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


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


42 Responses to “The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark.”

  1. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    Leo, welcome back. You are a staple in this argument.

    I argued someone on Wong Kim Ark about “natural born Citizen”-ship. Yay or nay the basics of my argument please….

    1. US vs. Ark consistently defines what a “citizen” is.
    2. Amendement 14, which US vs. Ark constantly refers to, never uses the term “natural born Citizen”; thus, Amendment 14 never defines what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Now I know that’s rather plain, but at that fundamental level, I don’t understand why US vs. Ark is used to argue the term “natural born Citizen.” In my reading of it, and I’m not a legal scholar, I don’t see it saying that Ark is or isn’t a “natural born Citizen” at all.

    Am I missing something? Maybe a passage I haven’t read? How does US vs. Ark negate or support Obama’s “natural born Citizen”-ship when it doesn’t even argue that term? Please, a quote from the text is all I ask.

    Has Alex Jones solicited you for an interview? I think you two would hit it off. He’s already had Berg on lately about the whole birth certificate aspect of the argument.

    ed. WKA actually states that WKA was not a natural born citizen… if you read Gray’s opinion you should look for the part where he uses a quote to state that the child of an alien is “as much a citizen” and the natural born child of a citizen. He states both children are citizens but only one is natural born. And no, Alex has not solicited me for an interview but I would do that interview if asked.- Leo

  2. borderraven Says:

    Congress would serve our nation well by promoting the FULLER/HARLAN dissent from Wong Kim Ark.

    “I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
    The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such — as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is, from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.
    The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule “was in force in all
    Page 169 U. S. 706
    the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;” and “that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
    Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

  3. Shouldn’t a change such as this (substantive change) be published in the Federal Register in order for public comments to be submitted before the change becomes effective? Was this done? Were there any comments made regarding this change, and if so were there any responses from the State Department?

  4. Well, I had just posted the following at the “Dual Citizen” post, but it seems even more pertinent to this discussion;

    In large measure the culprit from which most, if not all, misunderstandings concerning “citizenship” within the U.S. is the “Born Clause” of the 14th Amendment its-self.

    I ask those that debate that native born and natural born are synonymous then buttress their position with the ramblings of Justice Gray in WKA to engage in a simple hypothetical.

    “Strip jus soli as an ‘automatic’ grant of citizenship and consider it ONLY as one of the circumstances requisite to being a natural born Citizen.

    Then apply only jus Sanguinis in ALL grants of Citizenship being considered for those within or without the Jurisdiction.

    Legally admitted immigrants being treated as now, a naturalization process, oath, etc.

    Now, who does the removal of jus soli affect…?”

    Most often the only response given is that I must be a racist, leaving the hypothetical unanswered.

    The FACT is that the only operative function remaining of the 14ths ‘Born Clause” is to grant the ‘citizenship benefit’ to those born within the territorial limits of the US to the children of alien foreign nationals, whether legally admitted or not.

    Ant that is the case ONLY because of the distortions emanating from WKA.

  5. Further proof that usurper Obama knows full well the unlawful acts he has committed to alter our constitution by fraud, deceit, and deception.

    That is TREASON, which has no Statute of Limitations, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    This fraud, deceit, and deception would naturally extend to Chief Justice Roberts – for knowingly swearing in a usurper, and to George W. Bush – for knowingly turning over the reins of our Constitutional Republic to a usurper, without a word of objection, and without firing a shot.


  6. BillCutting Says:

    Thats not the only thing they changed.

    [Then there are the formal rules about this. Here’s what an older version of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual said (dated 1995, emphasis mine):

    Under international law, diplomatic agents are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. Diplomatic agents are also immune, with limited exception, from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the state. The immunities of diplomatic agents extend to the members of their family forming part of their household. For this reason children born in the United States to diplomats to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it.

    So far so good. But the current version of the FAM no longer says that:

    “Blue List” Cases – Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”]

    If you follow the logic of “O” supporters

    Children of foreign embassy employees born on the US soil (not on blue list) are eligible for POTUS. And yes that includes non allies.

    Talk about a Trojan horse!

