Skip to comments.LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW
Posted on 12/02/2008 10:05:36 AM PST by MHGinTN
On November 28, 2008, Judah Benjamin published an article at the Texas Darlin blog which discussed my case and the natural born citizen issue. While I enjoyed reading this article, and I agree with the conclusion - that Obama is not eligible - I disagree with the basis upon which that conclusion was made.
There are two mistakes in his article which need to be addressed.
FIRST MISTAKE: Failure to state cited law was repealed.
Judah mentions the 1790 naturalization act as follows:
SECOND MISTAKE: Failure to properly analyze common law.
Congress having repealed thenatural born provision leads to the core problem in Mr. Benjamins analysis. Naturalization only concerns people who were, at birth not US citizens.
And its very important, especially in light of Justice Scalias very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:
The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts its codified now.
All in all, Mr. Benjamin has made a valiant attempt to provide a clear analysis of the natural born citizen topic. Please do not assume I am bashing him. I respect his passion and research, but its not entirely accurate. And considering what Scalia just said to the Federalist Society about the common law being gone (only three days after my case was scheduled for conference), its important to keep things in their proper historical perspective.
Leo C. Donofrio
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
I think they think much less than that.
MM (in TX)
They wouldn't be off the air, certainly not Rush. They're afraid of being branded as conspiracy kooks. After all, right here on FR there are posters in every thread denigrating those who are following and supporting these efforts to protect the constitutional rule of law.
I think way too many conservative media personalities still crave deep in their souls to be accepted as "mainstream," as "legitimate" members of Big Media. That's way sad, but I believe it to be true. We see the same phenomenon decade after decade with conservative politicians who go on these shows and act like they're big buddies with their liberal hosts who are at that moment plunging the knife in the backs of their smiling conservative guests.
Conservative players never ever seem to figure out the most obvious truth that being nice to liberals only makes it easier for the liberals to screw them over. Instead, Republican politicians serve themselves up on a platter to their liberal enemies time and time and time and time again, being Mr. Cordial with a goofy grin while the spit and flame are being prepared just off camera.
Similarly, conservative media players continue to crave the acceptance of their "peers" in the MSM. Think about how many times even Rush has appeared on various and sundry MSM shows, only to be marginalized, yet he keeps going back. Think back to how he palled up with Russert, claiming that Russert was "different," something akin to a real journalist. Russert was a liberal shill like the rest. As great as Rush is, and despite all the wonderful things he has done for conservatism, I think he still yearns for a kind of "success" that is never gonna come.
This is why none of the major players will mention this. They will once the story finally gains critical mass and becomes unavoidable, but not before.
MM (in TX)
COnsidering 0bama’s assistance including monetary to Raila Odinga, while 0 was in the Senate, is certainly evidence of divided loyalty.
Ping to use in letters to Senators.
ping ... you’ll enjoy the Scalia talk before the Federalist Society on the 20th.
Regarding conservative media silence:
I believe staying off the topic, and utterly silent, until the EC votes on 15 Dec. is simply the smart strategy:
1. The blowback of a pre-EC disqualification would be uncertain, e.g. Electors re-directing their votes for Hillary or Biden (with unclear legality vs. DQ of the Electors themselves)
2. The MSM remains fixed into silence: no way to start the spin machine if the topic is not raised the first place (the counter-articles may already written and ready to be published when this finally breaks out into the open, as it surely will).
3. SCOTUS has no traction at the federal level until the Governors certify the EC results. The State-level appeals only play into the pre-EC DQ problem.
4. The real show will be the joint session of Congress on 6 Jan. and whether Cheney will open the EC letters or leave them sealed and cross the street for a SCOTUS ruling: he only needs two objections, one House and one Senate member.
5. The Constitution has a clear path for handling a DQ between 15 Dec. and 20 Jan., the process is much less clear if the DQ occurs before 15 Dec. (e.g. a stay on the entire election, imagine the damage to all parties, the stock market and the country).
Summary: My own belief is the smart money, including conservative media, are waiting for 15 Dec. to pass before starting a full court press. I also believe that SCOTUS will find the means to make the DNC be the primary actor, for instance by forcing a reasonable disclosure after 15 Dec. (not before the EC) but before 20 Jan., essentially making Pelosi, Reid and the DNC the fall guys in the media. The MSM will have a hard time over the holidays with any spin control leading up to the 6 Jan. vote for President-Elect. Checkmate.
Very interesting analysis. I would applaud the reality of it except I am very worried that we do not have a Senator and House Rep with the testosterone to actually object to this little Marxist squirrel knowing the mayhem his thuggery will spew upon the property of the nation if the affirmative action empty suit is disqualified. Republicans have not demonstrated courage for quite some time now.
I think you have a good summary of what may happen, though what if it appears that the public gets a lot more news about the BC ahead of the MSM trying to suppress it?
I have a feeling that there is about to be a Wag the Dog scenario because the left does not want any more news of court proceedings getting into play.
Almost as if "fixed," not seeing what the REAL danger to their power is...
Thanks very much for the ping.
Thanks especially for posting Scalia’s presentation...
Full conference for this case is scheduled for the 5th of December by Clarence Thomas, right?
I’m very interested in this....please keep me on your ping list.
Appreciate the info.
Thanks for the ping. Interesting article.Looks like things are moving right along with the case too!
Good point on coverage of non-BC issues. The end-run is for a group of citizens to file a case directly with SCOTUS, who has original juristiction on cases between State(s) and Citizens of other States.
Outline of a possible case, filed with SCOTUS against three States (single action):
1. State of Hawaii (Defendent): Governor and SOS to certify “Natural-Born” status based on direct access to records sealed under state law due to adoption (and not available to any other States or Citizens).
2. State of Illinois (Defendent): Governor and SOS to certify legal identity and confirm citizenship, based on law practice conducted in the State after a return from foreign residence/citizenship and change-of-name at adoption.
3. State of New York (Defendent): Governor and SOS to certify that attendance at NY educational institutions were not conducted on a foreign-student basis.
Item 1 has the punch. Items 2 and 3 are weak but would serve to raise the issue up. The case would give SCOTUS the traction needed to force a simple, reasonable order for a disclosure of information in the time period before the joint session of Congress meets in Jan. Frankly, just the act of accepting the case would force the information out for damage control by the DNC: SCOTUS would not likley, in the end, have to take any action if there is any truth in the allegations and quite a few folks want to avoid personal legal difficulties (!).
Just a what-if scenario.
COnsidering 0bamas assistance including monetary to Raila Odinga, while 0 was in the Senate, is certainly evidence of divided loyalty.
Considering Obama’s ‘assistance’ to the murderous, Islam-backed Odinga, he is an accessory to mass murder/
You might want to read the article and watch Justice Scalia’s presentation.
kerping ... the Scalia link is worth the time, too.
“Natural law is gone”? I would expect that from some Harvard Law professor, but I’m sorry to hear if from Justice Scalia.
Yes, the activist justices have been busy driving out natural law ever since the time of Oliver Wendell Holmes. But it would be disastrous if a people living under a Constitution based on “Nature and Nature’s God” just gave this founding principle up and consented to the resulting damage to our freedoms.
I believe the point Justice Scalia was making which culminated in that phrasing was that Natursal Law is gone because it has been codified into state and federal law thus it need not be tasked to stand and deliver as a stand alone ‘institution’.
Thank you so much for the ping, MHGinTN. I just finished reading it and must say I am extremely impressed with Leo Donofrio’s knowledge of the law and our Constitution.
The comments by Donofrio regarding Benjamin’s article need to be read by everyone who cares about this issue. It’s important, it’s fascinating, and very educational.
It is unclear to me that an election won by fraud produces a result which is subject to the 12th or the 20th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.