US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/21/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[philman_36]

Obama is not a citizen.
I give up. I was looking for some help and I get a cryptic response.
Thanks anyway.

[philman_36]

I knew I'd read up on this somewhere...

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”
It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
Snip...The question we are raising is not something made up to deal with Obama alone. As I have stressed many times throughout the history of this blog, those who are “native born” are not necessarily “natural born”.

So thanks for the brain freeze. I still stand by my statement with one correction...
So as I understand it I'm a natural born citizen. Obama is a native born citizen (due to the nature of his Mother's citizenship location of birth) with dual citizenship because of his purported Father's citizenship.

[Seizethecarp]

(Comment to the new Leo post)

jimmy Says:
June 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’m trying to link this to my FB page, but FB keeps removing it.
Am I allowed to link this ?

ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

[Red Steel]

Bump read...

[Red Steel]

ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

Well, it looks like the Facebook people are convinced. ;-)

[philman_36]

Just getting my ducks in a row.

[Seizethecarp]

I put the new Leo blog up on FR here (with my earlier title corrected):

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2739696/posts?page=1

[Nathanael1]

the Court in Minor defined nbc…

Except, of course, that it didn't.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote: “You poor guy. You do it again while denying that you do. And you should just throw every source you use out the window since what you believe (’I equate...’) overrides everything.”

You tell not the truth. I’ve been consistent all along: That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago, and that’s we enough to dismiss the nonsense at issue. You asked a broader question, and I can tell you that the modern consensus is that “natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth.

philman_36 claimed: “No, I injected “[native-born citizens]” into the sentence to give clarification to the “they” mentioned.”

No, philman_36, the antecedent was clear. Here it is without your falsification:

“The approach of our 45th presidential election evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only ‘natural-born’ citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they be regarded as ‘natural-born’ within the contemplation of the Constitution?”

Perfectly clear what question he was examining. You, philman_36, quoted falsely.

[BladeBryan]

edge919 wrote: “I didn’t miss it at all. It’s why I showed that it is NOT legally accurate according to the Supreme Court, which said native means being born in the country to citizen parents.”

Whatever fantasies you entertain about your own constitutional scholarship, I quoted the Pryor’s article in the peer-reviewed literature of American law:

“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

The meaning of “’native-born’ citizens” there is given: “those born in the United States”. If you want to argue that there’s also another, different usage, it doesn’t matter. You were wrong to say I missed anything in citing Pryor and Gordon. You, not I, missed the meaning.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote:

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but [...]

And in that same essay Breck Long argued:

Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.

Barack Obama, like all of us who still draw breath, was born after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether his eligibility would have been questionable as late as 1868, or even 1898 when U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was decided, is not the issue. In our time, there has been one saying that to be eligible for the presidency, native-born citizens also have to be born of two parents who are citizens. That is, not until 2008 when a certain faction desperately wanted to deny that the particular individual could be president.

[philman_36]

Man, after your 600 word attack on Donofrio I’ve got nothing but contempt for you. Don’t bother me again.

[SatinDoll]

“...That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago,..”

You’re full of crap and spreading lies.

Natural born Citizen is an eligibility requirement to serve as President of the United States per Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, period. It does not appear ANYWHERE else in the statutes covering citizenship.

For the Federal descriptions of citizenship, go to:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services - Citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

* Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
* had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

* Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
* Apply for naturalization

The above describe ‘native born’, ‘derived, and ‘naturalized’ citizenship. You will not find ‘natural born citizenship anywhere on that government site. It is not recognized as a statutory type of citizenship.

The eligibility requirements for Senator and Representative require one be a Citizen (native born, derived from parents, or naturalized - it doesn’t matter).

To be President requires a person be a Natural born Citizen (note the wording; person, rather than ‘citizen’). The Constitutional Congress was very detailed about this issue.

Leo Donofrio has now found the definition in legal precedent.

Don’t bother spreading any more disinformation on Free Republic.

[BladeBryan]

“...That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago,..”

You’re full of crap and spreading lies.

I had already cited it to the pear-reviewed literature of the discipline, earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

Leo Donofrio has now found the definition in legal precedent.

Have you noticed the results when Donofrio tests his legal theories in court?

[SatinDoll]

Nice try. But you’re still full of crap.

Jill Pryor is a 100%, in-the-tank socialist and Democrat, so she would write propaganda screed, non of which is accurate. She wants to see the United States join in the socialist utopia known as Globalism.

WOW! No surprise there!

Pryor is just like Herlihy, another commie Democrat hell-bent on destroying the United States via Globalism (AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE - SARAH P. HERLIHY).

Pryor and Herlihy present arguments at odds with one another; one claims falsely it is all settled, while the other whines it must be changed. Obviously, overthrowing the United States from within causes schizophrenia in the Democratic.

You aren’t a Conservative, so I’m not surprised you read anti-American propaganda.

Doubtless there will be court challenges.

Doubtless SCOTUS will follow precedent set by other Supreme Courts before them, not some left-wing authors and certainly not by your opinions.

“There is a gun behind every blade of grass.” Overthrowing the U.S. isn’t going to be a cake-walk.

[April Lexington]

Nice work.

[Mr. Wright]

I am thoroughly convinced that this is why Chief Justice Roberts “botched” it, when giving Hussein Obama the Oath of Office. He knew in his heart that this guy was not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to serve.

[BladeBryan]

“Pryor and Herlihy present arguments at odds with one another; one claims falsely it is all settled, while the other whines it must be changed.”

What in Herlihy’s paper do you read as implying that the question is open as to whether native-born citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as Article II natural-born citizens?

“Doubtless there will be court challenges.

Doubtless SCOTUS will follow precedent set by other Supreme Courts before them, not some left-wing authors and certainly not by your opinions.”

There have already been court challenges. SCOTUS has said: Denied; denied; dismissed; denied; congratulation Mr. President; dismissed; dissmissed; denied; dismissed; welcome to the Court Justice Sotomayor; welcome to the Court Justice Kagan; dismissed, dismissed. I may have missed one or two, as counting blither defeats has become challenging. Listing their victories is easier; here’s the list:

[SatinDoll]

You stink of DU desperation and write like a frustrated priss. What a pity!

Donofrio recognized after his case was tossed, and with which others haven’t yet come to grips, is that only Congress can remove a President.

Thomas Edison liked to say that his experiments in making a light bulb resulted in over ninety ways not to make a light bulb - but he only needed one to be successful.

Bryan, it ain’t over yet!

The word is getting out that Obama is not eligible to be President, and worse, he is incompetent. A President can commit only so many impeachable acts before getting thrown out. Even Democrats in Congress are restive; no one wants to go down politically because the Democratic hierarchy pushed as a genius candidate for President what is, in reality, an empty suit taking orders from communist Valerie Jarrett, a slumlord!

George Soros recognizes from what direction the next move will come, and soon. That is why he is so keen to see all States have SoSs in his corrupt back pocket: to block the will of the people.

When the shit hits the fan, Bryan, and the economy collapses, lamp posts everywhere will bear strange fruit. Progressives hanging dead by their necks. It has happened before and as we all know, history repeats itself.