  7. Welcome to the Soviet propaganda state my fellow Americans….uh, I mean comrades.

  8. I really have a problem with jus soli. I agree with Vattel who said,

    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    After all, you are your parents’ child. Any foreign family who is here on a work, student, or diplomatic visa and who gives birth to a child on U.S. soil should not have that child’s citizenship “snatched” from him against his will, and I contend that is what we are doing. It is almost as if we kidnapped that child.

    That child will eventually return home to his parents’ country and be raised there as a citizen of that country. What purpose does it serve to make that child a dual citizen?

  9. Perhaps it is a naive notion to believe that this is something that the media would want to report?

    I know that there are several crack pots using YouTube to disseminate their views on Obama’s absence of eligibility, but I can envision creating a video to get the point of this article across to a larger audience without the message being interpreted as radical. The facts are straight forward in terms of the changes to the FAM, and this is about keeping a check on a rogue government. Leo, have you ever considered using YouTube? Probably not your thing, or you would have ventured there earlier, huh?

  10. borderraven Says:


    First, a few definitions and a comment below.

    According to US law 08USC1101 Definitions

    8USC1101(a)(3) an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

    8USC1101(a)(15) The term ‘‘immigrant’’ means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens —
    8USC1101(a)(15)(A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;
    8USC1101(a)(15)(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure;
    8USC1101(a)(15)(C) an alien in immediate and continuous transit through the United States, or an alien who qualifies as a person entitled to pass in transit to and from the United Nations Headquarters District and foreign countries, under the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations (61 Stat. 758);
    8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study consistent with section 1184(l) 1 of this title at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or in a language training program in the United States, particularly designated by him

    8USC1101(a)(22) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

    Under treaty attached to the US Constitution and the laws of nations, illegals, consuls, UN staff, students, tourists and business travelers, and other aliens, while present in the US are under temporary and transient jurisdiction of the US State Department, and also under “consular jurisdiction” of their embassy or consulate, and since adult aliens (children excepted) have not sworn allegiance to the US, then their children, not being of the age of majority, not being legally of age to consent, and not being of age to contract, thus being wards of their parents, are only under US jurisdiction for reasons to be afforded protection of human rights and held accountable for their violations of US laws, but none the less are citizens and nationals of their parents combined obligations.

    The 14th Amendment [PARAPHRASED] says, “All persons born or naturalized in California (one of the United States), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of California and of the State wherein they reside.”

    California Government Code 241 says “children born in California to aliens are aliens.”

    Therefore a child born in the California to a French woman, and a Brazilian man, is of Brazilian/French citizenship and subject to the combined consular jurisdictions, and California is only a place of birth.

    At least that’s how I see it.

  11. Interestingly, The Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882 was signed by non other than Chester Arthur!

  12. bob strauss Says:

    By the time this illegal usurper gets done modifying documents the Constitution will be replaced with the Koran.

    If the Obama regime is busy changing the Foreign Affairs Manual, what other documents have they changed or scrubbed to accommodate Obama’s non natural born Citizen status ?

    It is becoming clear why the framers of the Constitution wrote the Amendments as they did, it was self defense. They were familiar with oppressive government and wanted to be ready for the next revolution. They were not going to be left defenseless against an overbearing government.

  13. Garacka Says:

    “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.”

    Could there be a legal pathway to a determination that since Gray was not appointed by a valid President, he was usurping the role of Chief Justice and, thus, the ruling carries no import and is void?

    ed. The Supreme Court is avoiding that issue according to Justice Thomas. – leo

  14. …or I hope and pray that you are assembling this into a book. I’d love to watch the MSM squirm at the publication of a book that was a one-stop-shop for all of the facts against the eligibility of both of the candidates in the 2008 general Presidential election. Pointing out in such a book that the current administration is rewriting our law and our history to protect itself is icing on the cake.

  15. IceTrey Says:

    Leo, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how “personal” and not just “territorial” jurisdiction plays into the idea of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. I believe that since the countries of non resident aliens hold personal jurisdiction over them that they do not qualify under the 14th because as Sen. Trumball stated:

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

    ed. Of course that’s what it means. The word “subject” in the 14th amendment was used as in “British subject” or “Chinese subject”. Gray was, most likely, compromised via his tainted appointment by Chester Arthur and he sold this long winded piece of garbage decision to the rest of the court. – leo

  16. Annis Davis Says:

    HOW, pray tell…will WE EVER KNOW the truth? WHAT else will it take to get the SUPREME COURT to look into this critical issue?
    I am just an ordinary citizen who loves her country and wants us to FOLLOW the constitution. If Congress won’t (and they all SWEAR to uphold the Constitution when they take their oaths)….what is it going to take???

    I FEAR for my country under this fascist regime!

  17. Annis,

    I share your frustration. There is some hope – albeit fading hope — with the eligibility laws being considered in some states. My state, Arizona, has already removed its bill from consideration. I don’t know the status of similar bills in other states. It remains to be seen whether they will survive.

    Some states have bills that require only a birth certificate. These bills fall short of the mark since they don’t demand documentation for all the requirements for Constitutional eligibility.

    Citizens in each state could challenge the placement of any presidentilal or vice presidential candidate on the ballot. Is this the only thing left to do?

  18. Welcome back Leo…

    natural born citizenship is not affected by manmade laws…only nature can give natural citizenship to anyone born in America….natural citizenship is not awarded by congress…congress cannot strip you of your natural born citizenship…it is the natural birth of a citizen, in the US (or under military or diplomatic orders on duty in a foreign nation), born of 2 parents, who are both citizens of the USA…no other combination can award citizenship under the laws of nature…a child born in a foreign nation…whose parents are not both under military or diplomatic orders to be in that nation…is not a natural born citizen…which is the status that McCain held at his birth…only his father was in the military at the time of his birth…his mother merely accompanied him to Panama…and that made McCain subject to Panamanian law…and not natural born to the US….
    Obama…no matter where he was born…acquired 2 citizenships at his birth…that of his father…kenya/brit…and that of his US born mother…and his citizenship can never be natural to either of those nations…because each parent held sole allegiances and citizenships to separate nations when Obama was born….only man made laws can award his citizenship…just like the BNA act gave him citizenship as a ‘brit…as did Art 14 of the US Const. gave him citizenship as a US Citizen…both awarded by blood at birth, yet neither could ever award natural born citizenship to either country due to the natural acquisition of dual citizenship that Obama acquired at birth…

  19. Leo,

    It appears from today’s SCOTUS order list that Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves in the case:


    In that case, the petition for rehearing was denied without further comment, while in other cases, we see evidence of Justices recusing themselves, such as:

    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


    The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    As I understand it, in the HOLLISTER case there was a specific request for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves, and since that request was not denied within the time allowed by the Court’s own rules, that request should have been considered granted, and those two Justices should have recused themselves.

    Can you share your opinion/insight regarding this issue and the Hollister case in general?

    ed. If the issue ever reaches SCOTUS by way of state legislation, by virtue of ethics, both should recuse themselves. Their appointments will be voided if he’s found ineligible. – Leo

  20. Leo, Obviously the Supreme Court has a “Rule” or a “Guidline” regarding when a Justice should “Recuse” herself(s). Is that available for linkage or can you direct me to that. It seems the present case (Hollister v Soetoro) presents a “Direct Conflict” for Sotomayor and Kagan (seeing they stand to lose their Supreme Court Appointments if Obama is found to be ineligible??). They’re apparent “Recusal Refusal” would seem counter intuitive (or better still – Totally Outrageous).

  21. Hollister v. Soetoro was not a case of “standing”. It was the case where the Judge ruled that media twitter etc was adequate to vet the qualifications of the candidate Obama. Neither Sotomayor nor Kagan recused, in spite of the motion to do so. What does it take to get 4 votes in conference? Do the justices not feel compelled to defend the constitution ?

  22. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    (I suggested you for an Alex Jones interview… email was sent to… look out for a response… good luck)

    Will everyone who stops here and reads or comments send a request to Alex Jones to interview Leo for a radio interview. Alex Jones’s site is or, and you can send your request to

    Thank you.

  23. Leo,

    My comment isn’t directly related to this article. However, considering how the controversy over Obama started, I thought you might be intrigued to know that a movie about Obama’s life is being filmed in South Africa. I just discovered this revelation while reading comments made to the Kenyan Parliament. Here’s the story:

    Obama’s Biography Is Being Filmed By American Company in South Africa, Not Kenya

  24. As per Thomas in a Senate hearing, SCOTUS is ducking the issue, and Hollister has been denied a second time.

    Therefore, we have the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch all supporting an illegal usurper to the office of POTUS.

    All are acting outside the constitution, and not within it.

    Does this mean we are left with the mere semblance of a United States of America? If that is indeed the case, has the United States ceased to be a legal entity? The government is clearly unconstitutional.

    Now what? Stop paying taxes?

    I ask this in all seriousness…. Now what?

  25. constitutionallyspeaking Says:


    I just can’t get this “subject to the jurisdiction” out of my head so I took the day to go back over all the available additions of the “Law of Nations” available online.

    One important constant in all editions is in BK 1, CH 19 Sec 214: Naturalization

    [I]n other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner[end quote]

    Now if this principle applied to the United States, would not the versions printed in the US starting in 1796, all of which has extended notes, made reference to add the United States as also a nation in which the single circumstance of birth naturalizes the children of foreigners, thus following English law of “jus soli”?

    I’m just saying, if this was the case, I would think that the great legal minds of the times would have made sure it was taught. We know for a fact that Vattel is still taught in law schools to this date, so it would only make sense that it would have been updated to reflect this.

  26. Here’s what Congress is being fed. Might be worth a read if you haven’t already been through it. The second paragraph of page 16 supports your point of legal domicile then appears to do a little side stepping.

  27. I found sections of this to be strangely interesting.

  28. BTW, take a look at the two versions of the FAM that you reference in your article again. You will find that that section c. (1 and 2) have been moved from 7 FAM 1116.2-1 Subject at Birth to U.S. Law in the 11-30-95 version to section d., (2a and b) of 7 FAM 1111 Introduction of the 08-21-09 version. The new language that you quote is found immediately before that at the beginning of section d. So, it does not appear to be scrubbed but rather “modified.” Well, they did scrub “…it has been considered that.”

    ed. What’s the meaning of is again? – leo

  29. what direction can we follow now…the 50 states dont back the removal or certification of eligibility for Obie to hold office…

    too many politicians….not enough real Americans…are holding that power…i guess fear is thier motivating factor…and the SC…Congress…Senate…all fear something besides the US Citizens who are true constitutionalists….

  30. Danae – Unfortunately, this quotation from 1873 is still valid today:

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

    It appears as though the powers that be, a significant portion of the populace and the media, are content to allow him to successfully usurp an entire 4 year term.

    It will not be until he attempts to run again in 2012, that legal action brought by someone with a particularized injury or a state will find it way to SCOTUS where they may…then…be inclined to make a decision on the issue.

    This time around, there will undoubtably be far more press coverage of the issue. Both positive and negative.

    Instead of waiting a while…we will continue to compile the research and retrieve the historical record from the dustbin of history so that when that day does come in 2012 (or early 2013), the plaintiffs will be better prepared with the historical truth.

    Our Constitution will ultimately prevail.

  31. So, there are at least a few ways that I can interpret your editorial comment in response to my last post.

    1) You made a typo and meant to type “this” instead of “is.”

    2) You calling me Bill Clinton and accusing me of playing games with semantics.

    The response to case 1) is as follows:

    If you compare the current and previous versions of the FAM, you will see that the sections that you are claiming were scrubbed from the current version were actually moved to a different section in the current version vs. the previous version. So, it has been rearranged. Also, as you have pointed out, the new paragraph was added as follows:

    “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.”

    So, I agree, they are overstepping and have changed it. The old sections are still there in a new location, but effectively carry no weight thanks to the additional new entry.

    Case 2) response…

    I am no Bill Clinton. Read my next to last sentence again with a sarcastic tone.

  32. gorefan Says:

    In Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent in WKA, he writes,

    “Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered,”.

    Do you agree that “international principles must be considered” in questions regarding United States citizenship?

    ed. What difference does it matter what I agree upon? What matters is what the law is. And the law has always been that international principles are considered because of the need for diplomacy. Your whole contingent is now left groping around in the dark devoid of your favored argument. The silence is deafening. The Lansing letter to Dodge ends all dispute. You can argue what you wish the law to be, but that wont change what it is. Deal with it. – Leo

  33. “The Lansing letter to Dodge ends all dispute.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Lansing letter about dual citizenship? I’ve never argued that the US doesn’t allow dual citizenship or that the President may have had dual citizenship at birth.

    Where in the Constitution does it specifically say that dual citizenship prohibits one from being President?

    ed. It ends all dispute that the US has “adopted the rule” that foreign nationality laws are to be recognized and respected as to US citizens. Your side has been arguing that the US has no obligation to recognize dual allegiance. That is the issue to which I refer and there is no dispute. It’s done. The place in the Constitution where it says no dual citizenship for POTUS is A2 S1. That position is further codified in the Jay Treaty. Moreover, if you go back to the drafting period, the UK recognized perpetual allegiance and therefore no British subject could throw off his allegiance to the monarch and therefore could not take the POTUS oath of office with a straight face. Now, if you want to argue that the framers believed a person who was a British subject could be President, I will let you make that argument. You have the floor… please explain how that was possible to them. Go on, explain how the framers believed a British subject could be President. – leo

  34. gorefan Says:

    “Moreover, if you go back to the drafting period, the UK recognized perpetual allegiance and therefore no British subject could throw off his allegiance to the monarch and therefore could not take the POTUS oath of office with a straight face.”

    So then George Washington was a British subject, as was John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al. Yet all managed to take the oath of office with a straight face.

    While the English believed that one could not throw off a natural allegiance, the founders believed that you could and in fact, they did just that. And they even took the time to tells us that they could do it.

    ed. Your argument is ignorant of law and history because it fails to recognize that the “Treaty of Peace” from 1783 allowed those who were resident in the former colonies at that time to become US citizens. No other British subjects were covered by the treaty. In fact, the issue was one of the causes of the War of 1812. Moreover, our Constitution also provided for the framers, who were not nbc, to be eligible via the grandfather clause. Other than those who were deemed by the monarchy to be US citizens according to the treaty (which only applied to those living here in 1783, not to anyone arriving here thereafter), no British subjects could throw off allegiance.

    So your answer is not an answer at all, because as to the framers, the UK was bound by the Treaty to release them from allegiance. The UK kept their laws under perpetual allegiance until 1870. The framers and colonists won their choice by war, and by the treaty they were no longer British subjects. I asked you to explain how a British subject could take the oath of office with a straight face. You didn’t answer the question. Try again, buddy.

    (Your reply has been snipped for rambling into other issues… address this point here and feel free to submit the others in a separate post.) – leo

  35. You are absolutely right – I answered too quickly without thinking it through. I apologize for my haste.

    As to whether the founders would accept a British subject for President. I believe it would depend on the exact set of circumstances. And I suspect that under same circumstances as today, the founders would not have a problem accepting this candidate.

    ed. You can imagine the Great Pumpkin too, right? Frankly, you are full of crap Gorefan. I’ve let you post here unedited, but you are a fraud and a liar to come here and say this when you it’s not true. It wasn’t even possible in their minds under law at the time, so how could it be even a question of choice? – leo

    And they would probably use much the same reasoning as they used in the case of William L. Smith. The candidate was born in the United States. The candidate never actively pursued the rights of a British subject. And he chose to live in the US for all of his adult life. And he had been a member of both a state legislature and the US Senate. The founders put a great store in the ability of the people to discern the character of a President.

    ed. OK, you are ignorant of history again. Two persons elected as senators were erased from the history books because they weren’t technically naturalized citizens. They were good men, but they weren’t eligible. They are not even recorded as having been senators and when all is said and done, that’s exactly what should happen here as to Obama. Now, do not attempt to spread lies in this forum again. You were very well aware of the Treaty of Peace and its implications. I do not believe you were ignorant of that law so your apology above is most likely fraudulent as well. Now skuffle off to the blogs where you can all lie to each other. You are an enemy of the Constitution. – leo

    Trench Coxe wrote, “Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood”.

    And as to the question of allegiance, Madison told us that in the United States, place of birth is the more certain criteria of allegiance.

  36. This is your blog and I will respect your wishes.

    But I would like to leave you with the following hypothetical;

    In 1785, a 35 year old man moves from England to Boston to start a business. in 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passes an Act of Naturalization, making him a citizen of Massachusetts.

    Question: Under English law, is he still a British Subject?

    Question: In 1799, is he eligible to be elected President of the United States?

    In anticipation of your answers, here are several more questions. Even though he is foreign born and still considered a British subject, he is eligible to be President? Why would the founders allow such a thing? Maybe the founders figured the voters would take all of that into account.

    Good luck and good bye.

    P.S. if you have the time and are of the mind, could you post a link to your recent appeals brief in the Chyrsler lawsuit?

  37. Thanks for taking the time to continue our education. I no longer believe that SCOTUS or any of our representatives will ever hear anything related to Obamas lack of eligibility. Or that many of them give a hoot about our constitution. But it is essential that all that has transpired be recorded in history. It is ironic that this is all about power and our constitution was written by men applying hind sight by limiting the powers of the government. It was written to protect us from our government. They knew how power can twist and warp people, and the consequences suffered by others. What do they do to get and keep power? Obama and too many of the members of congress sell fear and resentment. They know that these paralyze the brain, and people don’t think. This leads to anamosity, name calling, violence, hatred, mob mentality and denial. It is one of the methods Obama and our elected representatives employ to keep us divided. It is working, all those that live in those lower states of being cannot be reached. We cannot allow them to trash our constitution to meet their ends, If we do we are screwed.
    Be careful who you cast your vote for. When they start selling resentment walk away. When it comes to the mainstream media and the candidates they support do not believe anything you read and only half of what you see. Do your own research.
    Troubling questions do not leave my mind. Has Obama opened a door we cannot close? The foundation is being set but for who? Who is next?

  38. MichaelN Says:

    “The American Revolution was also a civil war with Tories providing support for British forces and in some cases taking up arms. To weed out these Tories and to push the undecided to commit, it was decided to require loyalty oaths of residents of various states. ”

    “Oaths of Allegiance
    Valley Forge, 1778

    On February 3, 1778, Congress, having taken into consideration the report of the special committee appointed to devise effectual means to prevent persons disaffected to the interest of the United States from being employed in any of the important offices thereof, resolved, That every officer who held or should thereafter hold a commission or office from Congress, should subscribe the oath or affirmation of allegiance. ”

  39. Leo (and fellows),
    I am the newest site follower. I am a 46 DWM in Collingswood, NJ. I’ve been researching The Birth for about a year and just recently “Got It” – the centrality of jus sanguinis, that is. The stunning Chester Arthur info helped so much! I’m a 100% Irish-American natural born citizen, so I can say this: These Irish are tricksters, maybe BHO got the same gene? I am so overjoyed to find you all on the web at the same time! I feel like I have come home to family!!!!

  40. borderraven Says:


    When a country changes governments by adopting a new constitution, those present who do not agree with the constitution are free to leave. Yes, those present at the time the new constitution or charter, is adopted can choose to stay, and should be eligible to enter the presidential election, but the election process should pick the candidate who is true to the constitution.

    Obama is a dual-citizen, yes a US Citizen, who was a US Senator. He posted a COLB online. FactCheck said it was original. The average person being ignorant of what a natural born citizen is, thinks every US citizen can grow up to be a US President, ignorantly and with gross negligence voted for Obama. Red flags were flying in 2008, but very few saw the danger of what they were about to put our nation in, and precedent the election would set.

  41. borderraven Says:


    I read where McCain said that due to the separation of powers, as long as a case is in the courts, Congress cannot investigate or impeach Obama. He was either truthful or avoiding the issue.

  42. Leo,
    Has anyone noted that the silver-tongued orator’s blundering through the oath of Office at his putative inauguration could have been a deliberate attempt to create an alibi for the future: that he could maintain that he never actually took the oath?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: