Archive for March, 2011

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

Posted in Uncategorized on March 29, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment.  Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.

Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“.  (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source.  Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens.  Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”



QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

ANSWER: It’s not possible.

Such a person is born with divided allegiance.  Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States.  One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

 

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation.  We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign.  This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth.  Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth.  Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER

But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House.  Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment.  Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.

As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:

– foreigners

– aliens

– families of ambassadors or ministers

The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States. 

Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:

“To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States.” – Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))

The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument.  They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US.  But this is clearly false.  In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.

If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power.  This was always our law.  It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today.  Nothing has changed.

Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom.  I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears.  Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US.  Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.

Read the quote from his web site again:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

 

I will finish this report with a question:

Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?


Hat tip to reader Linda for Attorney General Black’s quote.
Hat tip to my infamous anonymous researcher for the Duncan v. Louisiana quote.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Advertisements

IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 17, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

UPDATE 2: 4:40 PM March 18, 2011: This issue is the top story at American Thinker right now with a link and hat tip to this blog.  The article, “Obama’s Puddles”, was written by longtime reader Sallyven.  Thanks to her and AT for the excellent work.

UPDATE: 4:02 PM  March 18, 2011Patrick J. Charles misquoted Bingham again in the BYU Journal of Public Law back in June 2010.  It’s the same exact misquote which has the words “of parents” omitted from Bingham’s statement on the floor of the House.  Not cool.

—–

Last week, a reader of this blog tipped me off to an incredible misquote of Representative John Bingham which appears in an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court by the Immigration Reform Law Institute – aka IRLI – for the Flores-Villar case.  Here is that tip in full:

“Sallyven Says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM e

In the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flores-villar-v-united-states/

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.authcheckd

The comment was in response to articles I wrote – one which argued that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” requires a person to be born in the US to “parents” who are citizens – and the other highlighting the scrubbing of a Michigan Law Review article by a well known law professor which stated the same, but then was changed after the dual citizen issue began to haunt Obama.

My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives.  One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

But the amicus brief filed by IRLI misquotes Bingham as follows:

The words “of parents” are mysteriously missing from the quote.  I held back on posting Sallyven’s comment until today because I wanted to contact IRLI and question them about the error.

I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless).  The staff attorney and I had a long conversation.  The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:

1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.

2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles.   Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog.  Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney.  But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.

3. IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context.

I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog.  I directed him to my blog.  At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified.   Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on.  But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago.  I was then informed that…

IRLI WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THE COMPACT BETWEEN STATES PERTAINING TO ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1308.

Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308?  That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent.

Well hey now.  What have we here?  The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility.

The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions.  To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1.  I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility.  Obviously, that would take an amendment.  But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.

Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference.  Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.

I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.

He continued to assure me that the words “natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”.  I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”.  I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”.  He told me that it wasn’t up to them.  It was up to each state.

He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it.  He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.

The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue.  At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.

The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t.  Yesterday marked a week with no response.  I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back.

Something is very shady about this situation.  The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation.  This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease.  The country is dying.  It is being killed from within.  If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.

If we accept that a person born with dual allegiance can be President, we are opening the White House to the potential children of despots who hate this nation.  Preventing this kind of foreign influence was the “strong check” John Jay warned George Washington of all those years ago when he introduced the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 12, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President.  Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune.  These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.

Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka  “The People’s Lawyer“.  (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed.  A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.  A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen;  the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens.  But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Bridgham further states:

“A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution.  The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,”…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning.” (Link to full article.)

So, The People’s Lawyer (and the Boston Globe) can now be listed as “birthers”.

Your legislators continue to dodge the issue claiming that it’s a “distraction”.  The Constitution is a distraction?  Only to a traitor.  Everyone should note with very careful particularity the name of each elected official who refers to the Constitution as a distraction.  These are traitors to their oath of office.

The question we are raising is not something made up to deal with Obama alone.  As I have stressed many times throughout the history of this blog, those who are “native born” are not necessarily “natural born”.  The Boston Globe published this back in 1896.  In that same year, the New York Tribune echoed the sentiment with regard to the Labor Party Candidate, Johannes Schurmann.  And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”


Recently, I published a report detailing the US State Department’s long standing rule of recognizing dual allegiance.  In that report, Secretary of State Lansing informed Senator Lodge that a US citizen – who was not born of citizen parents – could be forced into foreign military duty (even against the United States).  Long maintained that, as to such a citizen, the US had no diplomatic authority to demand his release.

Alternatively, Secretary of State Long stressed that if the child had been born of citizen parents, the child would be released to the US since the child would owe no allegiance to the foreign nation.

The issue of dual allegiance is not a joke and certainly no distraction (other than to those who disrespect our Constitution).  At the very least, those who support Obama should support the need for his eligibility to be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.  To leave the issue in perpetual limbo is to endanger the nation.

If Obama is eligible, so are the potential sons of foreign despots who hate this country.  Take your pick.  If Kim Jong Il or Osama bin Laden were to impregnate an American woman who gave birth in the US, that child could be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces based upon the precedent set by Obama.

Those states considering bills which would require Presidential candidates to prove they did not have dual allegiance at the time of their births are on the front lines of this battle.  I have come back to this blog in order to support their effort.  I hope there is at least one state in the union which has legislators who care enough about this nation’s future to risk the scorn of media propaganda.

Obama has admitted that his birth status was governed by Great Britain.  Therefore, he owed a dual allegiance to both the US and the monarchy.  This is not disputed.  The simple question we have raised, as have others throughout our history, is whether such a person, who at the time of his birth serves two masters, can be considered to be a natural born citizen of the US.

I don’t agree with everything Long stood for, and Bridgham’s thought process would have made McCain eligible, which I do not agree with.  Readers of this blog know that I don’t believe McCain was eligible.  The fact that he even ran for President, having been born in Panama, shows a cavalier and selfish attitude which was shared by his opponent.  True statesmen do not subject their nation to a crisis such as is now before us.  Thanks fellas.  Your self-importance is staggering.

History shows that Obama’s eligibility is, at best, questionable.  I don’t expect his supporters to back down, and I don’t even expect them to recognize the historical validity of the question.  To do so would be to admit that history does not provide a true foothold for Obama in the oval office.  His foothold depends upon ignoring, mocking and denying proven historical facts and debate.

Any legislator who thinks the Constitution is a distraction is an enemy of the Constitution.  Vote them out.

This nation was won by bravery and law.  I hope there is enough respect for those principles in state houses to get the job done because your federal legislators have sold you out.  Once again, it’s up to the states to get it right.  By enacting a bill which denies those born with dual allegiance to POTUS ballot access, the issue should end up at the doors of the Supreme Court.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 9, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

bingham 1872

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House.  If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested.  However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”.  It simply clarified who was a “citizen”.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment.  But they didn’t.

Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as “Vattel’s definition”.  Challenge that tactic every time.  Vattel didn’t make it up.  His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law.  Vattel was not a legislator.

It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham.  And this definition was never opposed on the floor.  And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the House floor.  And when an issue this important comes before the nation on the floor of  “the people’s House”, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people, then it’s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives, as a whole, agreed with that definition.  After all, our nation is governed by debate on the floor of the House.  But there never was debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional law.

The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.  It’s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other’s mistakes.  Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of “natural born citizen”, and no Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today.  If the House wants to change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and properly debate it.

Until then, call it the House of Representatives definition as offered by the father of the 14th Amendment who was never challenged upon it.

Don’t let history be rewritten by propagandists.  The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.  You have a voice.  You have freedom of speech.  You have access to your federal and state representatives.

The courts don’t want to hear from you.

So find someone who must to listen to you and be heard.  The Constitution cannot survive unless you breath life into it. We are responsible to future generations.  Do something with that responsibility.  Use the law.  Obey the law.  Respect the law.  Fight for the law.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (hat tip to my main researcher who shall remain anonymous for now…)

New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 8, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

https://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/tribune.jpg

The issue of which I write on this blog – whether a person born with dual allegiance is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces – has been discussed at numerous times in our nation’s history.  It’s not like it was just made up by people who do not support Obama.

HISTORY LESSONS

Back in 1896, the issue of whether a citizen – who was not born of US citizen parents – could be President of the United States was discussed in the Tribune (aka New York Tribune) during that Presidential campaign.  Here is the full text of the story (see pg. 131 at link):

The question as to whether the Labor candidate for the Presidency would, if chosen by a majority of the electoral vote, be entitled under the Constitution to take his seat is one which since his nomination at Chicago has been frequently and freely discussed, but not satisfactorily disposed of. The facts which are fully admitted by both parties in regard to Mr. Schurmann are these—namely, that his parents, Johannes Schurmann and Barbara, his wife, reached Now York by the sailing ship Hamburg, of the Black Ball Line, on the 18th day of August, 1848, as German immigrants, and that on the following day, in a lodging-house at No. 5 Greenwich Street, the present Labor candidate for the Presidency of the United States was born. Is he, under these circumstances, “a natural-born citizen” in the sense implied by the fifth clause of Art. II. of the Constitution? Various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such, and the State Department has always acted on this presumption in deciding upon questions of this nature brought before it. There is, however, no United States statute containing any provision on the subject, nor have any judicial decisions ever been made in regard to it. It is at best an open question, and one which should have made Mr. Schurmann’s nomination under any circumstances an impossibility. Fortunately, the result of the campaign appears no longer doubtful, yet to the misguided voters of the Labor Party, even when led up to a forlorn hope at the polls, it would no doubt be some consolation to know that they were casting their votes for a candidate concerning whose eligibility no possible question could be afterward raised. [emphasis added]

The Tribune mentions that this issue had been “frequently and freely discussed”.  So what does that tell you about President Chester Arthur?  It tells you that while the issue was “frequently and freely discussed” as to Schurman, it was not discussed at all as to Chester Arthur.

This is because Arthur concealed the fact that he, like Scurmann, was not born of US citizen parents.  Both Schurmann and Arthur were born with dual allegiance.  Had the nation been aware of Arthur’s status as a British subject, there would have been no question about Schurmann’s eligibility.  Arthur had recently been President in 1895 (typo) 1885.

Had it been known Arthur was a British subject, the Tribune certainly would have mentioned that fact in the article.

If Arthur’s dual allegiance had been known, there would have been no point in writing the article about Schurmann.  (This blog first revealed Arthur’s deception to the nation in December 2008.)  And since the Tribune stated that the issue had been frequently discussed – while not mentioning Chester Arthur – it gives credibility to the importance of the issue then and now.

Chester Arthur was responsible for appointing Justice Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court.  Gray went on to write the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark.  That decision appears, perhaps, to have been an attempt to protect Gray’s robe since Gray might have been removed from the bench had Arthur’s status as a British subject become known prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision.  (Should this issue ever reach the Supreme Court as to Obama, both Sotomayor and Kagan would have an ethical responsibility to recuse themselves.)

Thank you, Chester Arthur.  Good lookin’ out, bro – for yourself that is.  Ditto to Gray?  That’s an open question.  The stench of ineligibility causes big ripples if left to rot the nation’s Constitutional core.

Chester was also responsible for forcing the US military to salute the British flag.

Furthermore, the Tribune article was republished in, “The Presidential Campaign of 1896: A scrap-book chronicle” by George Lynde Catlin, 1925.  That book was copied into Google from the Harvard College Library (Obama attended Harvard law).  And the reason for the book?  The intro is telling (go to pg. 5 in the pg. counter):

“Descended as you are from an ancestry identified with the earliest traditions of our republic, and reared, as you have been, under influences and teachings purely American, every incentive is offered you to improve yourself, in your day and generation, a good and useful citizen of these United States.  Assuming integrity of character, fairness of judgment, and unselfishness of purpose to be the prime requisites of good citizenship, I go one step farther to urge upon you the necessity of acquiring a thorough acquaintance with the political history of your country…

In the study of these events you will note the invariable triumph of a living, active American patriotism over the dangers successively arising to confront it.  Chief and foremost among these averted dangers I place that one with which we were menaced in 1896 by the combined alien forces of Socialism, Anarchy, and Atheism.”

You think Obama wasn’t aware of the Presidential campaign of 1896?  Anyone who answers that question in the affirmative has no respect for Obama’s intelligence.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (…with another big hat tip to the research team)

The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 6, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

https://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fam-scrub-chart1.jpg

 

By now, readers of this blog should be more than familiar with the tainted holding of the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.  In that case, the Supreme Court held:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States.  The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent.  While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.

The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students).  Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of  States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).

Up until August 20, 2009, the US State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual stated – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – in 7 FAM 1116.2-1(c):

c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:

(1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;

This was the language used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1995 through August 20, 2009 in the Foreign Affairs Manual.  Please note that the words “considered” and “generally” are in italics placed by the State Department.  Such italics emphasize that the practice stated above has never been clarified as law, so it is simply “considered” to be the law.

On this point, the Foreign Affairs Manual had been a rational document in that it reflected the true state of affairs.  It stated the common “interpretation”, but it refrained from listing what was “considered” as if it was actually “the law”.  Such rationality was good enough for both the Clinton and Bush administrations… but not for the Obama administration.  This disrespect for prior administrations and law must be part of the CHANGE promised in his campaign.

The link provided above (attached to the Date of August 17, 2009), refers to a snapshot taken of this section of the manual by the Way Back Machine for 2009 (at the wonderful Internet Archive) on August 17, 2009.  If you look into the actual URL link, it shows the date it was taken which corresponds with the calendar of snapshots.  At the top of that page, you will see –  “(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)” – which informs you that the page had read this way since 1995.

The next date listing a snapshot on the calendar of snapshots is August 30, 2009 .  And this is the first snapshot which contains the currentscrubbed – edition of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – states:

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

That is a vastly different statement.  The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009.  While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were “considered” to be US citizens, Obama’s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.

This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur.

This reeks of self-serving propaganda since Gray’s limited “holding” only applied to those “permanently domiciled” here (like President Arthur’s father, a British subject alien at the time of Arthur’s birth).  The holding in Wong Kim Ark did not cover children born in the US of persons who were only here temporarily such as Obama’s father.  Hence, the need for scrub a dub dub dub.

Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute.  But there was no official change in the law.  The manual was simply scrubbed… along with the Constitution.

by Leo Donofrio

The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 4, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

Lansing intro2

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality – as to American citizens – have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. 

The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.  We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:

“MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:  I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son’s birth…

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.”

Please take notice of two crucial facts.  First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born.  Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.  Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.

In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code.  Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing’s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens – who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 – were still required to serve in the Italian military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America.  Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen.  Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military.  But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son’s eventual release from custody.

Lansing’s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations.  In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.

As Secretary Lansing’s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US).   And there would have been nothing the US could do about it.  This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.  Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.

Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born.  Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama’s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship.  Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was “governed by” the laws of the United Kingdom.  Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births.  Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.  But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.  He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.  Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:

“I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible.  As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey.  The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized– which is not the case with Da Prato– for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment…

Italy *  *  *  has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.  Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute.  Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours…”

Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge’s thoughts were legally misguided:

“As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries… The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.  Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws…

…Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.  The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years.  Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

‘…Such children are born to a double character.  The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.  (Moore’s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)’

…I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt… which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:

‘Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.  House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.’ “

Lansing slams the point home – which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State – that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka “dual fealty”).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President.  Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.

But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that – not only does the US recognize dual nationality – we have “adopted” it as the law of our own country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:

“For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States.  This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.”

Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US.  And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person’s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.  It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis.  A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has “always” recognized dual allegiance and has “adopted” it under law.  Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

 

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (…with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP