Posted on 11/26/2008 12:08:43 PM PST by doug from upland
From all the many lawsuits filed with Jumbo Mumbo legal "language", I feel this is the most compelling and logical to push forward:
A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.
Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
“If he was born in Hawaii, he’s a natural-born citizen regardless of his parentage.”
If that is the case, then you are saying that an anchor baby could grow up to be President. I don’t think so. I believe anchor babies are citizens because they are born on US soil, but I do not believe they qualify as “natural born” due to parent citizenship. It is my understanding that parentage does count, and to be a “natural born” citizen one must have parents who are citizens. Obama’s father was not a US citizen and a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth.
Quite possibly that is the way the Constitution should be interpreted, but that is not the way the courts have ruled.
I believe the courts have decided that a person born in the US is a citizen, and presumably a native-born citizen. Since the only two positions where “native-born” versus “regular” citizen is relevant are Pres and Veep, it’s fairly obvious why it’s never been litigated.
Your (or my) opinion as to what “native-born” means is quite irrelevant.
US law does not recognize dual citizenship. It is quite irrelevant whether a person is a citizen of more than one country. Our laws only pay attention to whether he is a citizen of this one.
Thank you for this info.
What is the status of your/the lawsuit against Hillary there in So Cal including Peter Paul?
What will happen to the swuit if Hillary is named Sec of State?
Can she stonewall it any further?
Thanks for the info.
Have a very nice Thanksgiving. Hope the fires didn’t bother you, and that you are not a victim of the landslides which may follow.
By the way- do you happen to know a business there in Burbank called “Ralph’s Electric Inc”?
It is at 519 S Victory. He is a Maytag dealer there and the business has been there for over 60 years.
Let me know if(or not) you know the place and the Owner- Robert Muravez.
I don’t recall saying anything about giving up the issue.
I do suggest that possible consequences shouldn’t be ignored.
It really doesn’t matter, because I think the chance of a court (particularly the Supremes, the only one that counts) ruling him ineligible are somewhere 1M to one and zero.
Wikipedia:
The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Since the Constitution gives the Congress the right to control naturalization, this would seem to be relevant, unless over-ruled by some later statute.
Of course, the wording of this law doesn’t specifically address the issue of one parent not being a a citizen.
The use of the plural: Citizens, limits the span.
This would be the ultimate poetic justice and BTW, he has resigned from the Senate, right?’
NObama would not have been qualified to even be Illinois senator to Congress if it is proven he was born in Kenya.
IMO, NOBama has known all along that is status is that he is not eligible.
I think that the reason that NObama has NOT shown any of his college records is that they show that he was registered in college as a
Foreign Aid Student”, which would have given him a vast discount in tuition.
I think he is shown in the college records as citizen of INDONESIA.
It isn’t just the Birth Certificate that he refuses to spit out.
NObama is also refusing to release all his college records.
Why?
Something is wrong here- and there is something in the woodpile, IMO.
It all needs to come out.
They can completely DQ Obama and not have him up for vote at all with no alternative but to vote for McCain / Palin. If it ultimately goes to The House, they could only have the option to vote for McCain, McCain or McCain.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
I looked up the California law. The electors are bound to vote for the candidate *of the political party* they were chosen to represent, not for the individual whose name appeared on the ballot.
As I read it, that means if the best happens, and Obama's true birth certificate or other document, reveals that he is not a natural born citizen, then the DNC, or the equivalent state level group, can declare Hillary, or anyone else they choose, to be their party's candidate, and that person would then get California's 55 electoral votes.
That's not what the 20th amendment provides. The 25th only applies to when a President dies, resigns, or is removed, not before the person becomes President.
There are A LOT of threads, especially on this subject. Easy to miss a few, or some posts in several of them.
There are A LOT of threads, especially on this subject. Easy to miss a few, or some posts in several of them.
The following was posted on a thread a while back, and I am sorry I do not know the Freeper who posted it. I thought it was so informative and explained the types of citizenship
so well. Here it is:
Types of Citizenship:
There are three types of citizenship status by U.S. birth or parentage, by naturalization, and natural born which was by both parentage and birth combined.
In my example Mrs. Smith was born in Germany and is still a German citizen. Mrs. Smith is married to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was born in Texas, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a son born in the United States. The son is a citizen by birth because he was born in the United States but he is not a “natural born” citizen because his parents each bestow their citizenship on the child, so the son cannot grow up to be President. Mrs. Smith later becomes a U.S. Citizen. She is a Naturalized citizen. The son, however, still can’t grow up to be President since at birth he had divided loyalties and can never be considered a “natural born” citizen.
Now if both Mr. and Mrs. Smith were both German citizens, but were living in the United States, their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen because both is parents are German citizens, and therefore their citizenship is bestowed on their child.
If Mr. Smith was a U.S. citizen and Mrs. Smith was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen by his father’s parentage or by blood, since the father bestowed his U.S. Citizenship on his son. The son could not be president, however, because the mother also bestows her citizenship on the child and because he was born on foreign soil.
I hope this helps people to understand the different types of citizenship. In summary you need two parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth and you must be born on U.S. soil to be a “natural born” citizen.
They are about to conference on the Donofrio case soon. Just asking ...
Frankly, I think that’s a little too technical. If Obama was born on Amercian soil, expecially (unlike McCain) in one of the actual united states as late as the 60’s, then that’s good enough for me, and should be good enough for all of us.
The whole point of America, in my view, is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are or were. My grandparents were born in Ireland and Canada. That doesn’t make my parents any less American. They were born on this soil.
Actually "Natural born" verses "Naturalized".
Leo Donofrio case will be Conferenced by the Supreme Court December 5.
Oh to be a fly on that wall ...
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.