For most of April and all of May, Leo Donofrio was silent on his blog. But he has returned in June with some excellent posts:
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?
Posted June 24, 2009World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…
Posted June 23, 2009Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Posted June 16, 2009My Citizenspook blog has been hacked again…
Posted June 15, 2009US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns
Posted June 1, 2009
The purpose of this post was to drive traffic to Leo’s posts.
I’ve unexpectedly received traffic from Leo’s blog (my links must have generated pingback comments in his posts). For people who are interested in what I have had to say about Obama’s eligiblilty, I, like Leo, believe that our founders intended “Natural born Citizen” to be defined as it was defined by Vattel, and by that definition Obama himself has made it clear that he is not qualified. But even for those who think that birth location alone (without regard to citizenship of parents) is all that is required to be a “Natural born Citizen”, consider this…
The only “birth document” that the Obama campaign ever produced was pronounced a forgery by document experts, and never “validated” by the state of Hawaii.
No official birth document for Barack Obama has ever been released by the state of Hawaii.
Hawaiian officials have never put out an official statement saying that Obama was born in Hawaii.
In each of the 50 states, the Secretary of State took Nancy Pelosi’s word (!) that Barack Obama was legally qualified under the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
The Associated Press lied.
Annenberg Political Fact Check lied.
Members of Congress “outsourced” the responsibility of validating Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility, and accepted the lies told by the Associated Press and Annenberg Political Fact Check.
I included the actual text of a letter I received from one of my Senators in this post.
I Took The Red Pill 
Go here! East Texas NBC affiliate.
Listen to the newscaster and radio personalty talk about Mr. Obama’s eligibility!
KTBB’s Question of the Day: Is There Enough Proof President Obama is a U.S. citizen?
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/politics/ktbbs-question-day-is-there-enough-proof-president-obama-a-us-citizen
There were 13 comments last night.
Rally the Republic !!!
Mr Pill,
Seriously… leave the horse alone, the darn thing is dead already.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/01/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
Let me give you a few choice quotes from there:
“When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.
“They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.”
“There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”
As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.”
And more…
“We have one more thing we’d like to add. We talked to reporter Will Hoover, who wrote a well-researched story for the Honolulu Advertiser on Nov. 9, 2008, about Obama’s childhood years in the the Aloha State. It ran under the headline “Obama Slept Here.”
In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found the birth announcement for Obama. Actually, he found two of them, one in his Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day. They both said the same thing: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”
But here’s the thing. Newspaper officials he checked with confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.
“That’s not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, ‘Hey, can you put this in?'” Hoover explained. ”
And finally…
“The Health Department says the “Certification of Live Birth” is Hawaii’s version of a birth certificate. Calling it by other names – Certificate of Live Birth, Certification of Live Birth – is just semantics.”
My impression of Red after reading Frin’s post: (puts both fingers in ears) LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU
Actually, Math, I didn’t catch Frin’s comment yesterday. I first saw it today when reading your comment.
There are two (not one, but two) issues here, and the birth certificate is the secondary of the two.
Read Leo’s posts that I link to above, and I think you’ll understand.
I also refer you back to my comments in another thread:
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/remembering-reagan-through-his-speeches/#comment-4545
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/remembering-reagan-through-his-speeches/#comment-4547
Every single case that made it to the Supreme Court was turned down. If no case made it through their pre-screening, this should tell you something about their merit.
There is evidence to indicate that the “pre-screening” was illegally done by low-level employees at the Supreme Court, not by the Justices themselves. When Orly Taitz spoke directly to Chief Justice John Roberts, he was not even aware of her case, even after it had supposedly been discussed in a closed-door conference of the nine Justices!
The Supreme Court needs to rule on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:
John Jay was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among many other things, and it was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist.
I have a hard time believing that John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the United States, would accept as Commander in Chief of the American military a man whose birth status was “governed” by British law.
Can Obama please tell the American people how a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by another country?
Again, the Supreme Court needs to rule on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.
And as to the Certificate of Live Birth produced at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago, the state of Hawaii has never said that that document came from the state of Hawaii, and never claimed it is authentic.
The only organization that has deemed it authentic is an organization that:
1) Lied when they claimed they had “seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate“. (The COLB is NOT the “original birth certificate”).
2) Lied when they claimed “The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
3) Has connections, as Obama does, to Annenberg.
Why should anyone trust an organiztion that has already demonstrably lied twice and has likely political connections to Obama?
There is no good reason to take the word of Annenberg Political Fact Check.
There is no good reason to accept anything other than a certified birth certificate released directly by and from the State of Hawaii.
I don’t think the court can establish a fair definition of a natural born with this current case. You can be sure the four conservatives will agree with your definition to get rid of Obama, the four liberals will agree with the other definition to keep Obama, and it will basically be a dice roll for the swing vote.
But what else would you complain about if they did rule that he is a natural born citizen?
Furthermore, how could he be governed by anything other than US law if he was born in the US? If being born to one British parent outside of the UK automatically makes him a British subject, how is he not automatically a US citizen by being born IN the US to one US citizen parent?
And if you take the words at face value (which is all the Constitution provides, no explanation whatsoever): natural born citizen. How can you interpret this as being anything else than someone being born naturally in the US?
You’re joking, right?
You really don’t know the answer to that question, after all that I’ve written on this topic?
LOL you’re asking me if I’m joking after all that was written to debunk every single thing you ever posted?
The only thing that matters is what is written in the Constitution, and whatever the Supremes interpret. You said yourself that they need to provide a definition, that implies they haven’t. We’re left with the words as written in the Constitution. I don’t care too much for itooktheredpill’s or any other right wingers’ interpretation, because thankfully, you have no say in the matter.
All that I’ve written on this topic.
You have not debunked what I have written about Vattel.
“Natural born” doesn’t mean “born naturally”… (versus what? Born by Caesarean section?)
The “Natural” in “Natural born” refers to Natural Law. And by Natural Law, citizenship was determined by blood, as well as by location.
The whole concept of a “Natural born citizen” is someone who has, from birth, never been a citizen of any other country. Since citizenship can be inherited from parents, that is why “Natural born citizens” are only those who are
I’m not looking for the Court to rule on Obama individually. I’m loooking for the Court to rule on their interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”. That definition would apply to every candidate. That includes John McCain, whom the U.S. Senate claimed is a “Natural Born Citizen” even though he was not born on U.S. soil (he was not born on a military base – he was born in Colon hospital in Colon, Panama, and is therefore ineligible to be President and C-in-C, regardless of what the Senate may say). It also includes Róger Calero, Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in several states, who was born in Nicaragua.
Obama’s campaign already answered this question.
You continue:
IF he was born in the U.S., he was born a dual citizen. And that disqualifies him from being a Natural Born Citizen (although he would still be a Citizen). IF he was born outside the U.S., when his mother was too young to confer U.S. citizenship upon him, then he has never even been a U.S. Citizen.
I answered that in my previous comments above.
I am about to take a vacation/sabbatical.
This July 4th I ask:
Are You an Individualist or an Internationalist?
Mr Pill,
Semantics semantics… thats all you got now. You’ve got some issues that you need to deal with here – the COLB is ALL THAT OBAMA WILL GET! Its his Birth Certificate – he can not get a copy of the one that is stored on file!
As for your hero Vattel – his definition of citizen was used by several justices in the Supreme Court – IN A DISSENTING OPINION. Thus – it was found to not apply. (Did you also know that Vattel said that only royalty should be allowed to have weapons – is that what the Constitution says???)
As for the Supreme Court not knowing about the case, you do understand that there are thousands and thousands of cases that get filed with the Supreme Court each year, and the vast majority of them are filtered out by clerks (who are highly competent lawyers) before they get to the justices.
However, you have shown your true colours when you refer to Orly Taitz – who has openly been urging citizens’ militia to rebel against the government and for military personnel to disobey lawful general orders. Yep, she sure is a true patriot who is going to free America from the tyranny of teh Ebil Obambi…
1) What makes you think that Obama could not get the State of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate?
2) What makes you think that the COLB which was produced at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago is authentic? The State of Hawaii has never vouched for its authenticity, and the Obama campaign only showed it to a small, controlled, friendly, politically-connected audience of people who are not document experts and who lied both about what they examined (they claimed it was the original birth certificate, and it was not) and lied about what Dr. Fukino said (she never said Obama was born in Hawaii). If they’ll lie about those things, why should we take their word that the COLB is authentic?
3) Absolutely no official document nor official statement has been released directly by the State of Hawaii to confirm Barack Hussein Obama’s birth location and current legal name.
You continue:
You don’t provide a link to back up your statement. Use of Vattel in a dissenting opinion doesn’t mean it does not apply. It would mean that the author of the dissenting opinion used that as a valid reference from which to support their argument. Just because their dissenting argument was in the minority does not mean that every reference they used to support their argument is somehow an invalid reference.
Here’s some historical background of our Supreme Court Justices using Vattel as a valid reference:
You continue:
That’s irrelevant. These cases were supposedly (according to the official Supreme Court docket) discussed by the 9 Justices in a closed-door conference. For the Chief Justice to not even be aware of the cases highly suggests that clerks illegally hid these cases from the Justices and falsified the Court docket. If so, this is a much bigger scandal than Watergate.
Orly Taitz is a woman who understands what life is like when living under Communism. She rightly sees the tyranny that is going on. The Communists of the world now have a friend in the White House, acting as president. Orly Taitz is indeed a true patriot, who is fighting to keep our government honest, and ensure that only a constitutionally-eligible person holds the office of President. (By the way, John McCain and Róger Calero are not constitutionally-eligible to hold the office of President, either, so forget any notions that this is a partisan issue… none of those three should have been allowed to be on the ballot for President.)
Again, after attending a Tea Party and fireworks tomorrow, I am about to take a vacation/sabbatical.
If you choose to leave another comment here, do not interpret silence from me as an endorsement of your comment.
Mr Pill,
DId you know that the phrase “Natural born citizen” was not present in either the original French or English translation of Vattel that would have been available to the framers of the constitution? See here for the evidence:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
Therefore there is simply no way that you can state that the framers were intended to use Vattel’s definition of NBC because he himself did not use the term.
And gosh – I’m not going to provide you a link to the use of Vattel in the dissenting opinion of Wong Kim Ark – its been provided to you enough. As has the significant body of research which shows that Blackstone’s commentary (English common law) has been used significantly more as a reference in SCOTUS decisions than Vattel has.
With respect to the SCOTUS conference issue – the average SCOTUS weekly conference contains about 120 cases, with the conference lasting 3 hours. If all justices managed to go for 180 minutes without a break, thats an average of 1.5 minutes per case, if all are discussed. So, obviously, not all are discussed – only those that make it out of the cert pool are discussed, however all are listed on the docket. There was no need for a clerk to sabotage the case as you allege – Orly’s absolutely inept lawyering is sabotage enough.
You know absolutely nothing about Orly except what she choses to write on her blog. And yet you believe her blindly? Why don’t you apply the same burden of proof to her as you do to Obama?
Frin,
I have said all along that “Natural born citizen” refers to citizenship based on “Natural law”, specifially at the time of birth. And the founders’ primary source for the definitions of “Natural Law” was Vattel’s:
Take a look at the image in the page you linked.
Pay attention to the following words:
Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth. That means, that by Natural law, Obama was a British subject at the time of his birth. Obama himself admits that he was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Given that the “natural born citizen” requirement appears to be the direct result of John Jay’s letter to George Washington, which said:
Please explain how John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the United States, would accept as Commander in Chief of the American military a man who, by both “Natural law” and British law, was a British citizen at birth.
Please explain how a Natural Born Citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by the laws of another country.
Regarding Wong Kim Ark, Leo addressed that in his response to this comment.
Also, read this comment:
Mr Pill,
It may do you well to read the full decision of Wong Kim Ark – as your statement that:
“I have said all along that “Natural born citizen” refers to citizenship based on “Natural law”, specifially at the time of birth. And the founders’ primary source for the definitions of “Natural Law” was Vattel’s”
is clearly rebutted in the majority opinion. That opinion said:
“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
And…
“In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: ‘There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.’ ‘There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’ 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569. ”
And once more:
” It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ”
This shows CLEARLY that the opinion of the Supreme Court held that the principles of British Common Law were guiding the framers.
For you to argue otherwise beggars belief.
With respect to your comment regarding Bingham – the term “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” did not form part of the 14th Amendment. It uses the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Again we can turn to Wong Kim Ark, as the court defines that phrase:
“The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words ‘all persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
This statement CLEARLY shows that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only excludes children born during hostile occupation, or whose parents were diplomats, neither of which applies to Obama’s father.
Frin,
First question: Are you a citizen of the United States of America?
It’s interesting that you put such a focus on British law, because by British law Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject, and he himself admits this undisputed fact:
As to the 14th Amendment, I’d like you to pay attention to two sections: 1 & 3.
Obama has already admitted that he was born “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Yet you want to believe that he was “subject to the jurisdiction” of only the United States. Sorry, no sale. And even if you want to say, “but, but, he was a dual citizen, and eligible to be President”, that does not fit the express purpose of John Jay’s letter to George Washington:
You can’t convince me that the first Chief Justice and first President of the United States would have accepted a British subject as Commander in Chief of the American Army, unless he met the grandfather clause of “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.
Let’s come back to the 14th Amendment, section 3:
I contend that William Ayers is an enemy of the U.S. and Obama has given aid and comfort to Ayers.
Obama
Mr Pill,
Are you Swiss? Is that why you place so much faith in Vattel?
Did you know, by your definition of Natural Born, there have already been several Usurpers in the White House? I mean, we all know about Chester Arthur, and how you claim he was a fraud – but Andrew Jackson as well? I mean, he was born to Scots-Irish immigrants a mere 2 years after they moved to America – they weren’t citizens!! His parents definitely would have had divided loyalies and so would have poor young Andrew. How did the country survive such a travesty of justice?
So, let me just sum up your take on this situation – you contend that anyone with a non-citizen parent, regardless of whether they were born in the US or not, is ineligble to be President? Regardless of the fact that there has already been 2 Presidents (other than the Founders) that don’t meet your criteria.
I’ll take your non-answer, along with your Australian IP address, as evidence that you are not a citizen of the United States of America.
That doesn’t mean you can’t participate in a dialogue, but in the interests of full disclosure you should make that clear.
Chester Arthur knew he was ineligible, and that is why he burned family records to hide the fact that his father, while a naturalized citizen at the time Chester Arthur became President, was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.
As for Andrew Jackson, you seem to be missing the key distinction between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of our (not your) Constitution:
This clause itself makes a distinction between “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen”. The first (“natural born Citizen”) is a subset of the second (“Citizen”). To be eligible to be President of the United States, you MUST be the first (“natural born Citizen”), with one exception: if you were not born as a “natural born Citizen”, but had become a (naturalized) Citizen of the United States prior to “the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, then you were “grandfathered” in and eligible to become President.
You are correct that Andrew Jackson was not a “natural born Citizen” because his parents were Scots-Irish immigrants, not U.S. Citizens.
However, Andrew Jackson was born March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws area near the border between North and South Carolina, and became a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
He was, therefore, eligible to become President of the United States under the “grandfather” clause in Article II, Section 1 of our (not your) Constitution.
Pingback: Open, Transparent, and Accountable « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
Mr Pill,
Heaven forbid an American citizen may live in a different country! Do you even own a passport?
Also Mr Pill,
You avoided acknowledging your stance on this issue, that no person born on US soil to one non-citizen parent can be President. Ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court (and you know I’m going to back their legal knowledge over either yours or mine) has ruled conclusively on what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means.
Frin,
Of course I considered that possibility, but I took your non-answer (behavior which you just repeated) as well as your IP address location as evidence. I’ll ask you again, are you a citizen of the United States of America?
Yes, and I’ve probably had one longer than you have. I’ve even been to the city where Obama spent his early childhood years… Jakarta, Indonesia, capital of the world’s most populous Muslim nation. I distinctly remember the wail of the Mosque loudspeakers… a sound that I would never describe as
You say:
I say that you avoided acknowledging that you were wrong about Andrew Jackson’s eligibility.
I say that the Supreme Court has never ruled conclusively on the definition of “Natural born Citizen”, and needs to.
I say that you avoided acknowledging that Barack Hussein Obama was born a British subject, a fact that even Obama does not deny.
I say that you avoided acknowledging that First Chief Justice John Jay and President George Washington would never permit a British subject, born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, to become Commander in Chief of our military.
Mr Pill,
If one was to assume that not answering a question meant guilt then you would be guilty of many things – including being Swiss, and again, avoiding acknowledging your stance on people born in the US to one non-citizen parent being ineligible to be POTUS.
Jackson would have been eligble anyway, regardless of the grandfather clause, because he was born on US soil.
Unluckily for you though, the Supreme Court has directly addressed contradicted your theory of citizenship:
“Letitia Barwell, Jane M‘Creery, and Isabella M‘Creery, daughters of a British citizen father, are native born citizens of the United States.
Supreme Court of the United States.
McCREERY’S lessee
v.
SOMERVILLE.
February 3, 1824
(22 U.S. 354)
… W. M‘Creery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph M‘Creery, a native of Ireland, who is still living, and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane M‘Creery, and Isabella M‘Creery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”
The link is here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/354/case.html
It is clear that the Supreme Court has considered this issue – so I would recommend that you stick to hunting around for that pesky Kenyan BC because you are backing a loser with Vattel.
Mr Pill,
See here the Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor General, writting in 2002 by none other than John Yoo. It has a really interesting line in it that you should consider:
“Dual nationality, the Supreme Court has explained, is “a status long recognized in the law.” Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723. See also id. at 734 (“Dual nationality . . . is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by the law of another country he is also a citizen of it.”) (citation omitted); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 500 (although “[t]he United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances[,] . . . [t]emporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective”); Elg, 307 U.S. at 329 (“As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.”). The mere assertion by an individual of citizenship in one country thus need not manifest an intention to relinquish citizenship in another country, for “[t]he concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other.” Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723-24.”
Wow, so that really shoots your argument down as well, hey?
Sorry – forgot to add the link for that last quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expatriation.htm
Frin, take a read and be educated as to what Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq. is trying very hard to teach you about OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION (NOT YOURS) and the ineligibility of obama to be POTUS. If you were in a court of law, you would be forced to answer a question put to you by the prosecution. So please answer this question below:
Posted on Barack Obama’s blog http://www.fightthesmears.com:
“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. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
How does his admission of being a British citizen, at the time of his birth, Aug. 4, 1961 to Aug. 4, 1982, control his U.S. Constitutional elibibility to be president as a “natural born citizen”, a citizen of the U.S., born on U.S. soil, of two parents who are citizens of the U.S.?
Frin,
The court considered the issue of “native born citizens”, not “natural born citizens”.
Being born on U.S. soil is sufficient to make someone a “native born citizen”. But it is not sufficient, by Natural Law, to make someone a “natural born citizen”.
Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen
Mr Pill,
I was born in the US, to an American mother and Australian father. I now live in Australia. The arguments that you apply to Obama apply to me as well.
I’m not arguing that Obama was not a British citizen, you miss the point. Unless Obama’s father was a hostile combatant or diplomat, then the simple fact that Obama was born on US soil means he is an NBC, regardless of the citizenship of his father.
Your whole argument is founded on the premise that Vattel is the driving force behind the natural born citizen clause – when Wong Kim Ark has clearly shown that English common law is the precendence in this area. Also in Wong Kim you should note that the court uses the term native-born and natural-born interchangeably. They are the same term.
You can sit and say it ain’t so Joe – but Leo’s case got thrown out, and you have yet to be able to show any sort of ruling in the Supreme Court that supports your argument. For every one letter from John Jay (of which there is only one :), I have provided you with several commentaries and rulings that disagree.
Frin: I am amazed at the arguments you make against the expertise of Mr. Donofrio! With all due respect, Frin, you are ignorant of the facts of Leo’s case before SCOTUS. The U.S. Supreme Court did not “throw out” Leo’s case, the Justices did not hear the case and passed on it with no comment. No one, including you Frin, knows what the Justices thought about the case, no one knows if they thought it was a matter of procedure, no one knows if they voted to hear it and, no one knows what the count was if they did vote on it. When the Justices are in session, it is done in secrecy! Further, I cannot, nor can anyone, “show any sort of ruling in the Supreme Court that supports [my] argument” for their ruling/definition of what a “NATURAL born citizen” is, because, as a matter of historical fact, they never have decided one way or the other. Frin, you can argue all you want for Obama’s elegibility to be POTUS but please, accept the historical facts, don’t spin them to the advantage of the only “president” in the history of America, who was a professor of constitutional law and has wilfully–and successfully–sealed all records of his birth, education, travel and personal papers. That is called usurpation of the presidency! It is only common sense, as history shows, our revered Founding Fathers absolutely rejected a British citizen, themselves excepted, to be President of the United States. Remember? The Revolutionary War was fought to be rid of the tyranny of Britain!
JosephII,
Thank you for your comment.
Sincerely,
Red Pill
And