable of articulating his point when it came to defining natural born citizen. Quite frankly, I think he should have left Vattel out of it and gone for the one-two punch of the dual citizenship admission and Minor v. Happersett. Of course, he still would have had to made this more complex argument in an intelligible manner.


  13. Leo,

    I am considering writing a letter on behalf of Mr. Marroquin to his representation. I would like a few more details about him though and may need to contact him as you did before I launch that endeavor.

    Tell me, did he serve in more than one branch of the military? The insignia that he is wearing indicate that this may be the case. The medical corps insignia (caduceus) that his is displaying (lower left side of his vest) is not that of the U.S. Navy medical corps (oak leaf and acorn), but his other insignia are Navy insignia.

    Perhaps he is displaying the non-Navy insignia of a friend or relative?

  14. C.J

    At the various “news” stations, guest are probably pre-screened to see if they can elucidate the definition w/ clarity. Those that stumble a little or are a little nervous are preferred, so that confident on air personalities can bulldoze them, and twist what the guest is saying. Notice how aggressive Cooper gets. That is not the demeanor of a newsman, trying to get the facts, it is the demeanor of a propagandist trying to twist them.

    Great to read another post from Leo! Turn the tyrant’s words against them! Out Alinsky them! The logic of the liar is soon twisted into a pretzel.

  15. Because there is no requirement now to show proof of eligibility, it is theoretically possible for a home birthed Texan to become President and presumably get a passport when inaugurated as well as be given access to all the secrets of national security, but is denied a passport because of security concerns prior to assuming the presidency.

  16. naturalborncitizen Says:

    He was in the Navy, but he said he was with the Marines on the front lines because he was a medical soldier. If you email me your contact info, I will send it on to Mario.

  17. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Did put a link up to this story? Seems like the Alex Jones site is under a DNS attack or something. I can’t access

    Now there’s an interview I’d like to do.

  18. The individual simply has used the wrong document. What is news here?

    His family neglected to get a proper birth registration all those years ago.

  19. naturalborncitizen Says:

    The news is that the man has shown more proof of US citizenship than Obama, but Obama wont give him a passport. Furthermore, another Vet who was drafted based on his BC was later denied a passport bc of the same BC and that he was born in a house.
    Additionally, the report also illustrated that Obama’s State Department wont accept COLBs from people in Texas and California even if they have served in foreign wars.

    Here’s the mantra for Leo Berman in Texas…

    “If a COLB from Texas won’t be honored by Obama’s State Department, why should Texas honor Obama’s COLB?

    That’s a mantra which will be stated at this site … often.

  20. I mentioned the N-600 USCIS Application for Certification of Citizenship hoping someone would pick up on that and suggest that those denied Passports for want of acceptable documentation take that route.—-000-.html

    There are numerous sub-chapters and one of them may cover these specific circumstances.

    Here is how I responded to the DHS/USCIS informing me that they “need do no more”;

    “At Chevron v N.R.D.C. (467 U.S. 837), the opinion has been interpreted as;

    1] If it is not prohibited; 2] if it is reasonable; 3] it is allowed

    Under the Homeland Security Act the Department of Homeland Security, ‘DHS’, was established for protections of the citizens and persons within the territorial United States.

    The former Immigration and naturalization Service was re-designated as the “United States “Citizenship” and naturalization Service”, ‘USCIS’. (emphasis added)

    Appellant finds no exclusionary principle in the reading of the word ‘citizenship’ and found it reasonable to consider that in part the USCIS is a ‘Citizenship Service’, (Agency/Bureau).

    Had the Service/Agency/Bureau’s name designation been “citizenship ‘BY’ naturalization” in place of “and”, appellant would have looked elsewhere for “service” from a Government Department.

    In the reading of 8 USC § 1452 Appellant found no language that would prohibit the newly designated USCIS from providing the Appellant with the service requested and therefore considered it allowable.”

  21. I am still waiting to see any legally certified COLB on Obama. The Hawaii department of Health still refuses to attest that any COLB for Obama has ever been released. The multiple different copies online that have been “twittered, blogged and massaged” have never been presented to any court in a duly certified form. Of course, a COLB from Hawaii could not ever prove NBC status, but it would sure be nice to see at least one REAL document on Obama.

  22. Birth certificate fraud is so prevalent in some border states that the State Department established a blanket provision subjecting all non-hospital birth reports to heightened scrutiny. This is not to say that the same type of fraud has not occurred in other states. It just indicates that the amount of fraud has (a) gone undetected; or (b) not achieved the levels necessary to justify a blanket provision.

    How many fraudulent birth reports does it take to get one who fraudulently claims citizenship into the White House? Answer: Only one! And it is made even easier by having states like Hawaii issue “Certifications” that make it impossible for anyone to recognize the potential need for further scrutiny.

    It’s the old adage of “Out of sight; out of mind”. Keep us from seeing it, so we can’t see the need to question it. –If that’s the fundamental reasoning of those charged with national security, we’re in big trouble.

    I feel so much SAFER knowing that the State Department will protect the good name of the United States, by preventing veterans like those identified in this article from traveling abroad under the color of U.S. Citizenship; while at the same time Congress will award our state secrets and control of our nuclear arsenal to someone whose birth documentation (a COLB) is not subject to the same scrutiny, simply because it does not contain the information that would deem it worthy of further scrutiny.

  23. Constantine Says:


    Do you now understand why the original “vital stats” or pretty obviously important as per NBC? Before you were all about the dual citizenship at birth, which is fine, but is obviously stone walled by the courts. You downplayed the birth record but by this time you should be quite convinced that Obama CANNOT produce a document that will legally qualify him as being NBC, or possibly even born in the state of Hawaii. It is interesting also, that in Dreams of my Father, Obama noted

    “Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma, “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”

    There are MANY problems with his birth record, the first of which is obvious — HE WAS NOT born at Kapi’olani — and much much more.

    If it were midwife and not problematic he would have released it a long time ago, I’ve always said, because he could basically come out and say, “You don’t like that Hawaii gives birth certs for this? Too bad, take it up with them. They are a state and they gave me one. End of story.”

    That’s why the birth record has indeed always been a very big issue for him.

  24. “Silvario Vasquez – had been a US Customs and Border Patrol agent for 29 years. Furthermore, his birth certificate was good enough proof of citizenship for him to have been drafted and sent to Vietnam, but it wasn’t good enough for the State Department to recognize him as a citizen and grant him a passport..”

    Something is remiss.. IF these gentlemen were sent to Vietnam they HAD to have a passport, no?

  25. Thanks, interesting article ,Leo.

    Why even talk about a Mr. Obama’s COLB. There is no ‘lawfully issued’ birth document, only an image on a paid political advertisement. The political advertisement is legal. America was duped.

    The image of the birth document does not comply with U.S. Code, Chapter 47, Section 1028.

    “(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;”—-000-.html

    To emphasize, the Supreme Court said this in regard to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech (political speech) which includes advertising;

    “But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”

    ….. The ad with the birth document image and other information is legal, but the image means nothing!

    See what Annenberg Political FactCheck said about how politicians can lie legally.

  26. Jan from NJ Says:

    Hi Leo
    It is a joy to hear your voice again!
    Two things:
    How do you think it best to advocate on behalf of Mr. Marroquin? Phone calls, emails, hard copy letters or all of the above?

    What is your opinion on the court martial of LTC Terrence Lakin?


  27. Very welcome back, with tears of joy.

  28. Leo,

    Thank you for both of your recent posts. It is so good to “see” you again, and read your excellent work. Thank you for standing up for what is right.

    please link to this article and write letters supporting Mario.

    I will do so momentarily.

    I will be releasing much of my old research by making it public again on this blog.

    Thank you so much! I’ve linked to your material from some of my posts in the past, and I was very sad when you “unpublished” them. I support you doing whatever you feel is necessary to win in court, even if that means “unpublishing” your prior work, but I’m very happy to see that you want to republish it. Again, thank you.

    Are you able to share any projected timeline on the next appeal of the Chrysler case?

  29. And as a reminder, pResident Obama’s passport is a Diplomatic Passport:

    Q: What documentation did Obama have to supply to get this Diplomatic Passport?

    Q: Why hasn’t a single member of Congress ever asked for, nor inspected, a hard copy vital record for Barack Hussein Obama? Why did they neglect their duty under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment? Why did they “outsource” that responsibility to unelected, unaccountable, inaccurate, and politically-connected-to-Obama-via-Annenberg “”, an organization that had to correct errors that Leo Donofrio highlighted not once, but twice?

  30. The image of Obama’s Diplomatic Passport didn’t show up in my last comment. The direct link to the screen capture is here:

  31. Leo..

    You are an artist (evidence this blog) and a Patriot. Hopefully our free market will now allow you to profit for all your gallant efforts while simultaneously correcting the many misprisions of justice which has been afflicted on our country by the great imposter. I salute you sir and will do my best to further your efforts….

  32. Worth repeating…

    Q: What documentation did Obama have to supply to get his Diplomatic Passport?


    Still capture:

  33. justawhoaman Says:

    I fully appreciate your return to the blogoshphere, sir. You have been sorely missed.

    Having said that, I, too would appreciate more information as to what Mario sent to MY Senator Cornyn. I will be happy to follow up on this travesty and even go to John Cornyn’s office in Austin, if necessary, to literally carry the message to him.

    Thank you for all that you do, Leo. I look forward to visiting this website on a regular basis again….

    By section 8 of the declaration of the Texas general convention, It was declared that the state would give donations of land to all who volunteered their services In the Texas struggle against Mexico for Independence and receive them as citizens. 4 Sayles’ St. Tex. p. 138. Held, that a citizen of Illinois, who entered the military service of Texas as a volunteer In such war after the adoption of such declaration of promised citizenship, and who died In her service, became a citizen of Texas, though hie wife remained in Illinois until after his death, and that she and his children also therebj became citizens of Texas, and were thus entitled to bounty lands under such provision. Kircher v. Murray (U. S.) 64 Fed. 617, 621.

    From the Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 2 By West Publishing Company” LINDA posted above.

    With the ancestry that Mario Marroquin expressed this might be a FUN way to get his Citizenship AFFIRMED.

  35. naturalborncitizen Says:

    That’s the whole enchalada Jim. Bingo! Well said.

  36. naturalborncitizen Says:

    No. They came over on military aircraft not through an airport.

  37. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Write to Senator Cornyn since he’s already got involved.

  38. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Chrysler case is before the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals – all briefs have been submitted.

  39. naturalborncitizen Says:


  40. Kudo’s to Linda on the post link to; “Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases – Harvard Law Library Jan 13, 1925″

    In formating a ‘plain text’ section on citizenship I found that I read a sentence in the WKA Opinion differently than I have in the past and post it here to see if anyone else reads what I read ‘into’ the Bolded sentence;

    “Children of resident alien*.
    The term “citizens,” defined In the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution as all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the Constitution. The Supreme Court, speaking through Gray, J., after stating the above doctrine, and giving an extended review of English, American, and foreign authorities, held that the fourteenth amendment affirmed “the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, except the children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships or of enemies during hostile occupation, and children of Indians owing direct tribal allegiance. It Includes the children of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

    The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization.

    Every person born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof becomes a citizen at once, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the Jurisdiction can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty or by authority of Congress, in declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in judicial tribunals.” United States v: Wong Kim Ark, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 459, 169 U. S. 649, 42 L. Ed. 890.

    (I also emphasized the word ‘treaty’ finding humor that Gray, in after thought, Treaties carried the force of Law, given that he totally ignored the proscription found at Article VI of the Burlingame Treaty.)

    Out of curiosity I will wait to see if others might notice or impute a significant postulation emanating from Gray’s declaratory sentence.

  41. If you are expecting a response from Cornyn, don’t hold your breath. Plus, anyone who is assigned to your request will sit at their desk filing their fingernails, and talk trash to their friends on their blue tooth.

    It seems from the red flags, this is a case of Obamas’ having his administration ban those he suspects of being as questionable as he is
    in his eligibility to be a sitting president. He’s not. He is a usurper, and should be removed from office with all documents he has put his name to as being null and void. He’s not qualified to be impeached because of his
    ineligibility to be president. This also applies because his father was not an american citizen before or after Obamas’ birth.

  42. SLCraig: So? It states what we have known:

    1] subject to the Jurisdiction thereof + born in the United States = citizen.

    2] being naturalized (in one of the ways listed) + subject to the Jurisdiction thereof = citizen.

    I fail to see the significance.

  43. Bravo, Leo, to you and Mr. Pidgeon on the Chrysler work. We continue to pray that your work and other court actions by patriots peacefully and lawfully upholding the Constitution will be rewarded by courtroom victories.

  44. In 1795, Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court published, “A System of The Laws of The State of Connecticut: in six books”

    He starts the ninth chapter by saying “THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.” and later in the chapter, he writes, “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens. “

    Why is he paraphrasing Blackstone?

    Why does he use the term “natural born subject”?

  45. There exists a grand delusion about the nature of the term, US citizen. It’s one handed down now through the generations.

    Mr. Mario Marroquin by all accounts was born a citizen of the Republic (perhaps we can substitute the word State) of Texas and is without a doubt an American but not necessarily a US citizen. Like my parents before me I was born an American, a citizen of the state where I was born then converted into a US citizen upon the registration of my birth down at the local incorporated county court house. Incorporated here is the key word. The counties, perhaps all 3,300 of them, in the USA are corporations. So is the federal government as well as all state governments and most, perhaps again all, city governments.

    The label, US citizen, is discussed in the 14th Amendment. In the Constitution for the united States of America, the 14th Amendment does not exist. It does however exist in the corporate code (or policy or statute) as part of the Constitution of the United States of America adopted by the 41st Congress in 1871 when the lawyers in that Congress founded a corporation called the UNITED STATES. In addition to changing the name of the Constitution and adding Amendments, the original 13th Amendment is ignored and entirely over written by a different and newer 13th Amendment. Note the name change here:

    Constitution for the united States of America, a de jeur body of law;
    Constitution of the United States of America, a corporate code.

    § 3002. Definitions
    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;

    The UNITED STATES incorporation documents are currently filed in Delaware. It is a corporation doing business under color of government. According to its 14th Amendment, the US citizen is not permitted to challenge the debts of the US Inc. yet the US citizen is liable for those debts.

    Before the founding of the US Inc., the term US citizen applied to Americans with permanent residence in federal territories such as the District of Columbia where the federal government had jurisdiction. Before Lincoln was executed, States where sovereign Republics joined in union, united. However in everyday life where we apply for some new license, registration, account or government privilege, we encounter the little box that requires us to check mark where we are US citizens or NOT. What I am saying is the at birth, most of us Americans are not yet US citizens. When we check the box, “YES,” we give consent WITHOUT FULL DISCLOSURE to allow the US Inc. jurisdiction over us.

    Mr. Mario Marroquin may be more lucky than he knows. As a sovereign American, not a US citizen, he is not liable to the Federal Reserve or the Internal Monetary Fund for using their currency, the Federal Reserve Note. Nor is he liable for the debts of the UNITED STATES INCORPORATED. In other words, he is not liable to them for income tax and property tax on his home, his cars and trucks or on any of his other property. He exists same as an Amish, a Quaker or a Native American (Indian) outside of the corporate serfdom imposed on Americans after the execution of Abraham Lincoln.

    I refer him and you to

  46. naturalborncitizen Says:

    gorefan: Swift also states that people born in other states are aliens and that they do not have the same rights as those born in Connecticut, and this is after the Constitution was adopted. So, I really dont know what this guy is talking about.

  47. naturalborncitizen Says:

    sunlight: The whole US as corporation thing is fascinating to me, but I haven’t done proper research on it. Still, the US Code does state that the US is a corporation. And that freaks me out on a deep level.

  48. JinOhio;
    Notwithstanding the numerous faults of the WKA dicta and opinion as well as the mis-interpretations that result, I have previously taken that statement to mean that it was stating there “were only two forms and means of obtaining Citizenship and two only”.

    However I now interpret it differently as saying that the ‘opinion’ of the Court is that the 14th is ‘applicable’ to ONLY the two ‘forms’ of obtaining citizenship expressed therein and the THIRD form, contemplated in Article II Section I Clause V is NOT affected by the 14th.

    He speaks only of the 14th, although incorporated and attached to the Constitution, he does not include the WHOLE of the Constitution in the declaratory statement.

    The Constitution expresses Three ‘forms’ of Citizenship; 1) Those Citizen of the various States made Citizens of the ‘Union’ immediately upon Adoption; 2) Those anticipated by Article I Section VIII, to be Naturalized, and those Contemplated in Article II Section I Clause V, being natural born Citizens.

    So I now take that ‘declaratory statement’ to mean that Judge Gray ‘expressly excluded’ any reference to any affect upon natural born Citizens by the 14th Amendment.

    I have been accused of being less than lucid so if I have failed to convey my thoughts clearly don’t hesitate to make further inquiry.


    As to the ‘Incorporating’ of the USA, it is/was a matter recognizing and conforming to the needs of National and International COMMERCE and is ‘mere’ Legislation, not to be confused with the more profound implications were it an ‘Amendment’.

  49. naturalborncitizen Says:

    slcraig: That was well stated and, in my opinion, legally accurate. Furthermore, it is supported by the US Supreme Court’s holding in Marbury v. Madison, which states that no clause of the Constitution may render any other clause superfluous. In a prior post to this blog, I stated:


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

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

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

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

  50. I will agree totally with cluebyfour – Cornyn is my Senator and I have contacted him numerous times on numerous different subjects. Rarely do I receive a reply and on those rare occasions – it is MONTHS after I have written. If I wrote prior to a vote being taken on a bill, he might contact me and quote me the context of the bill after the vote. WHAT? Yes, I already knew what the bill was – I was expressing my wishes as to how I wanted him to vote on that bill. He will never tell you how he voted, nor will his office staff, nor will they tell you why he voted the way he did.

    I’ve asked him numerous times what his dealings, both political and personal, were with Allen Stanford (huge Texas ponzi scheme). I have NEVER received a reply to that question! He and his wife took many trips with Stanford and had substantial ties to the guy.

    I can’t wait until I can campaign and vote against him! I’m just thankful that KB Hutchison isn’t running again (at least that’s what she says – and we all know how that turned out when she ran for Gov.)

    I hope for Mario he does get involved and helps Mario out – but I won’t be holding my breath.

  51. I’m not trying to hijack the ‘comments’ to a very precient topic to which I share great empathy for.

    Although I have been ‘acknowledged’ as being a ‘native-born US Citizen’ that REMAINS insufficient to my quest and purpose.

    Sould I direct/redirect my further thoughts to;

    …or continue on here in that the resolution of American Citizenship questions are not disconnected by their means of being obtained, but rather are dependent on the full understanding of those means.

  52. In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

    In 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.

    In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS Herein Named”. in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others “…shall be deemed, adjudged, & taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.“

    In 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS & OTHERS THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    Why do they use term “natural born citizen (1785 and 1786), but in later years use the term “natural born subject” (1787, 1788, and 1790)?
    ed. I dont know why they switched it to nbs, but I do know that they didnt state in 1785 or 1786 that these persons were natural born citizens, only that they would have the same rights as natural born citizens – Leo

  53. The articles cited in this posted are dated 2008; it is indeed a shame that George W. Bush’s State Department treated this veteran so poorly.

    As the articles indicate, Marroquin’s birth was not properly registered with the governmental authorities. Perhaps he needs a crack attorney to guide him through the process.

    ed. Cornyn sent the letter regarding his inquiry just four days before Obama was inaugurated. Nothing has happened since. Furthermore it is well documented that the Obama administration continued the policy of denying passports to all persons born to midwives in Texas and California. Silvario Vasquez was drafted at the height of Vietnam based upon such a BC but was initially denied a passport. Furthermore, you cannot submit a COLB from Texas or California to this day and expect to get a passport from the Obama administration. Read the whole article next time. It’s about bureaucratic hypocrisy.

    If a Texas COLB isn’t good enough for Obama, why should OBama’s COLB be good enough for Texas? – Leo

    REVISED by editor 10:45AM Feb 24, 2010: The letter sent by Cornyn stating he had opened an inquiry is dated December 16, 2009 – almost one year AFTER Obama became President. My comment above contains a chronological errror. Whatever began with other administrations has clearly been continued by Obama. Considering that these men have way more proof of citizenship than he does, the hypocrisy simply reeks. – leo

  54. naturalborncitizen Says:

    slcraig: You can reply here.

  55. I find it wholly ridiculous and ludicrous for anyone to say, think or believe that jus Sanguinis is NOT applicable to US Citizenship when fully half of Title 8 is replete with the various scenarios of obtaining US Citizenship via even the most tenuous jus Sanguinis connection to an existing US Citizen.

    The 1st Congress ESTABLISHED that fact by the ENLARGEMENT of the construction of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and although the 3rd Congress ‘repealed’ that ‘specific enlargement’ it maintained the jus Sanguinis doctrine in deriving US citizenship insofar as ‘relation’ to a US Citizen was/is concerned.

    The ridiculous and ludicrous are those that say the 14th ended that or that the English Common Law provided that ‘birth on the soil’ was sufficient before the 14th.

    Both are historically factually and legally without support when you read the Constitutions of the various States post the Declaration of Independence up to the 14th.

    Also, much of the controversy that arises in many recorded statements and Judicial Opinions when one fails to take into consideration of the common vernacular in use during that period. Often, An ‘alien’ or ‘foreign born’ continued to be referred to as such even AFTER being ‘naturalized’ with citizenship. The significance of that is made plain in those few cases where it seems a child of ‘alien or foreign born’ parents are erroneously referred to as natural born.

    Even the Elg case takes close reading to understand the fine point.

    And to my point in pointing to these random associations is to state that I do not feel it is necessarily necessary to ‘argue’ the ‘correct and proper’ definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen in any Petition or Brief to the SCOTUS, relying solely on their adherence to the Rule of Law with only the admonishment to confine the considerations to the LAWS that were ESTABLISHED post the Declaration of Independence emanating from the Congress and various States.

    Too risky…?

  56. In 1788, the Delaware state legislature passed, “A SUPPLEMENTARY ACT TO THE ACT, INTITULED AN ACT FOR NATURALIZATION” in which they declared “That any alien or foreigner already settled, or inhabiting within this state, or who shall hereafter come to settle or reside therein….shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be a natural born subject of this state and shall be thenceforth entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges of a natural born subject of this state“.

    So in this case, is Delaware saying that the aliens are now deemed “to be a natural born subject”?

    And why use the term “natural born subject” in 1788?

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

    28 USC 1251;

    § 1251. Original jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

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

  58. The Vermont Constitution of 1777,

    “SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.

    When they revised the constitution in 1786, they wrote,

    “XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”

    They changed “foreigner” to “person”, they changed the elective offices that a naturalized person could hold but they didn’t change “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen”.

    Why wouldn’t they have change it?

  59. There is a simple reason why the guy cannot get a passport. It is that the US State Department requires an OFFICIAL birth certificate from a government (usually a state, but also New York, Washington DC and Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). Neither a doctor’s birth document nor a hospital’s is an official birth certificate from a government.

    Obama’s, however, is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. Yes, the COLB is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. THOUSANDS of people use it every year to get their passports.

    ed. The other men in the video had BC’s from the cities they were born in. Mario’s BC was also a document approved for authorization in that county at that time. Furthermore, if you have a raised seal COLB from Texas or California, just like Obama’s, it’s not enough for a passport.

    If Obama won’t honor a COLB from Texas, why should Texas honor Obama’s COLB? – Leo

  60. “What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended” (Justice Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997)

    The founding generation used the terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably (certanly the case in Massachusetts). So how would they define the term “natural born” when they read it for the first time in the Constitution?

    ed. The founding generation did not use the term interchangeably. The state Constitutions were not contemplating a President, just a citizen. Some state legislators may have used the term nbs, but that doesnt make them “interchangeable”. Furthermore, the drafters only used nbc as to President… not as to citizen. Clearly, they were establishing a more stringent test for POTUS than for Senator or Representative. And as to original meaning of the text, the 14th Amendment doesnt contain the words “natural born” before citizen. So if you are looking at it through Scalia’s eyes, then you should be asking “where’s the beef?”. The 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”, it only defines citizen. – Leo


    I was born in Alice Texas 1941. my growing years I knew Mario Marroquin, his granfather, father, mother, brother. I grad . 1960 with Mario . I personally know/have known about midwife deliveries, home, freeway deliveries since I am BSN,RN . OB Case Managment. /recently retired. Who will be our next Tx gov’r ? I wil intent to contact our reprentatives..Unbelivable

    – ed. Thanks Loretta. Mario and other vets and citizens are left groping around with no passport, prisoners in the very country some of them fought to protect. Their elected representatives won’t do anything that even touches citizenship issues because Obama’s documentation doesn’t rise to the level of someone like Mario, yet he’s allowed to be Commander In Chief and Mario can’t even cross the border. It’s wrong. Leo

  62. During the case of Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith, decided in the House of Representatives in 1789, James Madison said the following:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    Do you agree with Madison that place of birth is the “most certain criterion” of allegiance?

    ed. I think it depends on the person, his parents, his experiences and his education. I don’t agree that the answer, for all dual citizens, is the same. That’s why for a position as important to national security as Commander In Chief, the framers would require a person be born with only one allegiance. – Leo

  63. Rodolfo Canales Says:

    Mario is a childhood friend of mine. We grew up in the same neighborhood. We played together as children. His parents were good friends of my parents. It anger me to know that this happen to him. There were hundreds if not thousands of us born at home with help of a mid-wife not all were Hispanic, how do they get their passports? Just one more way of discrimination against the Hispanic community.

    ed. Mario’s story was the most emotional report I’ve ever issued. Despite one’s opinion of Obama’s eligibility (Mario is not a birther), I think we can all agree Mario has earned his passport and that he is a patriot and his citizenship is beyond question. But sadly, I do not believe anything will be done about it. Mario informed me that he has forwarded supporting affidavits of citizenship and other documents, but that he gets no response. This country is washed in bureaucratic depravity and there is not a single statesman out there who is going to lift a real finger to help Mario. I hope to eat my words on this too, but something tells me that meal isn’t coming. – Leo

  64. Leo & gorefan:

    A great source of information is St George Tucker’s Blackstone. Now I’m not talking about the sections on English law where Blackstone’s original work is merely regurgitated for the record, I’m talking about the appendix where Tucker goes into detail as to the extent that English common law may have remained in the US after the revolution. More importantly is the historical references as to the founding of the American colonies by people of different countries. Not all colonies were settled by the British. Some where conquered by the Brits well after they had been established & settled with common law based on natural law aka biblical law & the law of nations. This is the part of Tucker’s Blackstone that makes liberals throw tempertantrums & then they go running for the hills. I have yet to have just one, even those that claim to be of the legal profession refute this passage from Tucker’s Blackstone:

    St George Tucker (Tucker’s Blackstone 1803):

    Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets…

    3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.

    And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.

    Now take a look at a couple of oft forgotten Tucker quotes:

    Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker. —

    TITLE: To Horatio G. Spafford.
    EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 335.
    PLACE: Monticello
    DATE: 1814

    The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law. —

    TITLE: To Judge Tyler.
    EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 66.
    PLACE: Monticello
    DATE: 1812

    Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (both 1828 & 1846 editions):

    ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen

  65. In 431 BC, a candidate for citizenship had to prove that he was a freeborn son of a citizen father and mother, which was the first test of birth citizenship. Then he had to prove that he was eighteen years old & of good moral character. (From: Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1 & Fathers & Sons in Athens by B. Strauss pg 43)

  66. PRESIDENTIAL TIMBER (1950 Cornell University)

    A natural born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country…

    In Ludlam v. Ludlam, judge Selden of the New York Court of Appeals provides a historical explanation:

    The subject of alienage was very elaborately examined in Calvin’s Case(7 Coke, 1, 6 James I). Among the principles settled in that case and which have remained unquestioned since are these: (1) that natural allegiance does not depend upon locality or place: that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot therefore be confined within certain boundaries; or to use the language of Coke that “liegeance and faith and truth which are her members and parts are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.”22

    Judge Selden concludes that

    “as a result of necessity from these principles, the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural-born citizens of England.”23

    Thus, parentage and not the accidental place of birth determine “natural born citizens” under common law principles…

  67. Leo,

    I promise, I’m not spamming, but you have a lot of new readers and I just want to get the point across that even the lay person like me with absolutely no higher degree than a high school diploma can educate themselves if they are willing to take the tiime and dig deep into the books and learn the original intent & meaning of the words & phrases that are embedded in our founding documents and are to be the source for all statutory laws. [Justice Joseph Story on the Rules of Constitutional Interpretation (1833)]:

    § 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties…if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application…§ 210. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

  68. You said, “The state Constitutions were not contemplating a President, just a citizen.”

    Many of the early state constitutions adopted the English Common Law, subject to change by their legislatures. Without evidence of a change, would those states have retained the English Common Law meaning of the term “natural born”?

  69. Common Law did not spring forth in whole from ENGLAND.

    To suppose so would cause you to rewrite all of the names of WRITS from their original Latin to some form of Cockney.

    Common Law, even the usurped English Common Law taught by Blackstone, is the extension of Aristotle’s Politics to the Roman Laws of the Republic and the various precepts that found usefulness is various regions and places over time where ever civil societies joined to live in peace and commerce under agreed upon Rules.

    What I am trying to impart is that Common Law is the system by which “Statutory Laws” are adjudicated when there is a conflict.

    To say that any or all of the Founding Colony/States adopted English Common Law is NOT to say they adopted the ‘Statutory Laws’ of England, but rather, they adopted the Structure, repleat with the Prerogative Writs and Bureaucratic processes of making Petitions.

  70. Linda –

    “The common law, by which all persons, born within the king’s allegiance, became subjects, whatever were the situation of their parents, became the law of the colonies and so continued while they were connected with the crown of Great Britain. It was thus the law of each and all of the states at the Declaration of Independence and so remained until the national constitution went into effect that a child bom within their territory and ligeance respectively though of alien parents who were abiding temporarily thereby became a citizen of the state of which he was a native. The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all the thirteen old states, pre-supposed the existence of the common law and was founded upon its principles so far as they were applicable to our situation and form of government. And to a limited extent the principles of the common law prevail in the United States as a system of national jurisprudence.” Lynch v. Clarke (1844)

    “The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law in force when the Constitution was adopted he is a citizen.” Lynch v. Clarke (1844)

    “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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. I; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)”, United States v. Rhodes

    So, Linda, in 1774 the Continental Congress sent the King a declaration in which they said

    “That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:”


    “2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.”

    What would be their understanding of the term “natural born”?

  71. Leo, you said “The founding generation did not use the term interchangeably.”

    Yet when we look at the Masachusetts Acts of Naturalization, they use either term in the exact same way, in the exact same context and in passages that are almost word for word the same.

    So, when these Massachusett’s legislators first read the new Constitution, how would they have interpreted the term “natural born citizen”?

    ed. I quote Professor Solum (write to him and argue your point then tell us what he said):

    “If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead
    merely subject to its administrative control. On the other hand, the notion of a natural born subject might have been more flexible, encompassing all those who acquired citizenship at birth (as opposed to those whose citizenship was conferred after birth by “naturalization”).

    C. Citizens versus Subjects
    The discussion in the prior section31 operates on the assumption that the conventional meaning of the phrase of art “natural born citizen” for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of the analogous phrase “natural born subject” in nineteenth century English law. But is this assumption correct? Does the substitution of the term “citizen” for “subject” alter the meaning of the phrase? And if
    they did recognize a difference, what implications does that have for the meaning of the natural born citizen clause?32 The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”

    For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and postrevolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

    The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia,33 the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

    [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . .Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.34

    Jay’s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens is confirmed by Justice James Wilson’s opinion in Chisholm. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to “citizens” and “persons,”35 and not subjects: “[t]he term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet ‘foreign’ is prefixed.”36 Both Jay and Wilson’s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”—a distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the nature of sovereignty.

    The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects.

    Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema. This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen. One interpretation of the new term of art, “natural born citizen,” is that its content is identical to the content of the old phrase, “natural born subject,” with the purely nominal difference in the term (“citizen” versus “subject”) used to refer to members of the political community. This could result in the interpretation suggested above—which would limit “natural born citizens” to persons born of American parents on American soil.”

  72. “ed. I quote Professor Solum (write to him and argue your point then tell us what he said):”

    I will do that.

    Have you read “The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of American Founding” by John R. Vile?

    He writes, “James R. Stoner, Jr. has identified four ways in which common law influenced the U.S. Constitution. Consistent with some of the discussions at the Convention examined above, he first observes that the common law provided some of the language of the document. He specifically cites the provisions related to habeas corpus, ex post facto laws, the provision that an individual be “natural born,” and the term “good behavior” (2003, 17). He believes that, unless otherwise stated, the presumption was that such words would continue to maintain their existing meaning.”

    Dr. Stoner is Chairman of the Department of Goverment at LSU. And also a Professor at Beck University. That’s right Glen Beck has his very own Constituional expert. Which may explain Beck’s reluctance to weigh in on this issue.

  73. “ed. I think it depends on the person, his parents, his experiences and his education. ”

    In the case in which Madison makes this quote, the facts were never in dispute.

    William L. Smith was born in 1758 in South Carolina. His mother (a British subject) died in 1760. In early 1770, his father sent him to England for his education. In July of 1770, his father (a British subject) died. Young William stayed in England and Europe until 1783, when he returned to South Carolina. Dr. Ramsay argued that Smith could not have acquired his US citizenship from his parents and he wasn’t in the United States at the time of the Revolution, so he could only obtain citizenship after he returned to the US in 1783 and therefore could not be elected to the House of Representatives in 1788.

    Dr. Ramsay not only petitioned Congress to overturn the election, but he also wrote a dissertation on acquiring citizenship, and he wrote a personal letter to James Madison asking him to support his petition in Congress. Obviously, Madison disagreed with him.

  74. To Gorefan;

    Well, since we all have a right to make stuff up to support our opinions on this subject, given the FACT that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, I’ll posit that there are 3 ways to acquire citizenship UNDER THE RULE of U.S.Constitutional Law;

    1] ‘natural’ via the birth-right prerogative of Citizen Parents;

    2] ‘Statutory’ as covered by the Collective naturalization and naturalization’ statutes of Title 8

    3] Judicial, i.e., by a Judge who bases his decision on the EQUITY of the circumstances even to the extent of ignoring Constitutionally valid Treaties, Statutes, National Security proscriptions of classes of persons and yes, the ‘determination of good character’, and maybe a few bucks under the Bench…

    I would include a 4th, that being a Senate Resolution, i.e., SR 511, but it has NO Legal weight and is suitable only for framing to hang along with other assorted memorabilia of a life gone bad.

    Is that hail Britannia I hear in the background…?

  75. “SMITH, William Loughton, a Representative from South Carolina; born in Charleston, S.C., in 1758; attended preparatory schools in England 1770-1774; studied law in the Middle Temple at London, England, in 1774; pursued higher studies in Geneva 1774-1778; returned to Charleston, S.C., in 1783; was admitted to the bar in 1784 and commenced practice in Charleston; engaged in agricultural pursuits on his estate near Charleston; member of the privy council in 1784; member of the state house of representatives 1787-1788; warden of the city of Charleston in 1786; elected as a Pro-Administration candidate to the First, Second and Third Congresses and reelected as a Federalist to the Fourth and Fifth Congresses and served from March 4, 1789, until July 10, 1797, when he resigned; chairman, Committee on Elections (Third Congress), Committee on Ways and Means (Fourth and Fifth Congresses); appointed United States Minister to Portugal and Spain on July 10, 1797, and served until September 9, 1801, when he took leave of absence; commissioned Minister to the Ottoman Porte on February 11, 1799, but did not reach that court; returned to Charleston; unsuccessful Federalist candidate for election in 1804, 1806, and 1808 to the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Congresses; lieutenant in the state militia in 1808; again a member of the state house of representatives in 1808; president of the Santee Canal Co.; vice president of the Charleston Library Society and of the St. Cecilia Society; died in Charleston, S.C., December 19, 1812; interment in St. Philip’s Churchyard. ”

    Equitable Citizenship…?

  76. slcraig

    And yet for all the Smith bio, Dr. David Ramsay said he was not a citizen at birth and could not be a citizen until he returned to the US in 1783. And could not be a US Representative until he had been a citizen for at least seven years.

    Again read the case, and read Madison speech (I would also recommend Rep. Jackson’s speech since he disagreed with Madison). IMO, there was more than enough evidence to call Smith a citizen at birth without Madison’s speech.

    Yet, Madison still makes the speech and in it says,

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    Now why would Madison, in 1789, make a speech in which he virtually paraphrases the English Common Law?

  77. borderraven Says:


    First. Thank you for opening comments. As you see, many folks need to vent our anger and disgust about how the Obama regime is mistreating an honorably discharged veteran. I’ve passed Mario’s story on to a Commander of local American Legion post and others.

    Second, I’ll be sharing some of my Obama research with this group.


  78. slcraig

    “Well, since we all have a right to make stuff up to support our opinions on this subject”

    Really, you make up stuff to support your position?

    Is that why the judge said your arguments were not very lucid?

  79. Good to see you’re still kickin, Leo. We’ve missed ya. You ever play email chess?
    ed. No to email chess. not my thing 🙂 -leo

  80. borderraven Says:

    I apologize for preaching to the choir, but Obama is not a US Natural Born Citizen.

    1. A US citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch, but not the Executive Branch, is:
    a. any naturalized US Citizen
    b. A US-born US citizen using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
    c. A foreign-born US citizen using the formula:

    2. US Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, is:
    a. Using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP

    Also see:

  81. gorefan,

    1st of all, you cite correspondence prior to July 4, 1776 when the colonies were still subject to England thus you are trying to compare apples & oranges. You also neglect English history & its origins.

    The common law of the sovereign nation states that later formed England prior to the Norman Conquest (which slowly implemented feudal law), had its root in the laws of nature.

    US State Dept & US House documents, otherwise publ. as Executive documents…By United States Congress House

    In reply to the note of Her Britannic Majesty’s charge? d’affaires of the 19th instant the undersigned has the honor to state, with reference to paragragh 2 of the law of the kingdom of Saxony of the 2d of July, 1852, relative to acquisition and loss of citizenship, copy of which is herewith annexed, that children of aliens born in Saxony do not by the mere accident of birth acquire Saxon nationality, inasmuch as the right of Saxon citizenship by birth is obtained only on the supposition that either the father or the mother (whether lawfully married or not) were at the time of such birth, either here or abroad, Saxon subjects. The undersigned, &c, FRIESEN.

    Dresden, November 21, 1868.

    Paragraph 2 of the law relative to acquisition and loss of Saxon citizenship of July 2, 1852:

    By birth all those are entitled to Saxon citizenship whose father, or, if illegitimate, whose mother, at the time of their birth, whether at home or abroad, were Saxon subjects.

    Saxon law immediately after the Norman Conquest & prior to feudal doctrine:

    The people, as among the Saxons, were divided into freemen and slaves, though the latter assumed, under the Norman polity, a new appellation, and were called villani, or villeins. Of villeins, those were called nativi who were such d nativitate, as when one was descended from a father and mother who were both villeins a nativitate.

    So, we see that the Welsh from the north & the Saxon from the south & east both held true to the law of nature in which the children follow the condition of the father when born in wedlock. This was the common law of all nations that formed England(Great Britain) & the present day United Kingdom.

    Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (1791). Wilson signed the Declaration, the constitution. He was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson wrote the 1st Commentaries on American Law after the ratification fo the Constitution and pertaining to US citizenship, he wrote:

    English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems…You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

    John Adams:

    A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company, the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke…You and I, my dear friend, have been sent into fife, at a lime when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to have lived. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government more than of air, soil or climate, for themselves or their children.

  82. more from Supreme Court Justice James Wilson:

    I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

    A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen…

    You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

  83. To GoreFan;

    Well, I thought, by virtue of your username, you had a sense of humor.

    As far as ‘making things up’ I would point out that there is abundant circumstantial evidence that the ‘person’ whose exact citizenship condition is in question has been the source of a great many ‘novel’ suppositions that takes a willing suspension of disbelief in order reconcile with the original intent and common usage of the subject idiom.

    The particular example you held out is an example of the extent of myopia necessary to attempt ‘reconciliation’ of conformity to a citizenship condition the subject person lacks and never possessed.

    WLSmith was born on the family ‘estate’ in 1758. Although his father died after WLSmith left for education his ‘estate’ remained and obviously was maintained as his inheritance. He left England in 1774 for Geneva. It would be fair to speculate that he did so in light of the turmoil that was growing in the ‘colonies’. He obviously has some communications with his ‘estate’, whether it was with family members or some other PATRIOTS is not clear, but what is CLEAR is that when he returned his ‘estate’ was in tact and had NOT been confiscated as being a ‘Loyalist Property’. It is also clear from the record that he adhered to the cause of Liberty, made so by the support of MADISON.

    But the bulk of the humor I felt was/is emanating from your implied concurrence with Dr. Ramsey, a S.Carolina native of Irish heritage, who would have it that a person born in the Colony and that went, in transito, to gain an education, would deny that person ‘citizenship’ due to the death of his parents. mmm mmm mmmm

    As far as my ‘legal lucidity’ is concerned, well, the complete record is yet to be filed.

  84. Linda – “1st of all, you cite correspondence prior to July 4, 1776 when the colonies were still subject to England thus you are trying to compare apples & oranges. You also neglect English history & its origins.’

    From the Colonial Charter of Georgia 1732,

    “Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions.”

    From Sir William Blackstone,
    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” 1770

    “I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s ” Commentaries” in America as in England.” Edmund Burke, 1775

    “Of course, the foreign law I think is relevant is very old foreign law — very old English law. Because what is meant by the terms of the Federal constitution is dependent upon what Englishmen in 1791 considered to be due process of law, or what they considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. So I use foreign law all the time – but it is all very old English law.” Justice Scalia

    From former President of the United States and Chief Justice of Supreme Court Willima Howard Taft in Ex Parte Grossman,
    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

    From MR. JUSTICE WAYNE in ex parte Wells 1855
    “At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, American statesmen were conversant with the laws of England, and familiar with the prerogatives exercised by the Crown. Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English Crown or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time, both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word “pardon.” In the convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.”

    “We must then give the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the Constitution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in 30 U. S. 280, and in Flavell’s Case,@ 8 Watts & Sargent 197; Attorney General’s brief.”

    In 1795, Alexander Hamiliton wrote a legal brief on a Carriage Tax. He begins by lamenting the fact that the Constitution does not explain the meaning of direct and indirect taxes,

    “What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes ? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”

    After a length discussion of taxes, he ends with,

    “If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and liable to apportionment; consequently, not a direct tax.”

    “Some argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

    I know that the question I asked you involves the pre-July 4th, 1776 meaning of the term “natural born subject”. Is that a problem? Let me ask again.

    In 1774, what was the colonists understanding of the term “natural born subject”? Was it jus soli, or was it jus soli and jus sanquinis?

    ed. The problem with you theory – as discussed by Solum – is that a Citizen is not a Subject. A Citizen is a sovereign. End of story. The framers were creating something new not holding fast to something they hated, which was being “subjects”. Some ideas of common law were incorporated into the US legal system and throughout the states, but your argument fails because it assumes the Citizens believed they derived their rights as natural born subjects did. Why don’t you go over the point I raised as written by Solum and discuss them point by point? – Leo

  85. Please specify the evidence that supports your contention that Mario Marroquin has a Texas COLB.

    ed. I never said he has a Texas COLB. I said he has a long form BC signed by a licensed Doctor who was authorized to issue said BC. Furthermore, the long form BC’s of the other veterans in the article were duly authorized by the cities where they were born. But because they were born of midwives in Texas, they were denied. One of them was a veteran who was drafted because of his BC, but that same BC was not good enough for a passport. Furthermore, the State Department’s policy continues to be that anyone born of a midwife in Texas and California must undergo a stricter scrutiny. That is why they do not accept Texas and California COLBs as prima facie proof of citizenship. The point being that the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces should be required to submit at least as much proof as they require. The simple fact remains, Obama’s COLB has a red flag in that there is a four day gap between date of birth and the date it was filed. Furthermore, he has not provided evidence he wasn’t born in a house or via a midwife. Why is it wrong to have the President provide documentation that’s as stringent as he requires for those the State Department flag as not having proper bona fides.? -Leo

  86. “is that a Citizen is not a Subject.”

    I understand that there is a conceptual difference between citizen and subject, even though John Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution using both terms “citizens of the Commonwealth” and “subjects of the Commonwealth”.

    You say there is a difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen” (ignoring for the moment the naturalized citizens), fine. But then what does that modifer “natural born” mean? Clearly, it changes the characteristics of the noun – citizen. So, what did it mean in 1774? Was it jus soli? And if it changed to jus soli and jus sanguinis, when did it change? How would the “voters” (as Justice Scalia refers to them) know that a change had occurred? That is all I’m looking for, when did the change in “natural born” occur and how do we know it occurred?

    ed. Your question assumes your original contention is correct. I’m not in agreement.- leo

  87. borderraven Says:

    John Bingham in the 37th Congress 2nd Session House of Representatives 1862

    Who are natural born citizens?


  88. borderraven Says:

    LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
    It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’ Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.
    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.
    Turning to the naturalization laws preceding the act of 1906, being [231 U.S. 9, 23] those under which Luria obtained his certificate, we find that they required, first, that the alien, after coming to this country, should declare on oath, before a court or its clerk, that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereignty; second, that at least two years should elapse between the making of that declaration and his application for admission to citizenship; third, that as a condition to his admission the court should be satisfied, through the testimony of citizens, that he had resided within the United States five years at least, and that during that time he had behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, fourth, that at the time of his admission he should declare on oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign sovereignty. These requirements plainly contemplated that the applicant, if admitted, should be a citizen in fact as well as in name,-that he should assume and bear the obligations and duties of that status as well as enjoy its rights and privileges. In other words, it was contemplated that his admission should be mutually beneficial to the government and himself, the proof in respect of his established residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution being exacted because of what they promised for the future, rather than for what they told of the past.

  89. “I said he has a long form BC signed by a licensed Doctor who was authorized to issue said BC.”

    Where is the evidence that what the doctor signed was a duly registered birth under the governing laws? (Doctors sign paperwork all the time; that doesn’t mean the birth was properly registered with the state under governing law.)

    “Furthermore, the long form BC’s of the other veterans in the article were duly authorized by the cities where they were born.”

    Again, where is the evidence of that?

    ed. You need to watch the Time magazine video and get yourself educated on the whole Texas midwife thing. It’s well established in the links I provided to the article that the BCs involved were properly executed according to law and that these BCs had seals from the cities and states involved. The evidence was linked in the article all along. Please read the entire article and follow the links. Im trying to be patient with you but you are ignoring the evidence. Now before you can post here again with the same argument, I require YOU to find the evidence – which exists in the links – study it and report back to this board what you found. That’s your homework. Do that and then we shall talk. – Leo

    “But because they were born of midwives in Texas, they were denied.”

    Were any of these births duly registered with the state? If so, where’s the evidence of that?

    “That is why they do not accept Texas and California COLBs as prima facie proof of citizenship.”

    That is not accurate, as there is no problems with COLBs issued by hospitals. The U.S. State Department regularly issues passports based on California or Texas COLBs, as I have one.

    “The point being that the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces should be required to submit at least as much proof as they require.”

    There is no such requirement, and he has.

    “The simple fact remains, Obama’s COLB has a red flag in that there is a four day gap between date of birth and the date it was filed.”

    A red flag perhaps to you, but no one else.

    Besides, President Obama was born after the close of business on a Friday. A very reasonable supposition is that his paperwork was sent to the Health Department the following business day (Monday), and filed the next business day (Tuesday). Hardly a red flag, and not a problem under the governing state law.

    “Furthermore, he has not provided evidence he wasn’t born in a house or via a midwife.”

    Proof of which is not constitutionally required. (And 99% of births in Hawaii in 1961 were in a hospital.)

    “Why is it wrong to have the President provide documentation that’s as stringent as he requires for those the State Department flag as not having proper bona fides.?”

    Because there’s no indication there’s anything unusual with President Obama’s birth, or the registration thereof.

    And are you referring to the policy initiated prior to Obama’s presidency? That’s Obama’s fault?

    Unlike midwife births in border states (such as California or Texas), there’s no absolutely reason that President Obama’s would be flagged. It is simply a false comparison.

  90. Hey Leo,nice to see you back here,and putting your work in the public domain for the historical record.Mario’s story is heartwrenching and a prime example of “reality inversion” whereby each passing day we witness truth and justice turned upside down.The boldness of the dialectical process is staggering in scope and nature,and knows no bounds or limitations.Yet,we must fight on.Even if we believe it is an excercise in futility to battle the Beast,it is not.Although it will not do much to write or call the arrogant employees of ours in government,it shold still be done.That being said,if you are interested in getting Mario’s story out on the AJ show,it would be best to contact Texe Marrs.He has known him for decades.Contacting Alex’s screenrs would be all for naught.Same thing if readers here contacted them.You were too hot to handle prior to the presidential inauguration.After the fact,he released his film which was safe to do.Same with anything related to Obama nowMainstream political pundits and comedians are now allowed to ‘do their thing’.It is past the danger zone to discuss him or any issues that are relative to his eligbility.So there is a good chance that he would have you on his show.Take Care,Jim note: Go to the ‘About’ and select ’email texe.’

    ed. I have not been able to connect to since I made this comment about wanting to appear on the show. I simply cannot connect. I don’t know who is blocking it but it is being blocked for weeks now. – Leo

  91. I too am pleased that you’ve come out of the dark. Here is a simple, probably naive, question. Many of the law suits regarding Obama’s eligibility have been dismissed because of “lack of standing”. Is there any possibility that a lawsuit brought by Mario would stand because he can demonstrate that he has been harmed?

    ed. Good question. Something to think about but there are some obvious problems since the issue started in 2000 and the State Department now continues to fail Mario. – leo

  92. gorefan:

    Language of Liberty 1660-1832 (Political discourse and social dynamics in the Anglo-American world) by J.C.D. Clark [Cambridge University Press, Great Britain 1994]

    [i]t was held by the English Court of Exchequer Chamber that English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects[end quote]

    the definition of natural born was later expanded by statute to include children of aliens born within the realm. Those children born to aliens were naturalized subjects at birth as stated by Vattel. However, we clearly see from English literature that is taught in England universities to this day that the original definition of natural born in England meant being born on the soil (jus soli) to parents (plural)(jus sanguinis) who were subjects.

    Another great book for reference is “America and tha Law of Nations” 1776-1939 by Mark Weston Janis [Oxford University 2010]

  93. Hey Leo,

    In 2009, I used a COLB from Texas to get my new passport.

    I actually have my old photo copy “long form” that I got in 1977, but I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen with a more recent copy. Texas, like Hawaii, no longer gives out “long form” copies, only extracts which are pretty much the same as the Hawaiian short form. (In reality, it’s a little more complicated than that – depending on the year of your birth, you can still get a long form – in my case, no.)

    In spite of all the talk that you cannot even register to play Little League without a long form, I was able to get my passport using my Texas COLB.


    ed. There is a video floating around of somebody getting a long form from Hawaii. Furthermore, the State Department says that some short form abstract versions of birth certificates are not acceptable. Go ask them why Fred. Additionally, all of the passport expediting services will not accept Texas and California COLBs…. because such a COLB must go through stricter scrutiny and therefore cannot be used to procure an “expedited” passport. That you might have got a passport with a COLB dosn’t mean your COLB wasn’t put through the ringer and seriously scrutinized more than from other states. – Leo

  94. gorefan Says:

    Hello – Here is another question.

    In the Constitution’s pirate clause, why does it appear that the framers used Blackstone’s Commentaries as a guide?

    Specifically, Book 4 Chapter 5 “Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations”.

  95. gorefan Says:

    Hi Leo – I have another question.

    In November, 1777, the Continental Congress was drafting the Articles of Confederation. In the first draft, they wrote,

    “And for the more certain preservation of friendship and mutual intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Citizens of every State, going to reside in another State, Shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the natural born free Citizens of the State”

    and in the second draft they wrote,

    “And [the better to secure and perpetuate mutual]1 friendship and intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Inhabitants of every State [Paupers Vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted] going to reside in another State shall be entitled to all the rights and priviledges of the natural born free Citizens of the State”

    And the final draft was written,

    “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States”

    Did these “natural born free Citizens of the State” referred to in the first drafts, become the “natural born Citizens” of the United States when the Constitution was adopted?

    And did the naturalized Citizens of the States (those naturalized by the various state Constitutions) become the “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?

  96. throwshoesatobama Says:

    I read through the comments and I don’t think this has been asked. Since they specifically mention CA and TX does that kind of imply COLBs from other states are good?

    ed. State department says “some” short form version BCs are not acceptable. I guess the answer is, “it depends”. Write to them and ask. The point is that COLBs are sometimes accepted and sometimes not. So the POTUS ought to come up with something better than a COLB or at least address the nation as to why he won’t or can’t. That’s what a statesman would do for his nation so divided. – leo

  97. borderraven Says:


    CAlifornia will on request provide on the computer printed COLB the CONFIDENTIAL information, not normally provided.


    Confidential Information on Birth Record:
    “Some individuals have special needs for a birth certificate that contains the confidential information provided at the time the birth record was prepared. This confidential
    information may be used to establish ethnicity, to provide health background, or for other personal reasons. For
    information on how to obtain a birth certificate containing the confidential information, please refer to the Birth
    Certificate section of our website: (then select “Services”). Only specific individuals may obtain
    confidential copies.

  98. borderraven Says:


    Presidents 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 12, who were “present at the adoption of the constitution” became the first-generation US Citizens “by conversion”.
    With George Washington being 55 and Zachary Taylor being the youngest at 3 years old.

    The “second-generation” US Citizens who were born of two first generation citizens, became the Natural Born Citizens.

    The Natural Born Citizens who became US Presidents are: 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43.
    Both of their parents either became citizens at the adoption of the constitution, or were born of the new citizens, or were naturalized before the future president was born.

  99. AGAIN: Where is the evidence that Mario Marroquin’s documents were duly registered under the governing laws? The articles about him do not contain such evidence; Marroquin is not even mentioned in the Time video.

    But speaking of the Time video, the State Department official specifically said the higher scrutiny applied to birth certificates issued for birth-by-midwives in border states was instituted after 9/11. GEORGE W. BUSH was president then. Marroquin’s passport denial occurred while GEORGE W. BUSH was president. Similarly, your article notes that U.S. Senator Cornyn — a Republican — has not been helpful in helping Marroquin. How is that President Obama’s fault?

    ed. This is now on Obama’s watch and his policy is in effect… he did change the Foreign Affairs manual – which is State Department domain as is passports — the FAM was OK by Clinton and Bush so why not Obama? He’s got a dodgy COLB with all kinds of red flags, yet Mario served this country for ten years, is a 100% disabled vet and has a proven history of being born in Alice, texas… way more proof than Obama can come up with… we dont even know where he was born, how he was born… and you think it’s cool for him to deny Mario a passport? You are hypnotized.- Leo

    It is pretty obvious that President Obama is merely maintaining policies and procedures enacted by his predecessor’s administration. There is nothing nefarious about that.

    ed. Then why did he change the foreign affairs manual. You seem to think he’s powerless to implement a policy which would grant Mario a passport via the State Department… but it’s OK to grant passports to the children of illegal aliens… just keep talkin’ bro. Keep proving the point for us. The Obama administration are hypcrites. That was the point of the article. Thank you for proving it. – leo

    And the situation of Marroquin, Vasquez, and Rodriguez aren’t comparable to President Obama’s because — unlike California and Texas — Hawaii is not a border state: it is, in fact, rather difficult to slip into that state (with it being a chain of islands in the middle of the Pacific and all that). Moreover, the births of those individuals (and others similarly situated) were known to have occurred under the presence of midwives, and, as the Time video stated, document fraud by midwives in border states was known to occur and be a problem. With President Obama, in contrast, there’s no actual, competent evidence to suggest he was born via a midwife, nor is there any evidence of rampant midwife-document fraud in Hawaii.

    And, AGAIN, your statement, “But a short form abstract (aka COLB) from Texas or California is still not considered prima facie proof of citizenship” is simply not true. Passports are routinely granted on COLBs from those states, provided they contain no red flags (such as birth by midwife in a border town).

    That you — but not any government agency — sees red flags with President Obama’s birth is your problem, not theirs.

  100. Sally Hill Says:

    “And, AGAIN, your statement, “But a short form abstract (aka COLB) from Texas or California is still not considered prima facie proof of citizenship” is simply not true. Passports are routinely granted on COLBs from those states, provided they contain no red flags (such as birth by midwife in a border town).”

    You are wrong. I am from Texas. I was born in September 1961, (1 month after Obama). I was born to 2 US Natural Born Citizens in a Hospital in the heart of Texas and I was denied a Passport when I submitted my COLB from Texas. I was told that I MUST obtain a certified long-form in order to get a passport. There are NO red flags of any kind in mine or my families history and I definitely was not born in a border town- far from it!

    Therefore – I want to know why my COLB was not good enough to receive a passport but Obama’s COLB was. Am I being discriminated against due to my sex? my race? my political affiliation? Or perhaps Obama, like me, provided that long-form BC that he mentions finding in his book, in order to receive his passport.

    NO – a COLB from Texas is most definitely not accepted for a Passport – and I’m proof of it.

    Try again.

    ed. You’re not the only one, Sally. Thanks for posting. – leo

  101. This is now on Obama’s watch and his policy is in effect

    It started with GEORGE W. BUSH — yet no anger towards him.

    ed. there’s plenty of anger towards him. But he’s not here now and cant do anything about it. I’m not a Bush fan. I have a history of blogging against his admin as well. Get your facts straight. – Leo

    Again, there is nothing nefarious about an administration continuing with a previous administration’s policy. It, in fact, happens all the time.

    And this “horrible” policy is in effect to help curtail noncitizens from falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.

    ed. That’s why its hypocritical. It’s more important to make sure the POTUS is a natural born citizen then it is to deprive Mario, a ten year disabled war vet, of a passport. Who do you think poses more of a national security threat? A 68 year old decorated disabled war vet or an ineligible POTUS usurper? The POTUS should have his records checked at least as thoroughly as this veteran, but to date nobody has seen a single document testifying to the exact location of Obama’s birth. Even if it’s conceded he was born in Hawaii, which people should not concede based upon a web site image, we dont know if he was born in a hospital or wherever. If he wasn’t born in a hospital then he should go through the same checks as others born in a house like Mario. Geez man, what exactly is the problem with Obama coming forward and proving exactly where he was born and if he cant then he should say so. He’s the one who can end all of this crap but he wont. He’s messing with the country. Why doesn’t that bother you? People have a right to know. Where the hell do we putthe plaque commemorating the birth of the 1st African American President? Where do we put that? – Leo

    He’s got a dodgy COLB with all kinds of red flags

    Says you. That you see red flags where no one else does is your problem, not President Obama’s.

    ed. The State Department sees a red flag on delayed BC’s… that’s an established fact. His BC was delayed. Furthermore, birth at home is also a red flag for the State department and we dont know if Obama was born at home or not. There’s also another red flag in that his BC was not accepted by the State Registrar. – leo

    yet Mario served this country for ten years

    AGAIN: Where is the evidence that Marroquin’s documents were duly registered under the governing laws?

    ed. The evidence is in the license of the Doctor who was authorized to issue the BC. Mario didnt have a problem using the BC to enlist. No, that was just fine. – Leo

    way more proof than Obama can come up with

    The State of Hawaii says President Obama was born there; where does the State of Texas say Marroquin was born there?

    ed. The State of Hawaii has given conflicting answers. And their records are deviant in the extreme. – leo

  102. Linda,

    “Language of Liberty 1660-1832” and “America and tha Law of Nations” 1776-1939”

    Sorry I didn’t respond to this sooner, I only saw it today.

    Hopefully you will see it.

    I wanted to suggest somethings for you to read. It’s the report on the Calvin’s case by Lord Coke written in 1608.

    “Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded (f) contraligeant’ suæ debitum, for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it hath been said, is alia ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject”

    ed. You dont have the whole story on Calvin’s case. As with all of this, you only see what you want to see, not what is really there. From another comment at this blog:

    ed. Lord Coke stated the following in his report of Calvin’s case:-

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by nature and birthright’.

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by procreation and birthright’

    TWO essential qualities, not one.

    That aliens visiting England in friendship are ‘subjects’.

    That one was excluded from being a ‘natural born subject’ if the parent father was not a ‘subject’, such that the child was no subject, because the child was not ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’.

    This clearly means that sanguinis was one of TWO essential qualities required to be met for one to be a ‘natural born subject’.

    Interesting how Chief Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case, cited Calvin’s case, danced around ‘natural born’ and OMITTED to make ANY mention of these most important statements by Lord Coke, leaving it to be construed that soli was the only quality for ‘natural born’, when in fact this notion of soli only is INCORRECT.

    Sanguinis IS ESSENTIAL in making a ‘natural born’. – Leo

    And another good read is Justice Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges”

    Historical footnote: Charles C. Pinckney, one of the Framers, studied law under Justice Blackstone.

    These are authors who were familar to the founders.

    If you are interested in mid 19th centruy authors, then there is Alexander Cockburn’s “Nationality: or, The law relating to subjects and aliens, considered with a view to future legislation”

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth”


    “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

    “The law of the United States of America agrees with our own. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, with the original settlers carried with them.”

    Alexander Porter Morse in his 1881 thesis ““A Thesis on Citizenship”

    “In the law of nations, ” citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.”

    “This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″

    And in footnote 2: ” It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be “within the jurisdiction”‘].”

    and later he writes, “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”

    This was the understanding of the laws from the early 1600’s to the late 1800’s.

    ed. And none of it deems a dual citizen to be eligible as COmmander in Chief for being a “natural born” citizen. Clearly, had the framers meant to say all “born citizens are eligible for POTUS” than that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. It Occams Razor which really tells you all you need to know. It’s not like these cats were incapable of writing the words “natural born” before citizen. The did it once and only once… A2 S1. That means it was different than citizen and you dont have anything to say otherwise while we do. Minor vs Happersett for example. And the House of Reps definition by Bingham as well.- Leo

  103. “Clearly, had the framers meant to say all “born citizens are eligible for POTUS” than that’s what they would have said.”

    At the end of the convention Hamiliton gave Madison a draft constitution. It said that it was the Constituion that Hamilton wishes had been proposed to the Convention. It had the following provision, “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Clearly Hamilton wanted a more expansive eligibility requirement. But the framers want to limit it to people born in the United States, thus the “natural born Citizen” clause.

    So the only question to be answered is what did the term “natural born” mean. We know what it meant in in the colonies prior to July, 1776 (see Coke, Blackstone and Cockburn). But what did it mean after July, 4th, 1776?

    ed. It clearly meant something different than citizen and something different than “born a citizen” which is more than obvious from the quote you’ve left above. Had the framers been content with “born citizens” being Pres than that’s what the Constitution would say. but it doesn’t. The issue also is not what “natural born” meant… because those words go before subject as well as citizen… the issue is not what natural born subject meant. the issue is what natural born citizen meant. The Constitution could have said “born citizen” but that was rejected. The 14th Amendment could have used the words “natural born” but it didn’t. There’s no possible way the framers would ever allow a British subject to have been President. You know it as much as I do.

    Furthermore, the problem I have with you is that, with all your research and respect of the “colonists” and the times which bore this nation’s birth, you pretended (and that’s my opinion) to make believe the Treaty of Paris didn’t apply to the question I asked you. You then come back and say, “oops, I didnt remember such a thing existed, my bad”. I just dont believe you. I gave you wide leeway here to make your points, never editing anything you wrote. But you’ve lost my respect.- leo

  104. So, the State Dept. will not acknowledge that Mario is a citizen, but will they recognize him as a non-citizen national? I recognize that this is generally reserved for those born to a citizen parent or parents (and in some instances non-citizen parents) outside of the U.S. and its territories, but perhaps the State Dept. sees it that way. It’s that, or they recognize him as neither.

    The reason I bring it up is that non-citizen nationals can apply for non-citizen national passports. Perhaps the wrong approach has been taken hear. You noted in your article that:

    Ҥ 51.45 Department discretion to require evidence of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.

    The Department may require an applicant to provide any evidence that it deems necessary to establish that he or she is a U.S. citizen or NON-CITIZEN NATIONAL, including evidence in addition to the evidence specified in 22 CFR 51.42 through 51.44.” (Caps mine for emphasis.)

    Furthermore, I have in front of me an Application for a U.S. Passport form DS-11, 12-2010. On the cover page it states, “U.S. PASSPORTS, EITHER IN BOOK OR CARD FORMAT, ARE ISSUED ONLY TO U.S. CITIZENS OR NON-CITIZEN NATIONALS.”

    Perhaps Mario could apply for a Certificate of Non Citizen Nationality? (see link)

    Then he could apply for the his passport.

    Believe me when I say that I believe Mario is a U.S. citizen. If nothing else has worked applying as a citizen, maybe applying as a national will. That is, I’m preaching the pragmatic approach and trying to think of a way to get him what he needs.

    I apologize for hijacking your caps, Leo. I needed them for emphasis.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: