US Attorney General Cushing Made Clear That Citizens and Subjects Were Not The Same Under US Law.

I have a very in depth analytical blog coming soon concerning the underlying history of the US Supreme Court’s precedent defining a natural born citizen as one born in the US to parents who were citizens via the case of Minor v. Happersett.  That case had two issues, citizenship and voting rights.  The citizenship issue was determined by the SCOTUS directly construing the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article 2, Section 1.  This is the only US Supreme Court case to have directly construed the clause.  As such, it remains as good law and precedent which means Obama occupies the White House in direct contradiction to standing US law.

My next blog will settle this issue conclusively.  For now, I would like to reach back to a speech (bottom of  pg. 409-410) made by Virginia Minor – a staunch woman’s suffrage activist – at a St. Louis convention in 1869:

“In 1856, the question came before the Attorney General, Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were entitled to the privilege of preempting our public lands.  He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the act.”

According to US Attorney General Cushing, a “subject” is not a “citizen”.  Therefore, “natural born Citizen” cannot mean the same thing as “natural born Subject”.  Attorney General Cushing determined that domestic subjects were not entitled to the same rights as US citizens because “subjects” are not “citizens”.   And a “natural born subject” has never meant the same thing as “natural born Citizen”.  Never.  That’s a complete fraud.

Not that this argument matters in the face of the precedent set by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett, but since the Obama eligibility advocates have tried to utilize this as a convenient soundbite, Attorney General Cushing’s statement of federal policy is quite useful in quashing another of propaganda’s favorite arguments.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

56 Responses to “US Attorney General Cushing Made Clear That Citizens and Subjects Were Not The Same Under US Law.”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    PS: I will have an update regarding the Chrysler situation soon. Thank you so much to all who helped us out… I will be writing to you as soon as there is a final determination of the case. – Leo

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Special thanks again to my main researcher on the Minor speech. But I have a doozy coming for you, bro… stay tuned.

  3. paraleaglenm Says:

    And did not J. Waite in Minor relinquish judgment concerning suffrage to the states?

    Therefore, was not his comment (dicta) more evidence of common knowledge of that time than declaratory?

    Blackstone cites law from 1350 and 1722 favoring jus sanguinis. Was the fact the colonies were of limited jurisdiction under a monarchy the reason they followed jus soli for a century? Did not Dr. Ramsay and the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the intent of Article II natural born citizenship, indicate that the U.S. abandoned jus soli for sanguinis?

    ed. Not dicta… precedent. citizenship issue was in play and was determined by A2 S1, not 14th amendment. Later in 1898, had Wong Km Ark been nbc, again, the 14th would not have been necessary to resolution… that’s the difference between the two cases. Minor’s citizenship was nbc from A2 S1, Ark’s was not, therefore the 14th amendment was called in to decide Ark’s citizenship claim, but had he been nbc, there would have been no need to construe the 14th. more to follow in next blog. – Leo

  4. Leo, I respect your inquiries and analysis of the specific subject matter within the Opinions of the various cases.

    And yet a nagging truth hangs over the certainties gleaned from them, each and everyone.

    That truth that is made fact, by virtue of the status of the provision in the Clause being of no effect, is that no matter how clear, certain and unassailable any given prior Opinion may be as to the true, correct and proper definition of the Constitutional idiom , it, nevertheles, requires additional adjudication to be determined and declared definitive settled law.

    What legal strategy would you endorse to reach the goal of having the definition of the idiom declared “Settled Law” by a controlling legal authority…?

    ed. Here is my prediction… there will NEVER be an adjudication of this issue as to Obama…UNLESS he tries to stay on as POTUS even if not re-elected, or if he wins 2012 and then in 2016 he tries to go for a third term… or if he ever declares martial law installing himself perpetually. That is the only way you will ever see this issue adjudicated in a US court of law. If that was the plan, all of this work on the nbc issue will matter. If he doesn’t push for that kind of change, it will fade away. – Leo

  5. ed. “it will fade away”

    Are you saying it will not be an issue if Senator Rubio or Governor Jindal run for President?

    ed. Pretty much… yeah. Nobody will really care after Obama. Just my opinion based on what I see. – Leo

  6. Well, that is why I have tried to keep the ‘0’ out of the efforts I have made and focused on trying to get the “Citizenship Question” answered first.

    But, given that any consideration of the Constitutional idiom emanates from the Constitution the ‘transient Political aspects’ are non-severable and hence the current political circumstance is also non-severable.

    I tried.

    But soon we will see what the Executive Officials of the State of Oklahoma and the National and State representatives of the two political parties have to say on the issue.

    It will be interesting to see if the words of Marbury v Madison have any “effect” in the current thinking of the Courts.

  7. Leo,

    In the first paragraph of the Minor decision, Justice Waite says,

    “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”

    If the court only had the single question (whether or not the Constitution gives a citizen the right to vote) from the lower court, why would they need to decide if Minor was a citizen?

    ed. The single question required independent grounds for determining her citizenship, which is actually part of the single question. In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

    “Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

    The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens. But this will become much more clear with my next blog om the topic. The Court spent a great deal of energy on their citizenship determination. They were forced to do so by Minor and that will be covered in my next post. – Leo

  8. But, Leo, if it all just “fades away” won’t the fact that Obama completed a term (or terms) as President without being held legally accountable for his lack of nbc status strengthen the possibility of more and more ineligible Presidents? Also, what about Marco Rubio’s nbc status? (Unlike Obama, I do think he has the makings of a great president.).

    Looking forward to your next blog post…

    ed. Rubio is not eligible according to the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor. If he wanted to be a real patriot/statesman (same for Jindal), he would stand before the nation and declare himself not eligible and he would state why Obama is also not eligible. But it appears we have no true statesmen today. As far as this not being settled… welcome to “change” in America. – Leo

  9. ed. “when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:”

    Would this reasoning also apply to Justice Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark?

    In deciding if Wong was a citizen an “independent” ground in support of his decision was that “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    “III. The same rule was in force in all 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.” Wong Kim Ark

    ed. A subject is not a citizen, as was determined by AG Cushing which is the main focus of this article. Try as you might to make that circle fit into a square, it doesn’t. Gray was discussing the question of who was a citizen, not a “natural born citizen”. But you know that. The Constitution mentions “citizens” and “natural born citizens”, as two separate designations. The SCOTUS in Minor did not need to construe the 14th Amendment bc Minor was nbc, but the SCOTUS did need to construe the 14th Amendment bc WKA was not nbc. Had WKA been nbc, there would not have been a need for the SCOTUS to construe the 14th Amendment… as they didn’t do it in Minor, but did in WKA. Furthermore, both cases were decided years after the adoption of the 14th. – Leo

  10. Were citizen and subject interchangeable? Absolutely not, as Thomas Jefferson spoke from the grave when, in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, he very purposely erased ‘subject’ and replaced it with ‘citizen’, proving the terms were NOT simply interchangeable and were very different in meaning and connotation.

    From the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html):

    ‘Subjects.’

    “That’s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.

    But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

    Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”

    No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch.”

    ed. A subject is subject to the power of the monarch, whereas as citizen is the power himself. Attorney General Cushing made clear that the two were vastly different creatures. Simple history drives propaganda crazy. When things are simple, they are difficult to refute. Here we see the US Government’s policy with regard to the words subject and citizen. – Leo

  11. Constantine Says:

    Leo, I must commend you for your research and your arguments here. Your comparison of Minor and Wong Kim Ark and their differences with regard to [not] construing the 14th is uncontestable.

    Now if only someone will listen. Someone like Kris Kobach, Secretary of State, has fought for proper understanding of the 14th for a long time. Perhaps he can be persuaded to examine Obama’s eligibility, since it seems to be a state ballot issue.

    As an aside, did you ever once doubt that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant being at least permanently domiciled, as per Wong Kim Ark?

    ed. I never doubted that it meant “owing no allegiance to a foreign power” … but if you are asking me to construe the SCOTUS decision in WKA, then yes, that case requires the parents to be permanently domiciled in the US for the child to be a citizen. Obama’s father was never domiciled here. Furthermore, Gray stresses that such a citizen is “as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”, which clearly means that those who require the 14th amendment are not natural born, but are citizens entitled to the same rights as the natural born children of citizen parents. The current SCOTUS knows Obama is not eligible according to both Minor and WKA… they know this. But I’m telling you it will never be litigated unless he tries to suspend the Constitution and stay after failing to be re-elected or after a second term runs out. If he tries to suspend an election under martial law, then you might see the SCOTUS get involved. Otherwise, forget about it. But he has opened the door for people like Rubio and Jindal, both of whom could ignite this issue at any moment by declaring themselves not eligible. Furthermore, the fact that Obama was a Constitutional law teacher at a major law school means that his never having addressed this issue was, in my opinion, quite deceptive. And I do not doubt that the BC thing has helped cloud this legal issue perfectly. he obtained the POTUS but at a cost to national security. That he did this as a person steeped in the history of the Constitution is what really bothers me. A true statesman would have at least brought the issue to the attention of the nation before the election on his own dime… but he did not. Instead he ran the clock out hoping it would never catch up to him. But it did. Now there’s an asterisk on his administration forever unless SCOTUS overturns Minor on citizenship. More on that case to come. – Leo

  12. Dear Leo,

    It is with great joy that I view your new posting this evening. I have been eagerly awaiting your return knowing, certain, that all the while you were deeply immersed in legal matters related to this issue.

    I wish you all the best in your Chrysler case and I will be carefully watching for what comes next on that case or on your coming blog related to natural born citizen. My deepest appreciation for your phenomenal contribution over several years on this most crucial topic; even though it is unlikely to result in any action within our lifetimes.
    Respectfully yours,
    Robare

  13. Leo,
    Do you think there is any chance that one or more Secretary of States will have to address this issue if placing someone like Obama (or a Rubio, or a Jindal) on the State’s ballot for 2012? I would certainly contend that there is enough uncertainty that one or more citizens of a state could petition the SOS or State AG to present legal holdings/evidence that the Presidential or VP candidate meets the Art. II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 requirements and perhaps be allowed to present their own evidence – based largely off of your research – showing that “natural born Citizen” requires being born on US soil to US Citizen parents at the time of such birth. I would think that at least one or two Constitutionally-minded SOS’s would be willing to force the court’s hand on this issue.

    ed. No. It will never be litigated against them by any SOS even though neither are eligible. – Leo

  14. natrual born citizen party Says:

    Court: Kings Civil Supreme
    Index Number: 006500/2011
    Case Name: STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS
    Case Type: Other Torts
    Track: Standard

    Appearance Information:
    Appearance
    Date Time On For Appearance
    Outcome Justice /
    Part Comments Motion
    Seq
    10/24/2011 Supreme Trial ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    INTAKE PART
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 002
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 003
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 004
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 005
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 001
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 007
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 006
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 008
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 010
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 011
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 009
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 012
    08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)
    MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 013

  15. Real Americans wheter naturalized, native, dual or natural born should reconginze and thank you Leo for the work you have done in education the vast majority of those who wish to defend the Constitution. For if we dont have the intellect to defend what works we soon will have something that dosent as so many other forms of goverment have shown and our prodigny will be left with only the dream of freedom that we once had here.
    Thanks!

  16. natrual born citizen party Says:

    NYSSCJ Judge Schack is a former public school (NYC) history teacher before becoming an attorney and then state judge. While most likely a “progressive” based upon being a member and later representing the teachers union before being a judge, the history component of nbc both in NYS and nationally will provide an opportunity to show off his historian acumen and educate us all on the concept of the natural born citizen eligibility for POTUS/CINC and the NYS-BOE misuse of their office to allow ballot access to non nbc POTUS candidates.

    Transcript of the August 22nd hearing should be available for posting next week on scribd

  17. throwshoesatobama Says:

    Leo,

    I know your message seems like the proverbial tree falling in the middle of the woods with no one around but I think it could actually be the white elephant in the upcoming election. The issue will be brought up and will dog his re-election bid. Notice how the republican debates have candidates talking about auditing the FED. Ron Paul has been pushing this for decades and now it is paying dividends. Keep up the good work in the end you will surely be vindicated.

  18. A Crazy Old Coot Says:

    Leo, thank you for all that you do for us.

    However, in todays political scene, do you think any official office (Judge, court, etc) will have the courage to actually agree to look at the merits and evidence of “Natural Born Citizen” cases?

    I personally am having many doubts about the honesty of our government and the law enforcement communities.

    Don
    Retired USAF

    ed. I agree it will not be litigated by any court. – Leo

  19. Frank Magee Says:

    One good question asked was on how the NBC “idiom [could be] declared ‘Settled Law’ by a controlling legal authority…?”
    Interestingly there has been some talk about Sen. Marco Rubio becoming the next President. He was born of two immigrants not yet naturalized at the time of his birth in the U.S. Would Senator Rubio have “standing” before the Supreme Court to have the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” from the U.S. Constitution clarified? I have challenged him to do so with the two Obama appointed justices recused from the matter. Do you think I’ll get a response from Sen. Rubio? (tongue in cheek) What happened to the “Quo Warranto suit” in the District Of Columbia approach alluded to by Federal Justice David O. Carter as he backed off his stated commitment for “full disclosure” in California?

    ed. It would be great if Rubio would take the lead on this and petition for a determination. I do not believe he is eligible, but if he expressed a desire to find out by bringing the issue to the attention of the nation, it would go far in helping to heal the wound inflicted by Obama not seeking such clarification. We shall see if Rubio and Jindal are statesmen or if they are simply career minded people. As for QW, someone else can do it, as I will never willingly step foot in another federal court again in my lifetime willingly. – Leo

  20. I came across something of interest. The constitution of the Republic of the Philippines requires that their president be a natural-born citizen, and they further define what a natural-born citizen is:

    “Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

    Does “without having to perform any act” mean that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines is a citizen at birth by the laws of nature instead of those of man (naturalization)? Does “without having … to perfect their Philippine citizenship” mean that this person has “perfect” Philippine citizenship at birth, which would rule out a dual citizen at birth?

    If the answer to the above questions is yes, then the Philippine definition of natural-born citizen is a person born in the Philippines to Philippine citizen parents, which matches Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” – born in the country to citizen parents.

    ed. The Phillipine definition is not the same as that in Minor. – Leo

  21. I hope this means your researcher is safe. Have been worried as I’ve received no returned messages.

  22. The use of “Citizen” in the Constitution instead of “Subject” is a rejection of “Subject” just as forming a Republic is a rejection of rule by a king.

  23. If this issue fades away because Obama goes away, it would seem we might as well accept that we have “faded away” as a sovereign constitutional republic. Even if he is gone, it would seem he wins.

    ed. And the Constitutional safeguard of national security loses power. – Leo

  24. I get a bit annoyed when reading the various directions people take when attempting to identify the sources of authority that make a U.S. Citizen.

    According to the Constitution, and Scott v Sandford, the source, in the 1st instant, were those that were then Citizens of the various States, “and only those”.

    During the period between 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution there was a great sorting out of the populations within the various States. The old maxim of “all politics is local” was never more on display with each township & county identifying those who would become known as Patriots and those who remained as Loyalist. Mixed in among them were the enslaved, indentured & bond servants, vagrants and vagabonds.

    Citizenship of a State in every case required an affirmative action of asserting conformity to the specific requirements of a particular State. The common general terms within the various State “constitutions” under the Articles of Confederation was that one must be a free white man with certain assets and ties to the community wherein application was made for the States acceptance and acknowledgement of a persons State Citizenship,

    Point is, it was a ‘Local determination” without the need to consult the Queen Anne Statutes codification of ‘subjection’ under the authority of the Divine Right of Kings or any other international law.

    With the adoption of the Constitution the 1st Congress set about establishing the various Federal Institutions and fulfilling the various obligations enumerated. One of which was to “make an uniform Rule of naturalization, ….., among the States…”

    The subsequent Act was entitled,

    ” An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

    SECTION 1.Repealed by act of January 29, 1795, ch. 20. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, Their children residing here, deemed citizens. shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

    Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
    APPROVED, March 26, 1790.

    A “Rule” is defined as a guiding principle and a “Law” derives its authority from the principles it was written to enforce. The various provisions were codified, but much like the “legal definition” of natural born Citizen, the Rule was inculcated in the codes without being specifically enunciated, i.e., Jus Sanguinis, a.k.a., the Citizens Birthright prerogative of their progeny for both newly naturalized and existing Citizens both.

    I do not deny that in the Courts of Law and Equity various individuals, due to various circumstances and for various reasoning, were found to be entitled to Citizenship by Judicial Decree. But in very few instances were such determinations influential to a degree to affect the existing laws. Scott v., in a relatively short time; Minor v in the length of a generation, and joining the seminal cases, WKA, which did not actually ‘change’ a law, but rather extended the ‘public policy interpretation’ of the Law beyond its intended meanings.

    (It must be noted that the parents of WKA were ‘legally admitted’ under the terms of the Burlingame Treaty, which in Article VI denied any and all covered persons the right to be naturalized within the host Country, ergo WKA was a progeny of the Treaty, (which for international policy is made part of the Constitution).

    Regardless, it is obvious that the Federal Administration has a tendency to expand and stretch the interpretations of who is eligible for the benefits of Citizenship beyond the structural limits of the various Acts ignoring the fact that Jus Soli grant of Citizenship benefits only alien foreign nationals that otherwise have no claim to Citizenship, whether present legally or otherwise. No person born in the U.S. to at least one Citizen Parent, Jus Sanguinis, requires the 14th in order to claim Citizenship.

    The irony of the ‘anchor baby’ interpretation is that once a person who has no claim to Citizenship is granted by erroneous interpretation of policy then any and all persons with a “Jus Sanguinis” connection to that person can base a claim for Citizenship on that “jus Sanguinis” connection.

    Of course history and the actions of the Courts are instructive, but it is not necessary to wander far from the Constitution and Original Legislation to determine the nature of a U.S.Citizen, natural born or otherwise.

    ed. Very educational post, good job. – Leo

  25. borderraven Says:

    Judge Schack needs an account at
    http://www.scribd.com

    I cannot follow the case.

  26. Presidential eligibility already has been litigated on the merits in Ankeny:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    ed. that state court case is not authority federally at all… and it is an awful decision. it’s handling of the Chester Arthur situation is like some kind of joke. The Supreme Court in Minor is the law of the land, and State Courts are bound to follow it. The Indiana Court is in clear violation thereof. – Leo

  27. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    History teacher’s magazine, Volume 6 (Google eBook)

    http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=yNrFAAAAMAAJ&dq=rome+purely+roman+citizen

    The Municipal System of the Roman State

    page 103 to frame 110/351

    See last pargraph page 105(frame 112/351), page106,

  28. Rubio is one of us. He is a Republican, a conservative and he believes in the Constitution. He’ll make a fine SCOTUS judge someday – but he won’t make a fine POTUS or veep. Let’s ask him to help us. He knows he’s not eligible; let’s ask him to help us. . .

    . If he is a true patriot and supporter of the Constitution, he will immediately call a press conference and announce that he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ because his parents were not U.S. citizens and that he cannot accept any invitation to join a presidential ticket. For more eligibility info, see: https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/.

    Help me make that happen. Go to http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact Tell Rubio that you expect him to do the right thing so that we can both fix the constitutional crisis we currently face and forever prevent another from occurring. This problem should have been resolved following Chester A. Arthur’s administration when it was discovered that his father was not a U.S. citizen when Chester was born – but it wasn’t. Let’s finally put this question to rest.

    If Rubio will stand tall and make that announcement, it would immediately shine a spotlight on Barry’s Ineligibility and force the SCOTUS/Congress to act. Help me make that happen! It will only take a couple minutes – please do it now!

    ed. It will be very telling to see his reaction. – Leo

  29. David Miller Says:

    Would it be practical to use this information to contest Obama’s name when it is put on the State ballots for the 2012 election? Wouldn’t that be a plausible opportunity to go to the State courts?

    ed. It’s available as a means depending on your state statutes. – Leo

  30. Leo,

    The words used by the Philippine constitution are not the same as in the Minor case, but I am having difficulty coming with a person, other someone born in the country to citizen parents, who is a citizen at birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his citizenship. To me, that definition rules out someone who is naturalized at birth or is a dual citizen at birth.

    The requirement for the Philippine president to be a natural born citizen first appeared in their 1935 constitution, without a definition. The definition appeared in their 1973 constitution, and I have to wonder what it was that compelled them to add the definition.

  31. Hi Leo,
    Thank you so much for the research you have done.
    It is my understanding that there is a challenge period after the candidates file to be on the ballot in each State that does not require standing. It is short, perhaps only tens days depending on the State.
    VPs are not announced until late August, so I dont know if there would be a way to challenge VP eligibility.

    Why couldn’t someone knowledgable like yourself challenge eligibility for Obama during this timeframe?

    It would be impossible to find someone not intimately familiar with this to argue the case.

    ed. I tried this in 2008. I will not be entering the courts again in my lifetime willingly. The door is open for others. – Leo

  32. What’s good for the goose … Extracts from WND 11 Sep 2011

    Though no one is quite certain who the Republican presidential nominee will be in 2012, there is emerging a consensus among Republicans and “conservative” insiders on who will be the vice-presidential nominee. That person is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

    All the big conservative talk-show hosts have nominated him. His name has been floated by campaign insiders from several presidential candidates. The Republican pundit class is fantasizing about a dream ticket that includes Rubio and just about anyone else at the top.

    Now I like Rubio very much. I find him to be inspirational. I find him to be articulate. I find him to be exciting. If I lived in Florida, I would have supported him in his bid. I would support his re-election to the Senate. I have nothing bad to say about Marco Rubio.

    And if he were constitutionally eligible for the job of president or vice president (the requirements are the same), I would probably be fantasizing about his place on the ticket, too.

    But he is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States of America because he is not a “natural born citizen.”

    Rubio is a native-born citizen because he was born in the U.S. But he is almost certainly not a “natural born citizen” by the standards of the Founding Fathers and any common-sense understanding of history.

    But none of that seems to matter to anyone anymore. That’s because Barack Obama defined down the eligibility standard to mean anyone born in the U.S. is “natural born” – a complete and utter distortion of reality.

    Ironically, he did this without ever proving conclusively that he even met that minimal standard – which, in his case, is irrelevant. Whether or not Obama was born in the U.S., still an open question, he could never be constitutionally eligible for the office because of the citizenship of his parents – which is truly what defines “natural born.”

    There’s more. Read the whole article.
    See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=344085

    Although it might be good for the goose and the gander, – … it’s certainly NOT per our Constitution ……..

    And, – … when will ‘The People’ get really steaming angry at what has happened and is now happening again???

    ed. That is a very strong and logical article written by Mr. Farah. WND is on point with that one. My work on this issue has been published at WND and Im happy to see they are giving equal time to the NBC issue as opposed to just the BC issue. WND has been out front in the media on the eligibility issue and even though I have clashed with them over the BC issue, the editor certainly gets the big picture. The best quote from Farah is this, “The founders intended that no one who served as president or vice president would have any divided loyalties.”

    Read more: What’s good for the goose … http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=344085#ixzz1Ys6xw8rM
    – Leo

  33. borderraven Says:

    David Miller,

    My strategy in sending “Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto ico Barack Hussein Obama II” is what you may be looking for.
    See

    It is currently legal under the concept of “qui tam”, but I feel if I make
    it a qui tam, then I need to state a personal monetary damage, and that will complicate my efforts. I am only trying to inform the judges, Attorney Generals, Governors, US Attorneys, Senators, and Representatives, of Obama’s ineligibility, the felony/treason crimes Obama has and is committed, and placing them under a felony charge of “misprision” of felony/treason should Obama get on a ballot.

    I found the concept of “”Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto” while reading a online 1914 edition of Bouvier’s law dictionary and encyclopedia, on the Google Books website. I was looking for examples of “old-style books” I could screen capture for a future video.

    This is important and urgent, so I mailed my information to Governor Jerry Brown by USPS CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, and I upgraded to OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL for a TOTAL OF $20.06. I have receipts proving it was received on August 19, 2011. I guess, they have 60 days to respond. If they don’t respond, then I guess I’ll need a lawyer.

    You’ll see above that I have a Version 4.1 waiting to be sent. I’m planning another mailing to US Attorney and US Attorney General, which I will also send to a Military Flag Officer, and I’ll wait another 60-days.

    I am not sending a Quo Warranto, and not being a lawyer, I think previous QW may have been premature. As an ordinary common person, I can as a “relator” send an “information” relating a felony charge. I can inform a grand jury, Attorney General, Magistrate, and Judge Advocate General.

  34. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    These may interest you.

    History teacher’s magazine, Volume 6 (Google eBook)
    http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=yNrFAAAAMAAJ&dq=rome+purely+roman+citizen
    The Municipal System of the Roman State
    page 103 to
    frame 110/351 to
    See last pargraph page 105(frame 112/351), 106,

    Indian nationality By Robert Niven Gilchrist (Google eBook)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rsVGAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA186&dq=rome+pure+roman+citizen&hl=en&ei=DQFsTreFN9LSiALK9pTQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=rome%20pure%20roman%20citizen&f=false
    page 186

    The Guardian, Volumes 14-15 By Reformed Church in the United States
    http://books.google.com/books?id=D9wVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA318&dq=rome+pure+roman+citizen&hl=en&ei=_gNsTqfCK-XiiALVrZC4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=rome%20pure%20roman%20citizen&f=false
    page 318

    The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire By Edward Gibbon
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=rome+pure+roman+natural+born+citizen&hl=en&ei=gQZsTve2K8LjiALMg52eDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
    page 13

    Commentaries on American law, Volume 2 By James Kent M DCCC LIV
    http://books.google.com/books?id=c5RDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=rome+pure+roman+natural+born+citizenship&hl=en&ei=8EtsTqHlAdTZiALP4sSpDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
    page 29 , 49

    page 4 footnote
    “An alien, says Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, is a person out of ligeance of the king. It is not [i] extra regnum[/i], nor [i]extra legem[/i], but [i]extra ligeantiam[/i]. To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth be within the king’s obedience as well as wthin his dominions.

    ed. “To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth within the king’s obedience as well as within his dominions.” Nice one. Exactly what is required to be POTUS, citizen parents + born on the country’s soil. Simple. – Leo

  35. Leo,
    As always enjoyed your post. I read this legal decision and article in the past. If you go into the congressional debate recordings for the 14th Amendment you will find the exact same opinion rendered, with agreement, on the floor of the Senate. Basically, to be a citizen you must be born under the “Jurisdiction” of the United States. Indians were born on land claimed by the United States, but were born under the Jurisdcition of the tribe (Navajo,Apache, Cheyenne). Loyalty was to tribe, not the United States or Constitution, and thus they were born Subjects not Citizens. To be ‘Natural Born Citizen’ by Vattel you must be born of citizen parents on ‘soil’ or ‘jurisdiction’ of native country. The Jurisidiction is the interesting point, as Diplomats and occupying Military personel on foriegn soil are still under the Jurisdiction of a foriegn government and not given citizenship by birth on foriegn soil.

    For the record, and going back several years of discussion, Obama was born under the Jurisdiction of the United Kingdom by treaty with the United States. You have pointed this out. We now know that McCain was born in the military hospital in the Panama Canal zone (territory controlled by US military by treaty with Panama-see Corsi book on Birth Certificate) and thus under the Jurisdiction of the United States by two US citizen parents.

    ed. Your thinking is flawed. McCain appears to have been born in the city of Colon, Panama, not on a military base… but even if he was born on a military base over seas, the US Foreign Affairs Manual makes clear that such birth does not make one a US citizen. – Leo

  36. Re: JD @ 9/13 4:38 A.M.

    I am an Arizona resident. I was pondering whether I should challenge Obama’s placement on the ballot in 2012. I had reviewed Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) and concluded that I could.

    Due to my own negligence, I lost all my research because of a hard drive failure. During the process of reconstructing my research I again referred to the pertinent sections of the ARS.

    I discovered that the ARS had been updated. More importantly, I discovered that although a voter can challenge the qualifications of a state candidate, a voter cannot challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. (I cannot say for certain that this exclusion was in the original ARS and I missed it.)

    The authority is given to the Secretary of State to certify the qualifications of the presidential candidates. Leo has already predicted how that will turn out, and I agree that the Arizona SoS will no doubt give Obama a pass.

    ARS 16-342, which pertains to the presidential nomination, says this in paragraph C.

    “C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.”

    ARS 16-351 paragraph B:

    “B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.”

  37. natrual born citizen party Says:
  38. I didn’t realize you filed during the challenge period according to State election law when the name was announced to be on the ballot. I thought your lawsuit was federal or something. Its hard to keep up with so many lawsuits and memory fails me.

  39. Ok I reviewed as best I could your case, pro se. It appears it was not filed in the four day time period. You have more evidence now than ever before and we have all these cases that were ruled too late to file, after the election, before the electoral count, before the joint session and after the joint session as the Superior Court of NJ ruled, suggested should be done.

    So given all of that, would you consider doing it one more time during the time period alloted and most importantly not in the 3rd circuit court of appeals jurisdiction. Seems to me most major cases were before the 3rd circuit and the 9th circuit, and I think success there would be remote. I think the more conservative appellate court the better.

    I am not a lawyer, so please go easy on me.

    ed. I don’t know what you mean by “four day time period”… there was nothing wrong with the procedure in my case other than multiple instances of sabotage. But no, I’m not filing anything this time around. – Leo

  40. “I will not be entering the courts again in my lifetime willingly. The door is open for others. – Leo”

    Not even as an expert witness?

    ed. Not entering the court house willingly… – Leo

  41. “The lower Court in Wong Kim Ark assessed that Ark was a Natural born Citizen. When it was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was upheld (hence the Supreme Court AGREED with the LOWER court’s finding). Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen.”

    Is this true, Leo?

    ed. No, that is false. Here is the holding of the District Court case, “I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.” WKA was held to be a “citizen” not natural born. – Leo

  42. Leo,

    Would be interested in your comments on this:

    The Presidential Qualification Issue
    By Bruce Walker
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_presidential_qualification_issue.html

  43. Michael Wassil Says:

    Bruce Walker in an article in American Thinker:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_presidential_qualification_issue.html

    … seems to say that only the Electoral College has the Constitutional obligation and power to ascertain the eligibility of candidates and disallow the ineligible. If the college elects someone to either office who is not eligible, there is no Constitutional remedy! Neither Congress nor the Supreme Courts, or any other court, has the Constitutional power to remove an ineligible President once the Electoral College has selected one.

    Michael Wassil

  44. Thalightguy Says:

    Leo,

    It’s good to see that you’re back at it, I look forward to reading your future blogs.

    Thanks for keeping us informed.

  45. A Crazy Old Coot Says:

    Check out the following and let me know your opinion, please.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/wayne-madsen-obamas-confirmed.html

    Wayne Madsen: Obama’s Confirmed Indonesian Citizenship and Bogus Social Security Number

    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 1:59 PM

    Video: Wayne Madsen: Obama’s Confirmed Indonesian Citizenship and Bogus Social Security Number – 9/15/11 – VIDEO HERE

    Last Of A Dying Breed: Investigators Wayne Madsen and Robert S. Finnegan at Obama statue in the courtyard of the public school he attended as an INDONESIAN CITIZEN. It was illegal for ANY foreigner at that time to attend ANY public school, and Madsen now has the Indonesian Law Statues to prove it, along with the documentation to prove Obama’s attendance.

    ///////////////////

    Read the rest and view the video at the above link.

  46. I have not read through your entire blog, but what I have read is wonderful to see. I am glad that someone has actually done all this homework and continues to redirect our attention to what the real issue is. With the media/left trying so hard to discredit and obfuscate what is being said, this is an important blog to study the real issue.

    That said, there isn’t a judge in the nation, not federal nor state, that appears interested in applying justice here. There isn’t a state government anywhere amongst the 50 states (50 of them!!) that seem interested in justice here. And strangely enough, Hawaii officials REFUSE to disclose the obvious truth- that the birth certificate Obama published is fraud. What do you think is the motivation amongst so many politicians, many of who feel strongly that Obama is a disaster for America?

  47. Dear Leo, This Issue regarding NBC was first introduced to me as a child by a teacher, when I was 10 years old. It has been a mystery to me since then, a riddle of sorts for more forty years. Until now.

    After reading Vatel, and Ramsay, and now the quotes from the Minor case, it is crystal clear what a NBC is. A child born of two Citizens. Understanding The Supreme court case is the rosetta stone. It is the law.

    I have ponderd this issue for 40 years. I can’t thank you enough for resolving this issue. It is the one question from my childhood that was never resolved. I remember my teacher warning that one day this issue may come to a head and need to be resolved. She exlained that contrary to popular opinion, many scholars believe that NBC required two citizen parents.

    I can not thank you enough for your work in resolving this. It is unfortumate that we have elected a man who is not an NBC. He is a dual citizen.

    It is now abundantly clear that both Mr. Barak Obama and Mr. Chester Arthur both chose to hide all personal records to deceptivly attain the office of President of the USA. This is a very sad fact.

  48. The issues are two,

    1] There is not an uniformly acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen among the States”

    2] What is the uniform legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen that satisfies the needs of Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution of the United States that is suitable to serve as an uniform Rule among the States for legal purposes.

    But neither an Amendment, the Law nor the Constitution makes a person a natural born Citizen, but rather (the Law can do no more than) merely acknowledges the self-evident consequence of the perpetuation of Citizenship once obtained within a Civil Society (and any “Law” that interferes with the natural right of parents raising their prodigy within their own Citizenship is a tyranny).

  49. [Excerpt]…..Brief in Rebuttal;

    “…Of course the “WKA” case and opinion has a place in the discussion but the fact that Justice Gray so convoluted the “singular question” with dicta so far removed from the facts and circumstances that even an “internet Pro Se” interested party finds so many errors in the interpretations made in the case and the interpretations made of the case it is now more an example of Judicial incompetence than of the Law. (See Article VI of the Burlingame Treaty to understand the status of the prodigy of the legally admitted parents under the terms of the Treaty)….”

  50. Leo, here is a comment I made on C4P, a blog for Sarah Palin, when the issue of obama’s BC came up. I know hundreds of people read it and some have gone to your blog which I linked. There were questions about Senator Rubio’s and Jindal’s quals to be president and I answered in the negative, their parents were not USA citizens. Hope this will spread the truth about the usurper in the WH. I will also send this comment to Sarah Palin and warn her of Rubio and Jindal as not natural born citizens–just in case she wants to make either of them her VP choice.

    Comment to a criticism of ‘the birther nonsense”

    …..the “birther nonsense” statement is for those of us who do not know the Constitutional requirements to be president of the USA. At the risk of “looking stupid” and, with the forbearance of C4P readers, I again post my response to Betty above:

    there is a great deal more to the birth certificate which is a smokescreen that obama put up to take attention away from the fact that he does NOT meet the US Constitution’s THREE requirements to be president of the US. Our Founding Fathers did not want a president to be under the influence of a foreign power and, therefore, required three prerequisites of a candidate:

    1. That he/she be born in the USA.
    2. That he/she be a citizen of the USA.
    3. That he/she be born of TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE USA.

    According to the birth certificate that obama released, he was born in Hawaii and, therefore he meets 1. and 2. However, obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya which was under British rule and, therefore, he was a BRITISH citizen whose child became a British citizen also. Senior Obama was in the USA as a foreign student when he met and his mother was a citizen of the USA. Therefore, obama is a DUAL CITIZEN of the USA AND BRITAIN AND NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL NATURAL BORN CITIZEN PRESIDENT OF THE USA! All this can be verified by linking to http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpre... where Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq. has written extensively on this matter and cites US Surpreme Court precedent on the requirements to be president of the USA.

    And what is my proof of this “fringe lunatic birther” charge that obama is a dual citizen? The link below is on obama’s website fight the smears on which HE HIMSELF ADMITS IT!! THE TRUTH IS RIGHT THERE IN THE OPEN FOR THE WORLD TO SEE IT! Scroll down to the bottom and see obama’s quote on his British/Kenyan citizenship! Obama is a usurper of the presidency of the US which he hates and is “fundamentally changing/destroying” in his marxist/islamic agenda. http://www.fightthesmears.com/

  51. Leo,

    Another post on C4P blog for Sarah Palin in response to a reader who had gone to your blog which I linked.

    Westernhunter, thank you for following up with Leo Donofrio Esq. blog, http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpre... where he has brilliantly researched the constitutional requirements for a candidate to be a natural born citizen of the USA to be president. Yes indeed, it is a very complex matter but Mr. Donofrio, since 2007 until now, has put his research of constitutional law in simple terms which almost everyone can understand.

    ed. Not since 2007… I began this research in October 2008. – Leo

    As a matter of fact, it was on Mr. Donofrio’s blog, he and the research of his readers discovered that Chester Arthur, 21st president of the US, was, as is Obama, a usurper of the presidency. Arthur lied and covered up the fact that although he was born in Vermont, his father was a Canadian citizen when he was born [ed. his father was a British citizen, born in the UK and had migrated to Canada – Leo] and, therefore not eligible to be president. Arthur covered his tracks by destroying documents which proved that he was not a natural born citizen [ed. we don’t know what he destroyed, only that he destroyed all of his papers – Leo] which are the exclusive requirements to be president: 1. born on US soil. 2. born a citizen of the US. 3. born of TWO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE USA. It’s there in history!

    When Obama sealed his records, birth certificate, law thesis, college documents, he threw up a smoke screen about his birth certificate to take attention away from the fact that he was not a natural born citizen and that he would show it at the appropriate time to “proove” he was a US citizen. And, then he showed it at the appropriate time when all the fuss about where he was born was brought to a crisis with Trump questioning Obama’s birth certificate.

    Obama fooled the American people by saying “look at my birth certificate, I was born in Hawaii, I’m a citizen of the USA!” What he didn’t say was that he was a Kenyan/British citizen at birth and therefore, was not eligible to be president of the US. The amazing fact is that Obama explicitly states on his website, http://www.fightthesmears.com that he admits his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship made him a Kenyan/British citizen! Insidiously clever is it not? And the judicial system in America is corrupt for not permitting any citizen who wants to challenge Obama in court. Mr. Leo Donofrio has gone to the federal courts to challenge Obama’s elegibility to be president, from New Jersey up to the US Supreme Court which refused to take the case, all are complicit in the scandal.

  52. Leo,
    I visited the office of federal judge Hon. Joel Schneider in Camden NJ and requested an appointment. His office staff told me to put it in writing, which I did, and I was ignored. I sent a followup and was again ignored. I visited the office again and was told he was again not available. I advised that I will be notifying the press and the NJ Bar if I do not receive an acknowledgment of my letters. One week later, I received a call from person calling himself a US Federal Marshall advising me that Hizoner does not meet with citizens regarding matters of this type. When I asked for clarification about this, he explained that this is not a policy, but a standard practice and I got the BS about him remaining impartial regarding cases (which is irrelevant to my request) and was told that any direct reply to my letter would compromise Hizoner’s impartiality, so I should not expect a written reply and that, to his knowledge, no federal judges ever meet with private citizens. I am going to keep my promise to go to the Bar and the press (beginning with high school and college newspapers). What else should I do? I was originally seeking to know if this judge is aware of all the issues around BHO’s ineligibility and ask, Who has standing? Now I want the world to know that I was ignored and now intimidated.

    ed. I don’t know why you thought he would meet with you… that’s not done, and there’s nothing strange about it. Don’t get yourself in trouble doing stuff like this. You are out of line with your request. – Leo

  53. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Leo, What do you say about this comment from another blog? I have seen this in several places and don’t know if it’s the truth:

    The United States exists in two forms: The original United States that was in operation until 1860; a collection of sovereign Republics in the union. Under the original Constitution the States controlled the Federal Government; the Federal Government did not control the States and had very little authority.
    The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.
    The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”

    ed. Very interesting stuff… let me look further into it. I’ve seen this before, but not the Harlan quote. Interesting. – Leo

  54. aloha Leo,
    i just got to talk to Jay Severin radio show and told him that the SCOTUS defined Natural Born Citizen in Minor Vs Happersett. because they are talking about Rubio and Severin said no court has defined NBC thats when i told him about Minor. i dont think they liked that much.

  55. Here is BBC, pimping for the NWO, saying that the Declaration of Independence is illegal.

    Here is the silly rationale, which sounds a lot like the “natural born Citizen was never defined” argument of the Obots:

    “Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to “natural law”, an undefined concept, and to “self-evident truths”, that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided. ”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: