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?
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.
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.
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".
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/
If the terms natural born citizen and citizen at birth were intended to mean the same thing, then where is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference, as specifically applied to the Presidency, the only place where it actually matters at all? Can you point me to any of that?