The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.

Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US.  At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He’s also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.]  Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

This letter was written on July 25, 1787.  It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation.  Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers.  Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship.  For no statute can make one a natural born citizen.  It’s a status, not a right.  And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief.  And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago.  This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President.  They can.  But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.

If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us.  And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.

We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations.  Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman?  And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.

I’m not worried about Obama as President.  I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets.  The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.

This is the issue before the nation –  and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The framers wisely provided us with that check.

By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.

Wall Street Journal via James Taranto continue propaganda lies.

[Ed. Updated 6:26 AM August 3, 2009. Many of you are asking for analysis of the new alleged Kenyan birth certification.  However, the back to back articles I have written about the Wall Street Journal’s blatant propaganda are too important to move from the front page today.  People need to be made aware they are being lied to by the press.  This new desperation to use big lie propaganda might possibly have something to do with the recent Kenya birth certification information.  But I would just remind my readers that this new Kenyan documentation has come to us in the form of a color copy of a color photograph.  The details in the document – names of Government officials, place of birth etc. – have not been independently verified.  Much more verification should have been done before bringing the document forward.  That being said, if it turns out to be genuine, it will be the single most important story in Presidential history as a Kenyan birth would mean Mr. Obama is not now and never has been a basic US citizen, forget the more difficult requirement of natural born citizen.  My research indicates he can never be a natural born citizen – even if born on US soil – since (he admits) his birth status was governed by Great Britain.]

The Wall Street Journal and James Taranto came under pressure after our article here yesterday revealed propaganda wherein they attempted to convince readers a statute exists which does not exist.

The Wall Street Journal – instead of owning up to the false reporting – has chosen to experiment with further propaganda by repeating the lie again.  And in doing so, they have taken the final leap from journalism to big lie propaganda.  Repeat the lie as often as you can and people will accept it as truth.  This is the tactic employed by the Wall Street Journal and it’s straight out of Jospeh Goebbel’s original playbook:

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi party, and he was appointed propaganda minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts, and information in Germany. In that position, he perfected an understanding of the “Big Lie” technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses.

The original propaganda lie stated by Taranto at the Wall Street Journal was this:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists. No such law was signed by Ronald Reagan.  It’s a lie.

If it weren’t a lie, the Wall Street Journal would answer by printing statutory code references and text which support its reporting.  But that’s not what happened because no such statute exists.  The Wall Street Journal made it up out of thin air.

And when we called them on it, instead of acknowledging that no such law exists containing the phrase “natural born citizen”, the Wall Street Journal chose to repeat the same lie again.  Here is the second lie.  It appears in yesterday’s follow up by Taranto:

“Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens.”

There isn’t a single statute in all of US law which extends “natural-born citizenship” to anybody.

No current US statute even uses the words “natural-born citizen”.

It’s shocking to see the Wall Street Journal come so far out of the propaganda closet.  They have taken that final step into fascism – a willing embrace of big lie propaganda.  And Joseph Goebbels would be proud.  The ministry of propaganda is here. 

Wall Street Journal Caught Spreading False Legal Propaganda Via James Taranto

Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers.  In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text.  Here is the offensive passage:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists.

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto.  In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute.  Those words only appear in the Constitution –  Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell.  His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.

Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper.  His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.

But that’s not what Taranto has done.

Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law.  He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.

Let’s call that what it is – propaganda.  They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent.  No.  This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.

The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”.  Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.

And that is journalistic evildoing personified.

Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth.  If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President.  All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President.  Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President.  The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face.  The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.

Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided.  Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.

The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.

We aint in Kansas anymore, people.

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history.  One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance.  The passage below has been confusing for me as well.  Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief.  I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today.  The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.  Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens.  And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters.  But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

–  he compares two children

– on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

– on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens.  But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.  So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

– By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

– But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

– This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship.  For example, not all natural born citizens can be President.  Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

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…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case.  It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen.  The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said.  But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President.  His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen.  His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court.  Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President.  But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.

I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command.  The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.

SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

I personally don’t care who the President is anymore.  I’ll never care again.  Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this.  It doesn’t matter who the President is.  We’ll still be at war.  We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss.  We do get fooled again.  Everytime.  But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes…  Goodbye Ms. American Pie.

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

[Ed. UPDATED 2:49 PM – The Google cache is now once again returning the Fight The Smears page with the relevant admission.]

[Ed. UPDATED 9:33 AM – Looks like they missed a spot or returned the document to the web.  Hurry before it vanishes.  The following link is still active:

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

With all the new media attention swirling around the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, I thought it might be helpful to re-release an important blog post I created back when my law suit was pending before SCOTUS.  I’ve done this for two reasons.

1.  The image that contains Obama’s admission of his birth status having been governed by Great Britain is being scrubbed from the web.  It was highlighted originally at Obama’s own Fight The Smears website which has now vanished.  The relevant admission appeared just below the Certification of Live Birth which he used to declare he was born in the US.

2.  The admission by Obama that his birth status was governed by Great Britian is the one fact which the main stream media has NEVER acknowledged.  In all of the coverage on the web and on radio and TV nobody will talk about it.  Instead of discussing this admission openly, they mock the entire movement.  It’s the new Soviet form of sarcasm.  They’ve found a new way to censor people, just act like a bunch of bullies in a sandbox and pretend you are in kindergarden.  Kick sand in the face of those who won’t do your bidding and threaten anybody else with sand in their face if they don’t laugh along.

Thank God for punk rock.  That music liberated me from all fear.  When The Sex Pistols back in 1976 put it to the Queen they got the snot kicked out of them everywhere they went.  But they started a revolution, a revolution along with The Ramones and The Clash and the world was changed.  They certainly liberated me and taught me to question authority.

I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State to rid the ballots of  McCain, Obama and Calero.  Yet, I have been called a racist more times than I can count.  Furthermore, I have never said that the definition of natural-born citizen has been certainly determined in the courts.  I simply pointed out various historical cases and  comments which support the definition I believe is most on point – that to be President one must be born in the US to parents without foreign allegiance who are US citizens.

It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.

It was Obama who originally said his birth status was governed by Great Britain, not me.  He said it.  He proved it.  Now  it’s like the emperor’s new clothes.  Nobody in the main stream media has the guts to discuss it openly.

I originally posted the following on  December 5, 2008 – the date SCOTUS discussed my case in private conference.

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ ”

Read that last line again.

“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Ed. Notice the link to Fight the Smears is now broken.]

Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.

[Ed. This story was edited and updated at 7:38 AM on July 28, 2009 to reflect that only one count of false swearing is documented by the document below.  The original story included two counts based upon two statements allegedly given to the State of Arizona and the State of Virginia.  This was originally posted by The Obama File blog.  That blog was wrong in that the two documents were actually separate pieces of one document forwarded by Obama to the State of Arizona.  The notary was in Virginia and that is where the confusion arose.  Below is a signed sworn statement by Obama forwarded to the State of Arizona and notarized by a notary in Virginia.  The legal analysis remains unchanged and unedited from my original post.]

On Nov. 30, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US.  The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a  Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President.  He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue.  But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen.  But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.   Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1.  This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.  But the  Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement.  SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”.  Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama –  the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status.  Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true.  If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your  “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are –  in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.

You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt.  You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.

The state of Arizona accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots.  He was then elected President.  The voters in Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.

When Obama  swore he was eligible, he lied.  He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible.  He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false.  He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was.   He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.

On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS.  He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say.  But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess.  The affirmation demanded that he swear he was –  in fact – eligible to be POTUS.

A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation  ahead of himself.  Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law.  The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.

The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election.  Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself.  He did no such thing.  He swore something was true when he  knew the truth was in doubt.   Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.

Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.

[Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]

Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?

Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.  The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL).  Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record.  He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?

What was their logic?  The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil.  Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen.  I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents?  What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents?  This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators.  Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art.  It’s analogous to concern.  What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?  Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son.  These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?

WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?

What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question?  This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511.  Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.  They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents.  It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”.  This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly.  In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship.  Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”.  This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US.  Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511,  but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

One of my readers by the name of  Stephen Tonchen has created an introductory primer on Obama POTUS eligibility.  Much of the substance of the primer has been culled from my blog and helpfully supplemented by Mr. Tonchen’s own research.  This is by far the most clear, concise and powerful document created to help educate your friends and family on the eligibility issue.  I strongly urge my readers to download it and to link to it wherever possible.

I will just reprint its discussion about the important and still controlling SCOTUS case – Minor vs. Happersett:

• In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
  

  The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … 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. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

• In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
  

  …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

• In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

It is those same doubts discussed so openly in the Minor case that need to be discussed in open court today.  If SCOTUS expressed such doubts then, then our current SCOTUS ought to enlighten us now.  As I’ve stated over and again, this is a legal question already considered by our highest court in 1874 – a full six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.  This is an important time reference which should be wielded at all who state the 14th Amendment is controlling as to nbc status.  It is not.  SCOTUS expressed their doubts clearly six years later in the Minor case which has never been over-ruled.

The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet.  It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.

 

The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned

I have received letters from the people who ran the citizens grand jury in Georgia, and while I appreciate their frustration in that our Government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing a President to be sworn in who is not a “natural born citizen”, I do not agree that this citizens grand jury has any legal authority whatsoever to demand the removal of a sitting President or to even force the review of his qualifications.

The separation of powers in the Constitution has delegated that power to Congress who in turn enacted the District of Columbia Code provision for Quo Warranto.  Sections 16-3501, 16-3502, and 16-3503 are the only Constitutional means available to see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo warranto.)

Furthermore, there is very disturbing language (thanks to Phil at The Right Side of Life for highlighting this today) used by this citizens grand jury which discusses the taking of property and suggests other violent means by which they intend to enforce their presentments.  This language is frightening and totally illegal:

“The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”

 

That’s criminal insanity right there.  Have people lost their minds?

Let it be known that I condemn any such activity as described above.

You can’t protect the Constitution by destroying it.  Just because somebody may have become President who isn’t eligible does not give any citizen the right to take the law into their own hands and to form lynch mobs and confiscate property.  There is a Constitutional way to challenge the President, but this citizens grand jury manifesto is not it.

We the people are getting beat up by criminal political actions which subvert the Constitution.  If we are to fight back, we must do so within the boundaries of the Constitution.  This is because Constitutional criminals are more than happy to see citizens violating the Constitution.  They can enforce your crimes with law enforcement.  They can even put you on trial for issuing such language as that cited above.

But you can’t do the same to them.

You will be squashed like a bug.  Therefore you need to be smarter and more Constitutionally creative than they are.  Find the path within the Document or the USA is no more. A true enemy of the Constitution will claim victory if the only way you can stop their crimes is by doing more damage to the Constitution.  Either way, the Constitution is destroyed.  Try to see that for God’s sake.

Since the people who have brought this citizens grand jury have written to me and told me personally that my writing on the power of the citizens as grand jurors was their inspiration, I feel the need to disassociate myself from them and their objectives.

When I wrote of the subverted power of the Grand Jury as to bringing “presentments” in my articles;

– The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

– Scotus on the unique power of grand jurors

…I was not doing so in regard to the POTUS eligibility issue. In fact, the first article above was written by me back in 2005 and published at my previous blog.  This article had NOTHING to do with Obama’s eligibility.

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution.  And I am a true believer in the Constitution.  Are you?

The Constitution provides in the 5th Amendment that a grand jury can return a “presentment” without the acquiescence of a Federal Prosecutor.  I have encouraged people who are sworn in on Federal Grand Juries to use this power to investigate Government crimes even when the Prosecutor has not led them to such crimes. This is the power I was speaking of, and I first wrote about it in 2005 with regard to Constitutional crimes of the Bush administration.

Imagine 25 grand jurors who really know their power sitting in a DC court room… The Government can’t indict without a grand jury so they must have a grand jury empanelled at all times.  If the citizens of this nation understood their true power, then once sworn in as grand jurors they could investigate ANY crime that was undertaken by Government.

THIS IS THE POWER I SPEAK OF.

Learn about it, spread it, use it or lose it. It’s a real power.

This citizens grand jury thing is not real.  It’s a dog and pony show and a certain distraction from the true education and true power available which will surely confuse the issue and make it easier for the Government to further subvert the true power we the people hold as grand jurors.

When I first read about the Georgia citizens grand jury I thought, “Well, the relief they seek is not Constitutional and since they read my blog they must know that quo warranto is the only Constitutional way to remove the President…so this will simply be an educational PR stunt to foster discussion of the eligibility issue.”

But I can’t agree with that anymore.

The language they’ve published about taking people’s property and “other” enforcement options is complete and utter criminal bullshit.

Any activity which subverts the Constitution is criminal to me.  I don’t care if it’s ineligible Presidential candidates or citizens who are frustrated thereby.

If this citizens grand jury is citing my writing as inspiration, then they’ve clearly misunderstood my writing.

Leo C. Donofrio

April 2, 2009

[Feel free to leave comments on this article.  But please understand that I am very busy right now and cannot promise I will have the time to moderate and post comments.]

SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect

RADIO UPDATE: I will be on the Chalice show on PatriotsHeartNetwork.com Wed.  March 18 at 9:05 EST]

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS  including my own.  It’s true that – technically – Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari.  Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic.  The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

The same is true for Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from becoming “president-elect” and later president.

Once my case stay application was denied, I had exhausted the only emergency procedure available to me and the US Supreme Court Rules would not have facilitated the resolution of a full petition before the candidate was sworn in as President (or become president-elect).

When Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts as President, our Constitutional separation of powers kicked in big time.  Because of the separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has no ability to remove a sitting President.  Nowhere in the Document does it give the Supreme Court (or the judicial branch) any authority to remove a sitting President.

All of the eligibility law suits – brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress – sought to challenge the qualifications of  candidate Obama to be President.  Once he graduated from “candidate Obama” to “President-elect Obama” and later “President Obama”, every single eligibility law suit pending before SCOTUS became moot.

Those actions are moot because SCOTUS has no authority to act on the relief requested in those law suits.  And SCOTUS knows this better than anybody else.

Full petitions or motions to reconsider filed in any of the eligibility suits that went to SCOTUS before Obama became President (including my own) now leave SCOTUS with only one possible course of  action thereto: a Supreme dog and pony show.  And I don’t think Chief Justice Roberts will be calling in the Westminster Kennel Club anytime soon.  Those cases are dead done and dusted.  Call the embalming squad.

POINT I: SCOTUS HAS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRITS OF QUO WARRANTO.

Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution grants SCOTUS its authority as follows:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

There you have it.  SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction over cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, Consuls and where a State is a party to the law suit.  If the action is not in aid of their appellate jurisdiction, then that law suit cannot originate with the United States Supreme Court.  A quo warranto to determine POTUS eligibility brought directly to SCOTUS does not fall within their Constitutional authority.  [Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for her insights on this issue.]

SCOTUS can probably review a quo warranto case under the All Writs Act.  But such review is only available if it comes within their appellate jurisdiction.  Original jurisdiction cannot be invoked for writs of quo warranto and any attempt to institute a proceeding in quo warranto directly with SCOTUS should fail.  It would be a violation of the Constitution.

US Code Section 1651, aka “the all writs act”:

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

In the landmark SCOTUS case, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court dealt with this exact issue, whether SCOTUS had original jurisdiction to entertain one of the extraordinary writs.  In that case, it was a writ of mandamus.  And SCOTUS held they did not have any authority to act under original jurisdiction to issue the writ:

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present  case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that ‘the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.’…

…If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance. (Emphasis added.)

SCOTUS cannot entertain any quo warranto brought directly to it.  They must wait for it to come on appeal.  Please take note of the statement above concerning the Constitution’s grant of Congressional authority to ordain and establish inferior courts.  It is this Congressional power coupled with the exclusive power given to Congress to remove a sitting President which was exercised by Congress within the very text of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute.

In that statute, Congress exclusively authorized the District Court of the District of Columbia with the power to hear cases challenging the eligibility of a sitting officer holding a United States national office located in the District of Columbia.

SCOTUS is constitutionally estopped from issuing a writ of quo warranto regarding Obama’s qualifications to be President if the action is brought directly to them.  Any attempt to do that should certainly be denied.  This is simply a legal fact.  Any attorney who brings such an action to SCOTUS directly will be doing terrible damage to the cause on account of the public relations disaster awaiting certain denial by SCOTUS.

POINT II: UNITED STATES LAW INCLUDES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE HAS A UNIQUE EFFECT OTHER THAN THAT OF A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN.

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

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

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

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

Holy cow.  I just had one.  It’s more like the proverbial elephant in the room.

We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”.  It does not use the words “natural born citizen”.  And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US.  Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals.  The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2  Section 1 Clause 5.

Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect.  Such a construction is inadmissible.

Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, “such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it”. The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”.  The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”.  So the exception is irrelevant here.

Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.

INADMISSIBLE.

Inadmissible in this context means such an argument is not competent to be considered.  It’s essentially no different from the situation where a piece of evidence is excluded from trial.  It means you can’t even argue such a thing before the court.  Please think about this carefully.  This means any argument that a “14th Amendment citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen” – for purposes of  effecting POTUS eligibility – is not competent to be considered by the court.

If the natural born citizen issue were ever heard on the merits, the court hearing the case must recognize that a presumption exists requiring the natural born citizen clause to have independent effect from all clauses which just refer to “citizen”.

Effect is the key.

What is the independent effect attributed to the “natural born citizen” clause?  The effect  is that just being a “citizen” isn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen”.

This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”.  And no other construction is even admissible.

You can take all the law review articles, emotional pleas claiming the natural born citizen clause is obsolete, the 14th Amendment arguments, Wong Kim Ark, and every main stream media barker, throw them before the SCOTUS altar, and make them kneel to Chief Justice Marshall and the framers.

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.

This is a point I have failed to make up until right now, so please forgive me for having not locked it down earlier.  But don’t spank me too hard since it appears to be an original argument.  It’s not a point I’ve seen published anywhere else.

Of course it’s well known that each Constitutional clause must have an independent effect.  But I don’t believe any other commentary has been published exposing this legal presumption in favor of the “natural born citizen” clause which also renders other arguments inadmissible.  By other arguments, I refer to all theories claiming that a 14th Amendment “citizen” born on US soil satisfies the Constitutional qualifications for President.

Regardless,  I must give credit to my sister (an ex prosecutor) for having brought the independent legal effect argument to my attention while Donofrio v. Wells was still pending with SCOTUS.  But without having Chief Justice Marshall’s brilliant opinion from Marbury v. Madison in front of me, I didn’t grasp the spectacular power of the presumption.  So I’ll leave you with those words once more.  Please give them your utmost concentration:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

Leo C. Donofrio 03.16.2009