Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA
Natural Born Citizen ^ | 12-11-08 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE

PREAMBLE

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT

Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens.

In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation.

The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.

McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite.

*snip*

As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.

He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.

IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY

~~~

Rest at link


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 1600penn; birthcertificate; certifigate; donofrio; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile; scalia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
To: TheBigIf
That is what is shown in the intial post by Leo Donofrio and throught the case he is making. Read it and that is the answer then to your question.

No it was not. Donofrio blathers on about Vatell and his Laws of Nations and natural law and quotes from senators and what have you. But we aren't governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we're governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that?

51 posted on 12/11/2008 5:33:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
...even if both of your parents were citizens and you were born on U.S. soil but your parents did not fit the prescribed timeline of living in the United States then you still weren’t eligible for the presidency.

Again, defined by what U.S. law or what clause of the Constitution?

52 posted on 12/11/2008 5:35:16 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman
1] Sen. McCain is a U.S. Cit-zen because he was born in a U.S. Military hospital in the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone. His father & mother were/are U.S. Cit zens and there fore is a “natural” born citzen. 2] And as distasteful as it seems Sen. Obama’s mother is/was a U.S. Citizen and under the 14th Amended of the Constitution is to be considered a Citizen. This is just IMHO.......

McCain's birth certificate, both long and short form, indicate he was not born in the Canal Zone, but in Colon, Republic of Panama. Colon is not in the zone. However both his parents were US Citizens (and his Grandfather was a US Navy Admiral at the time) with the required US residency period. Where he was born is irrelevant, even under the test of the "Law of Nations", as well as under English Common and statute law as documented by "Blackstone".

Obama's father was not a citizen, so he fails the "Law of Nations Test" regardless of where born. But that test is a bitter different from that in the English common and statute law at the time the Constitution was written. That would make him a natural born citizen if born in the US, as would the 14th amendment, IMHO anyway. Under the law at the time, he would be a citizen at birth if born in the US (14th amendment) but not if born outside the country, because his mother did not meet the necessary residency in the US requirement. (5 years after the 14th birthday. Stanley Ann was only 18 when he was born, 17 when she got knocked up).

53 posted on 12/11/2008 5:35:28 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There are two types of citizenship. Natural born(a citizen at birth), or naturalized.

So if natural born citizen and citizen at birth are synonymous, and if federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have stated that children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth regardless of the nationality of their parents, then there is no way Donofrio can be correct in his claims. Agreed?

54 posted on 12/11/2008 5:37:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
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.

Bears repeating.

55 posted on 12/11/2008 5:38:22 PM PST by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You said:
“No it was not. Donofrio blathers on about Vatell and his Laws of Nations and natural law and quotes from senators and what have you. But we aren’t governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that? “

Just because a certain clause of the Constitution lacks a certain degree of precedent before the Court does not make the meaning of the words or the context of thm in the times they were used irrelevant.

You call Leo’s case “blather” but it is not. He is speaking directly to the proper context used when the words were written. There is plenty of precedent that involves this sort of judicial interpretation. It is called orginalism.


56 posted on 12/11/2008 5:39:18 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman

At the time of McCain’s birth there were (I believe) no US military hospitals in the Canal Zone.


57 posted on 12/11/2008 5:40:07 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
If you've got a better way to consistently administer justice other than by creating a body of laws and following them, the world awaits your solution

I can't think of one, but the laws must be followed, especially the Surpeme Law, not "gotten around", or not enforced due to technicalities that are no part of the law itself.

Laws like this one:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Now if the Courts duck even trying to enforcethat law, what other parts of the Constitution are they going to duck?

58 posted on 12/11/2008 5:40:08 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Nothing I have heard from Donofrio so far has been correct. Saying McCain isn't a natural born citizen is just stupid.
59 posted on 12/11/2008 5:41:12 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
Why do you think it was necessary for him to lie and say in his stupid book (whoever wrote it for him) he was born in Coco Solo, Canal Zone? He thought because of his ego no one would know the difference between Panama and the Canal Zone and thought he could be president.

More likely he did not distinguish in his own mind that while his parents were resident at the Coco Solo base in the Canal Zone, he was not born on the base.

But he did promptly submit both his birth certificates, which clearly show him being born in Colon.

He may be a dual citizen, but he does not have dual loyalties. Dual loyalties were the reason behind the "natural born citizen" requirement in the firt place, and according to Blackstone, English statute law, Defined a person born outside the realm of English Subject parents, to be natural born subjects, and even the common law did so if the father was an English Subject.

But might as well stop beating that dead horse, he did not win the election, and unless Obama is DQd and there are no faithless electors, he's never going to be President anyway. He only needs to be a citizen, which he is, to be a Senator, and now that's all he'll ever be anway.

60 posted on 12/11/2008 5:48:48 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Just because a certain clause of the Constitution lacks a certain degree of precedent before the Court does not make the meaning of the words or the context of thm in the times they were used irrelevant

That clause also lacks another thing - a definition of the difference between natural born and citizen at birth. As Justice Gray wrote, "The fourteenth amendment of the constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." That's two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president.

61 posted on 12/11/2008 5:49:52 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You say in your post:

“we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States.”

Then why do not the meaning of the words at the time they were written mean anything to you. That is when they were “enacted”. Leo’s argument addresses the orginal meaning of the words legally when they were written.

You are trying to claim that these words were not legally defined when they were at that time.


62 posted on 12/11/2008 5:50:04 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Now if the Courts duck even trying to enforcethat law, what other parts of the Constitution are they going to duck?

According to the law any person born in the U.S. and any person born abroad of parents who are both U.S. citizens is a natural born U.S. citizen. So the court isn't ducking the enforcement of the law.

63 posted on 12/11/2008 5:52:16 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JoeA
Is this true? I’m sorry to hear about Jindal. He’s a great conservative.

Not everyone agrees that someone in Jihdal's circumstance is not a natural born citizen. It can be argued, for example, that the 14th amendment changed the definition. Some also argue that even at the time the Constitution was written, under English law, and under the US laws at the time, someone born here *was* considered natural born.

64 posted on 12/11/2008 5:54:25 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JoeA
Is this true? I’m sorry to hear about Jindal. He’s a great conservative.

Not everyone agrees that someone in Jihdal's circumstance is not a natural born citizen. It can be argued, for example, that the 14th amendment changed the definition. Some also argue that even at the time the Constitution was written, under English law, and under the US laws at the time, someone born here *was* considered natural born.

65 posted on 12/11/2008 5:54:32 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Then why do not the meaning of the words at the time they were written mean anything to you. That is when they were “enacted”. Leo’s argument addresses the orginal meaning of the words legally when they were written.

No, Leo addresses what he claims were the original meaning of the words. His opinion is not supported by any law or any words in the Constitution itself, and is contradicted by Supreme Court decisions. So I'll go with federal law and the Supreme Court over Leo's opinion.

66 posted on 12/11/2008 5:56:06 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“That clause also lacks another thing - a definition of the difference between natural born and citizen at birth. As Justice Gray wrote, “The fourteenth amendment of the constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” That’s two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president. “

This justice though was in no way making a ruling on the Constitutional eligibility fo the office of President.

You are mistaking apples for oranges.


67 posted on 12/11/2008 5:57:11 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
If the Framers had wanted to say “anyone born on U.S. soil” then they would of said that but instead they used a term that was defined just as Leo said.

The founders don't always have the last word, latter amendments can change things.

Amendment XIV, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So certainly Jindal was a "Citizen at Birth", it remains to be seen if that is the same as a "natural born" citizen. I think in this case, involving a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to a change in the statute law about the requirements for a person born outside to the US to recieve citizenship via a parent or parents, the answer is probably "Yes".

68 posted on 12/11/2008 5:59:02 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ccmay

I’m not the author of this article, but
thanks for the snarky comments.


69 posted on 12/11/2008 5:59:39 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“No, Leo addresses what he claims were the original meaning of the words. His opinion is not supported by any law or any words in the Constitution itself, and is contradicted by Supreme Court decisions. So I’ll go with federal law and the Supreme Court over Leo’s opinion. “

So at least no you admit that he is making a claim. I thought before it was mere ‘blather’.

There are no supreme court decisions that contradict Leo’s way of defining the orginal definition of the term.

Go with whatever you want to but your still wrong. As I said before, in your description the words had no orginal definition at all.


70 posted on 12/11/2008 6:01:01 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So? If he was born in Hawaii then he's a natural born U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the nationality of his father has no impact on that.

But that is a very big IF.

71 posted on 12/11/2008 6:01:52 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You said?:

“The founders don’t always have the last word, latter amendments can change things.

Amendment XIV, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So certainly Jindal was a “Citizen at Birth”, it remains to be seen if that is the same as a “natural born” citizen. I think in this case, involving a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to a change in the statute law about the requirements for a person born outside to the US to recieve citizenship via a parent or parents, the answer is probably “Yes”. “


This latter Amendment defines a citizen but not a natural born citizen. It in no way was written either (there is no historical context) in any way that it was intended to change Artile II - Section 1 of the Constitution.


72 posted on 12/11/2008 6:04:21 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; trumandogz
"As is Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii. But Donofrio would disagree with us on all three counts."

Whom is the third? trumandogz mentioned Obama and Jindal.

73 posted on 12/11/2008 6:04:39 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
This justice though was in no way making a ruling on the Constitutional eligibility fo the office of President.

Yes he was. The whole gist of the case was summed up by Justice Gray when he wrote, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." The Court confirmed the concept of two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court confirmed that any person born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a citizen at birth. Therefore it confirmed that any citizen at birth can be president.

74 posted on 12/11/2008 6:05:34 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
Whom is the third? trumandogz mentioned Obama and Jindal

McCain. Donofrio doesn't think he's eligible either since he wasn't born in the U.S.

75 posted on 12/11/2008 6:06:54 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

I hate to dispute anybody who calls himself an “oldfart” because I can’t type and laugh at the same time (although I can multi-task...at times.)

There was Gorgas Hospital (civilian) located in Ancon, Canal Zone. It was a huge hospital. At the time of WWII, it contained huge wards mostly filled with our wounded military.

There was a HUGE hospital being built at Fort Clayton, on the Pacific side, in preparation for our Pacific island hopping we were going to have to do. It was in preparation for receiving the wounded coming out of the Pacific.

All that became irrelevant when we dropped our atomic bombs on Japan although the hospital was ready by then.

Anybody who argues how awful we were to drop two A-bombs on Japan needs to come here to Panama and see what the U.S. built expecting the worse for our military.

Also, these same idiots forget the death at Pearl Harbor.


76 posted on 12/11/2008 6:08:50 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
There are no supreme court decisions that contradict Leo’s way of defining the orginal definition of the term.

There are decision which clearly state that there are two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court decisions define who is a citizen at birth.

Go with whatever you want to but your still wrong. As I said before, in your description the words had no orginal definition at all.

Like I said before, given a choice between accepting Donofrio's defintion and accepting the law and the opinions of the Supreme Court then Donofrio loses every time.

77 posted on 12/11/2008 6:10:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But we aren't governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we're governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that?

Logically there must at least be the possibility of a difference. Congress defines "citizen at birth". But Congress cannot redefine any terms of the Constitution. (Except by amendment of course, but that they cannot do alone). Thus Congress could, and has many times, changed the requirements for "Citizen at Birth". They have only amended the Constitution once to define who is a citizen, and even then did not actually use the term "natural born citizen". With that exception, "Natural Born Citizen" must mean now what it meant when the Constitution was written and ratified. It is after all a contract, and except under conditions specified in that contract, the meanings of it's terms cannot be changed by either/any party to that contract.

Otherwise congress could declare that "right of the people" actually meant "power of the states".

78 posted on 12/11/2008 6:11:34 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

Hmmmm:

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations's first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel's work, "The Law of Nations."

Hamilton, Madison ... and I understand Justice Thomas uses Vattel to define Constitutional meaning.

And if the SCOTUS can use Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” to help define “Arms” in The Second Amendment, bottom of pg 17 in June 2008 ...

Vattel might be good enough to define "Natural Born Citizen."


79 posted on 12/11/2008 6:12:32 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

What I have said in the past:

The good news is that McCain lost.

The bad news is that Obama may have won.


80 posted on 12/11/2008 6:12:41 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You said:
“Yes he was. The whole gist of the case was summed up by Justice Gray when he wrote, “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” The Court confirmed the concept of two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court confirmed that any person born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a citizen at birth. Therefore it confirmed that any citizen at birth can be president. “

You can keep on dreaming all that you want that you read the words “natural born citizen” in there or that it claims to be ruling on Article II - Section 1 of the Constitution but nowhere in what you post does it claim either of these things.

There is a difference between a citizen and a naturalborn citizen and the judge you are quoting never claims otherwise.


81 posted on 12/11/2008 6:13:57 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
I wonder what the reaction will be when the SCOTUS rules that Obama is qualified but McCain is not.

Will people demand the contributions to the campaign back, demand he be prosecuted for fraud?

82 posted on 12/11/2008 6:15:45 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thanks ... your post said Obama, not McCain and I was confused. Referring to the post that you quoted and your response.


83 posted on 12/11/2008 6:17:28 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

There’s plenty of information available from Leo Donofrio’s site, if one’s interested enough in his position to look for it.

__________________

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”.

The word “born” has meaning.

It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.

Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.”

If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

*snip*

The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status.

Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”.

Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.

*snip*

Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run - and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run - with very harsh treatment.

McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil.

Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.

*snip*

Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCain’s decision to run - and the Senate’s faux resolution saying he could run - with very harsh treatment.

McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief, (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in Nicaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.

*snip*

I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, as well as in the actual application submitted to the Court, asserted my belief that Obama was probably born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.

My original lower court suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least, requested to see Obama’s BC.

But that is not a core issue in my case. And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue - that Obama can never be a natural “born” citizen - even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was “born” as a British citizen/subject.

As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen “at birth”.

His own web site told me so. And factcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain’s Nationality Act of 1948. Montgomery cites factcheck.org as a “nonpartisan” source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at birth” through his Father.

My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/


84 posted on 12/11/2008 6:18:10 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That's two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president.

So, anyone born outside the country, but by law a citizen at birth, is what? Naturalized or natural born? The 14th amendment does not cover that situation, does it? It only covers "born or naturalized in the United States", not born outside the US but still a "Citizen at birth".

Logically those folks could be considered "naturalized at birth", because Congress only has the power to "Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization", not to define Constitutional terms, such as "Natural born citizen".

If that is true, then McCain was "naturalized at birth", and not a "natural born citizen". For Obama it depends on just where he was born. If born in Hawaii as claimed, he would be natural born (if one accepts that the 14th amendment tweaked the definition of that term a little). If not, then he is not a citizen at all, let alone a natural born one, unless he was later naturalized, in which case he'd still not be natural born.

So it all hinges on his place of birth. IMHO of course.

85 posted on 12/11/2008 6:23:24 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
the Supreme Court has ruled that the nationality of his father has no impact on that.

I would respectively challenge that!

86 posted on 12/11/2008 6:30:49 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You said:

“(if one accepts that the 14th amendment tweaked the definition of that term a little). “

___

There is absolutely no historical context as to the 14th Amendment being written to change or override Article II - Section 1 of our Constitution. Absolutely none.

Historically it was written purely in the context of defining a citizen. There is a historical difference between the term citizen and natural born citizen that Leo’s argument clearly documents.


87 posted on 12/11/2008 6:30:58 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There are THREE forms of citizenship.

When I was in high school our government teacher asked on a test how many form of citizenship and what are they . We all said two (that's what one of the text books we used said): Naturalized and those born in this country (anchor babies). He marked us all wrong
We argued for days.We looked, and looked, questioned, argued, and generally became obsessed with the problem.
Finally, told us there were three and that if we found the third he would give us extra credit at the end of the semester......

At last one day, while studying the constitution, he passed out various books, booklets etc and asked each to read from the paragraph marked....Finally the AH -Ha moment hit each of us. The third type is Native Born, as described in the article above (did you read it).

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.

BOTH parents and the individual are born in the US. The only person that it matters to is the President.

Three types:
Natural born: Those born here EX: Anchor babies
Naturalized: Those taking the oath of citizenship EX: Ahhnold
Native Born: Those who are born of parents that are born here EX: the general population.

88 posted on 12/11/2008 6:36:49 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Bump!


89 posted on 12/11/2008 6:43:23 PM PST by The Mayor ( In Gods works we see His hand; in His Word we hear His heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I am amazed at how hard of a time some are having in understanding this.

At least your highschool class was able to get it. It is not that unknown to many of us.


90 posted on 12/11/2008 6:44:01 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
The problem is the public school system with their watered down text books.....They only teach the populous to regurgitate certain facts and do not teach research and analytical thinking. Unfortunately “Not how to think”, but “what to think” is the only way most teachers know how to teach today. It will be the ruin of our country.
91 posted on 12/11/2008 6:48:44 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Some seem to think that this was all made up out of thin air by some conspiracy theorists when in fact it is the orginalist intrepation of the Constitution.


92 posted on 12/11/2008 6:48:45 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

SOme don’t think at all.....


93 posted on 12/11/2008 6:50:25 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

By the way, Welcome to Free Republic.


94 posted on 12/11/2008 6:51:41 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I agree.

Education is everything. Hopefully if the conservative movement gets more and more revitalized then there will be a resurgence of education in this country and even possibly worldwide.


95 posted on 12/11/2008 6:52:22 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

What some are missing in this thread is that the Constitution is a historical document and not a living breathing document.

That also goes for all of it’s Amendments and for all judicial decisions made in reference to it.

Leo’s case is in that context. He is making an ‘orginalist’ argument in regards to te Constitution. The arguments being made against his case are all made with a disregard to the historical context. They try to cite things that have no historical signifigance at all to Article II - Section 1 of th Constitution.


96 posted on 12/11/2008 7:00:46 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
However, both Jindal and Obama are qualified to be president.

However this turns out this year with Obama, you can bet the Dems and media will challenge the legitimacy of Jindal if he should run. And with what will likely be a left-leaning USSC by then I sense a strong possibility Jindal would be ruled ineligible.

97 posted on 12/11/2008 7:01:16 PM PST by Zack Attack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

If anyone is annoyed because there are letters missing in my posts please understand that something is wrong with my computer or my keyboard. I may have some sort of virus on my system that is really annoying and strikes out certain keys that I type.

Hopefully I can fix it soon but I just thought that I would explain that since when I re-read some of my posts it is annoying me.

Sorry.


98 posted on 12/11/2008 7:08:43 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

“I wonder what the reaction will be when the SCOTUS rules that Obama is qualified but McCain is not.”

I would love to see it. It would be historial.


99 posted on 12/11/2008 7:21:38 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Zack Attack
However this turns out this year with Obama...

There is no 'however" about it, Obama will take the oath of office on January 20th and Jindal is qualified to be president.

100 posted on 12/11/2008 7:30:21 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson