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

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

HISTORY LESSONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Leo Donofrio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

Those who support Obama’s eligibility – despite his admission of  dual allegiance/nationality (at the time of his birth) – routinely offer a rather absurd hypothetical which sounds something like this:

“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility.  What if North Korea declared that all US citizens are also citizens of North Korea?  In that case, nobody would be eligible to be President if dual nationality was a determining factor.  Therefore, nationality laws of the United Kingdom are irrelevant.”

Since the US recognizes both Jus Soli (citizenship born of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (citizenship born of the blood) as to its own citizens, it has also recognized the same claims to citizenship from other nations.  It is well established – by a multitude of case law and the State Department’s own foreign affairs manual – that the US government must respect foreign law with regard to dual nationals.

But those who support Obama’s eligibility fail to acknowledge that the far-fetched North Korea hypo has no relevance as to Obama.  For we are concerned with the United Kingdom’s nationality laws.  And with regard to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States there are numerous treaties which require the United States to respect British law and to recognize the status of “British subject”.

The simple concept I reference is taken directly from Article Six of the US Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Treaties are United States law.  In fact, according to the Constitution, treaties are “the supreme law of the land”.

The State Department maintains a list of all treaties which are in effect.  Articles IX and X of  the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Jay Treaty)” are still in effect between the US and United Kingdom.  (See pg. 281 of the list which is 291 for PDF pg. counter).  That page also refers one to, Akins v. United States, 551 F. 2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1977), which states:

“The Supreme Court decided in Karnuth that the free-passage “privilege” of Article III was wholly promissory and prospective, rather than vested, in nature.

The Court stated in comparing Articles IX and III of the Jay Treaty:

‘Article IX and Article III relate to fundamentally different things. Article IX aims at perpetuity and deals with existing rights, vested and permanent in character…'”

 

So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:

“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”

In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”.  In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them.  The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.

Therefore, regardless of any far-fetched hypos concerning North Korea, or any other country for that matter, the US and the United Kingdom are required by the Jay Treaty to consult the nationality laws of each sovereign state.  The Jay Treaty is both US law and British law.

By authority of the US Constitution, the Jay Treaty requires the US to recognize British subjects and to protect these rights.  To properly do so, the US must rely on British law in order to recognize British subjects.

So, with respect to Great Britain, the Jay Treaty denies Obama supporters the ability to rely on their favored argument.

BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.

And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President.  Pay special attention to the following text taken from Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”

The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and could not be considered “natives” of the US.  Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule which allows British subjects to be considered “as if” they were natives of the US.  There were numerous policies in play at the time this treaty was signed which could have influenced this choice of words.  (But more on that in the forthcoming part 2 of this report.)

The plain meaning of these words bears testament to the fact that, by this treaty, the United States acknowledges that no British subject may be considered a “native” of the United States.  The treaty also establishes that no US citizen may be considered a “native” of the United Kingdom.

As most of you are well aware, John Jay’s letter to George Washington was responsible for introducing the “natural born Citizen” clause into the US Constitution.

Furthermore, at the time the Jay Treaty was signed, the UK recognized “perpetual allegiance” which meant that no British subject could throw off their required allegiance to the King.  Indeed, the theory of “perpetual allegiance” was one of the main causes of the War of 1812.  So, just who was and who was not a “native” of the United Kingdom and the United States was an important designation which had grave national security implications.

The Jay Treaty sought to grant the highest form of citizenship rights to those British subjects and US citizens affected by Article IX.  Both countries agreed upon the one word they knew would – according to the law of nations – serve the purpose.  That word was “natives”.  Both states could have agreed that “British subjects” were to receive the same rights as “US citizens” and vice versa, but they didn’t.

They specifically chose the word “natives” because that word had a definitive meaning in the law of nations.

In 1984, the US Supreme Court – in TWA v. Franklin Mint Corp. – stated:

“The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters. The frame of reference in interpreting treaties is naturally international, and not domestic. Accordingly, the language of the law of nations is always to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.”

The law of nations is “always” to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.  You all know where this is going now, right?

Consider this to be just the introduction. In part 2 of this report, I will go into much greater detail.

 

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

 

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

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

THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA: How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility.

In September of 2008, the Michigan Law Review published an article by Lawrence Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, entitled, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause”.  The article focused upon the issue of whether John McCain was eligible to be President despite his birth in Panama.  The article did not even mention Barack Obama.  The direct citation is Michigan Law Review: First Impressions Vol. 107:22 2008.

The opening paragraph of Solum’s article states:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.'” (Emphasis added.)

According to this reference, there is general agreement that the core meaning of the natural born citizen clause = born in the US to parents who are citizens.  According to Solum back in September 08, anyone who doesn’t fit that description, like McCain, falls into a “twilight zone” of eligibility.  This interesting choice of words mimics the US Supreme Court’s “doubts” expressed in Minor v. Happersett:

“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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (Emphasis added.)

Solum’s definition of the core meaning of natural born citizen seems to be taken directly from the SCOTUS in Minor.  Solum then goes on to analyze McCain’s eligibility and concludes that there is no clear answer as to whether McCain was eligible to be President.

CUT TO… OCTOBER 27th 2008.

Solum published the original article in September 2008.  But then something happened.

The issue of whether a dual citizen at birth may be considered a natural born citizen had been ignored in the run up to the election – prior to October 27, 2008 – when I brought my law suit, Donofrio v. Wells, against the New Jersey Secretary of State.  Up until then, the issue of Obama’s dual citizenship was not on the radar of voters, pundits, or journalists.

By 2010, the dual citizen issue had become common knowledge.   Today, four states – Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arizona – have drafted bills requiring Presidential candidates to prove they have never been dual citizens, or that both of their parents were citizens of the United States when the candidate was born.  If any of those states actually pass such a law, Obama will not be eligible for inclusion on their ballots.

SOLUM SCRUBS

On April 18, 2010, Solum republished the article under the same exact title but with a vastly different second paragraph.  The revised article was released online via the Social Science Research Network.  The citation for the scrubbed article is Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 09-17.  The second paragraph now reads:

“What is the legal significance of what we can call “the natural born citizen clause”?  There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning.2 As a matter of inclusion, it is beyond dispute that anyone born on American soil with an American parent is a ‘natural born citizen.’3″ (Emphasis added.)

Scrubadub dub dub…

When you go to footnote 3, it continues to scrub as follows:

“3 In an earlier version of this article, I used the phrase “whose parents are citizens of the United States.”  Some readers have misread the original as implying that someone born of only one American parent on American soil is not a “natural born citizen.” That reading ignores the context of the original sentence, which was meant to provide a case where “natural born citizen” status was indisputable… Based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen…” (Emphasis added.)

That’s some serious scrubbing.

He starts with – “In an earlier version of this article” – but he doesn’t cite to the Michigan Law Review article anywhere in the scrubbed article.  These so called “legal scholars” would list a citation to tissue paper if they sneezed in it while writing a report.  But good old Solum here, he’s suddenly struck with a case of amnesia citosis.

THE MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW’S RESPONSE

The Michigan Law Review has not published Solum’s revisions.  To their credit, the article remains unscrubbed at their web site.  I spoke with Amy Murphy, Editor In Chief of the Michigan Law Review this morning.  She informed me that they have a general policy of not publishing revisions of articles they have previously published.

I also informed her in detail about the scrubbing by Solum.  I explained my background, the case I brought to the Supreme Court, and the timeline of events as they pertained to Solum’s articles.  She agreed to listen as I read the original Michigan Law Review version and the recently scrubbed version of the second paragraph to her.  When I finished reading, she informed me that the Michigan Law Review has “no comment”.

MORE PARENTS

In another telling paragraph (in both versions), Solum states:

“How would an originalist approach the question whether the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause would permit McCain (and others not born of American parents on American soil) to become President?” (Emphasis added.)

This is a second reference to “parents”.  This was not revised.

But there’s more.  Solum also states (in both articles):

“If the American conception of ‘natural born citizen’ were equivalent to the English notion of a ‘natural born subject,’ then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified…”

Parents – plural – again.

And one more time:

“This could result in the interpretation suggested above—which would limit “natural born citizens” to persons born of American parents on American soil.” (Emphasis added.)

Solum needs to scrub this thing down a bit more to make it fit the needs of Obama eligibility.  Perhaps that is why the scrubbed version is only listed as a “draft” when you download it.  But it’s not listed as a draft at the Social Science Research Network site’s abstract download page for the scrubbed version.

INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE

If Solum felt that the original article had been misinterpreted, he should have written a follow up report with a new title explaining the issue.

Solum chose to use “parents” – plural – throughout the original article, no footnote necessary.  So when people took him at his word, he scrubbed his word.  That’s not what an ethical professor does.  He doesn’t publish research in an esteemed journal and then republish the same article with the very same title after scrubbing a controversial paragraph.

That’s intellectual cowardice and it’s also a professional disgrace.  Shame on you, Larry.  You know it and so do your colleagues.  You are, after all, the “John E. Cribbett Professor of Law”.

Whatever, dude.

(Hat tip to reader “Steve T” for pointing this scrubbing out in comments.)

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

BEWARE: Arizona Senate Bill 1308 Defines Dual Citizens As Natural Born Citizens.

Arizona Senate Bill 1308 passed out of committee yesterday by an 8-5 vote.  This bill is a cleverly disguised attempt to protect President Obama from eligibility scrutiny.  It does this by declaring persons born with dual citizenship as natural born citizens.  But it does this in a very sneaky manner.

That’s right.  Arizona has now passed out of committee a bill which states that persons born with dual citizenship are natural born citizens of the United States.  This same bill is being considered by all states party to the compact.

So infamous congratulations to the 8 votes in Arizona who passed this unconstitutional bill to the full Senate floor.  They’ve just declared those born as dual citizens eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces.

The Arizona Republic completely failed to mention this incredible turn of events in their report:

“Late Tuesday, the committee advanced two of the bills, becoming the first state legislative committee in the nation to pass legislation intended to challenge the practice of granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

Committee members voted 8-5 to approve a controversial package of bills, which would challenge the 14th Amendment interpretation about citizenship.”

This so called “compact” is being pushed by a conglomerate of states, and it looks like it’s being done to protect Obama.  SB 1308 declares:

ARTICLE 6.  INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT…

ARTICLE II

Definition

As used in this compact, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

ARTICLE III

Terms

…A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

Article II defines a person…  “born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … as … “a child born to at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty“.

Article III declares that… “A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.”

Sneaky bastards all around.  When the relevant section of Article II is read in conjunction with the relevant section of Article III, you have a complete declaration that a person born of one citizen parent is a “natural born United States citizen”.

According to that definition, a person born with dual citizenship is also  a “natural born United States citizen”.

ANCHOR BABIES OUT… OBAMA IN.

Anchor babies will not be eligible for US citizenship according to this bill, but Obama will be eligible to be POTUS.  Looks like a deal was struck to protect Obama by attacking the citizenship of children born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents.

Apparently, the US citizenship of anchor babies is being sacrificed to protect Obama from competing eligibility legislation – such as Arizona HB 2544 – which does, in fact, require Presidential candidates to prove they have never owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

14th AMENDMENT – MARBURY v. MADISON – JOHN BINGHAM

SB 1308 is unconstitutional because it would render the natural born citizen clause (from Article 2  Section 1) superfluous.  That is not allowed according to the famous SCOTUS decision, Marbury v. Madison, wherein Chief Justice Marshal stated:

‘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.’

If the 14th Amendment defined “natural born citizen” for the purposes of POTUS eligibility, then the nbc clause in Article 2 Section 1 would be rendered meaningless.

If the framers of the 14th Amendment had sought to declare all 14th Amendment citizens to be “natural born citizens” then that’s exactly what the 14th Amendment would say.

But it doesn’t.

The 14th Amendment – by its very own text – defines who are “citizens”, but it does not define who is a “natural born citizen”.  Elsewhere in the Constitution, the word “citizen” was used to define those who are eligible to be Representatives and Senators.  But the word “citizen” was not used to define those eligible to be POTUS.  For that the framers demanded one be a “natural born citizen”.

The 14th Amendment does not use the words “natural born”.  The framers could have included those words in the 14th Amendment, but they chose not to.

The compact between the states referenced in Arizona SB 1308 attempts to rewrite the 14th Amendment by adding the words “natural born” to it.

Such may only be accomplished by the Constitutional amendment process.  This compact does not meet that standard.

In conclusion, I leave you with the words of John Bingham, one of the people who drafted the 14th Amendment:

“…every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”

Parents.  Plural. Not one parent. Two.  Two parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.  Mr. Bingham would know more about the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment than anyone alive today… seeing as how Mr. Bingham wrote the 14th Amendment.

But hey, who cares about facts?  Who cares about the text of the 14th Amendment?  This is America.  The Constitution is what people say it is, not what it actually says for itself.  Welcome to the living Constitution… and the dying of the USA.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

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

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

MARIO MARROQUIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE VETERANS WITH “INSUFFICIENT” BIRTH CERTIFICATES DENIED PASSPORTS AND US CITIZEN STATUS  BY OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT.

Esmerelda Cazares.

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

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

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

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

On January 2, 2010, Jazmine Uloa wrote an article published by The Brownsville Herald concerning a class action suit brought against the Customs and Border Patrol by persons held for long hours at ports of entry in South Texas and denied entry into the country after they presented US birth certificates registered by midwives.  Towards the end of that report, Uloa mentions that midwife birth is not the only red flag used by the State department:

“Others whose applications remain in question are U.S. citizens, mostly seniors, who have delayed birth certificates, or documents registered a few days after their births as was customary in the past.”

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

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

Silvario Vasquez and Felix Rodriguez.

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

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

Time also interviewed Brenda Sprague, Deputy Assistant for Passport Services, on behalf of the State Department.  She comments that due to various midwife scandals in the past, people from border communities – including veterans of foreign wars – were required to provide extra proof of US citizenship:

“So suddenly people in the border communities were faced with this need to document themselves, and they had birth documentation which was, on its face, not as simple or compelling as it might have been.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS BIRTH IN AN “APPROPRIATE MEDICAL FACILITY” NECESSARY FOR A PASSPORT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPARENTLY THIS ISNT HAPPENING ONLY IN BORDER COMMUNITIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATE BIRTHER BILLS

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

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

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

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

SENATORS CORNYN AND HUTCHISON

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

Happy Presidents day.  Comments are open.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

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

contact: leo_donofrio2000@yahoo.com

Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.

With natural born citizen legislation racing through 11 state legislatures, truthful legal analysis is more important than ever.  False statements issued on CNN yesterday via an Anderson Cooper interview with Jeffrey Toobin demand correction.  CNN, should they not immediately correct the false statements, will be privy to the stench of propaganda.

Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of  “natural born citizen”.  Toobin stated that the Vattel definition requires a person to be born in the United States to parents who were also born in the United States.

That is absolutely false.

Vattel’s definition only requires that a person – to be considered a “natural born citizen” – be born in the United States to parents who were citizens.  One does not have to be born in the United States to be a citizen.  Persons born in foreign countries may become US citizens via the naturalization process despite their place of birth.

If a person is born in the US – of immigrant parents who were not born in the US but who have become US citizens prior to the child’s birth – that child is a natural born citizen according to Vattel.  Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, contained in his treatise, “The Law of Nations“, which – according to Ben Franklin – was with the framers at all times as they wrote the US Constitution, states that a person only needs to be born of parents who were citizens.  It does not require that the parents be born in the United States.

This definition by Vattel was re-stated by the US Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs. Happersett.  Here is the exact language from the US Supreme Court in the Minor decision:

“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 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.”

So here we see the US Supreme Court stating that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are themselves natural born citizens.   Nowhere does it state that the parents must be born in the US.  The following definition is attributed to Vattel:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

This does not impose a requirement that the parents must have been born in the country.  To this definition, Jeffrey Toobin falsely stated:

“What Vattel said was natural born citizens means you were born in the United States and your parents are also born in the United States.”

Furthermore, Toobin contributed additional false legal analysis when he stated:

“But the words of the Constitution have been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and what it means is born in the United States.”

That is unequivocally false.

First, to be a “citizen”, the 14th Amendment requires that a person be born in the US (or be naturalized in the US) and… that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  Despite erroneous popular belief, there is no US Supreme Court decision which states that simply being born in the US is enough to entitle a person to US citizenship.  That is a legal myth to which Toobin is also guilty of spreading false legal analysis.

Second, the 14th Amendment does not define “natural born citizen”, it only defines “citizen”.  Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution makes a clear distinction between a “citizen” – who is eligible to be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” –  who is eligible to be President.

Toobin has therefore issued clearly false legal statements.  Either these are lies for propaganda purposes, or he’s just a terrible legal analyst.

If Anderson Cooper would like to have a serious debate between myself and Toobin, or any other so called “Senior Legal Analyst”, I would be happy to oblige.

And if legislators in the State of Montana – or any other state – would like legal guidance on this issue, I would also be happy to oblige.

Please contact me at:

leo_donofrio2000@yahoo.com

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Oral Argument Canceled – Appeal Dismissed in SDNY

On August 30, 2010, Judge Hellerstein suddenly dismissed the Chrysler Dealers’ appeal in the Southern District of New York thereby also canceling, for the second time, the oral argument that he ordered sua sponte.   Judge Hellerstein’s  opinion contains legal and factual errors.  Steve and I will be entering an appeal in the 2d Circuit.

Leo Donofrio

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Oral Argument Moved to September 8, 2010 In Chrysler Dealers’ Appeal

The Court, sua sponte, moved the oral argument to September 8, 2010.

Steve and I were ready to argue the case, but now we have five extra weeks to prepare and we intend to put that time to good use.  In all things, preparation is the best offense.  So it’s back to the books.

Leo Donofrio, Esq. for the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP