Posted on 08/28/2009 8:05:10 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Prolific blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio has posted yet another fascinating opinion regarding not only natural born citizenship myths — you know, those things that we tend to presume when getting into a great debate either on this blog or other sites — but also the “law of nations” as referred in the Constitution:
Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.
They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.
But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.
The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...
Ping!
ping
ping
I’m no legal beagle, but is this asserting that there can be no such thing as an “anchor baby”?
Thanks hoosiermama...
MHG did you see this ???
Complain all you want, that's the truth. He squats in our house because they let him.
That’s how I’m reading it.
Well, that sucks. Now I can’t be President.
I read that is it is fascinating.
I’ve read this, my daughter sent it to me this week. It is some of the best work so far on why BO is not legally eligible to be in the WH. When will the Robet’s court step up and defend the constitution?
Wouldn’t that be great. Maybe these anchor babies should go home and maybe they should start paying the American people the money stolen from us.
This sounded a bit odd to me, so I looked over the document. He does not make this claim, which would be absurd; rather, he states that common law is irrelevant to federal law, which is quite a different claim (but one that is relevant to the citizenship issue).
There is a weakness in his argument. It relies on the citizenship (allegiance) of the offspring as being that of the father’s alone. A clear enough notion when the Constitution was written, but would it stand close judicial scrutiny today?
Can we still state the allegiance of the child belongs solely with that of the father, and, if so; what legal premise do we use to support this contention? Why wouldn’t the citizenship of the mother now play an equal role in the allegiance of the child of today, or in 1961?
But let’s be clear, none of these questions can even be addressed unless or until Obama comes clean about his past, and that is going to take a court order.
The only other way I can see we can proceed in this regard is to form “Birther” committees in every state of the union with the idea of getting the state legislatures to pass a state statute requiring all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office as set forth in the U.S. Constitution before their names can be placed on the ballot of that state.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Common law exists, but by definition it is not the subject matter of federal administrative law, which is also called statutory law, and which is what the United States federal government runs on.
So, one could say that there "is no common law in the United States," if one meant "in the operation of the United States government," rather than "in legitimate existence in the entirety of the country named the United States of America."
Yes, one could say that. Getting a court to actually sit in common law, however, is another thing.
The 14th Amendment starts: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...". This was ratified shortly after the Civil War, and was intended to provide citizenship to emancipated slaves and their offspring. It was later misinterpreted by the US Supreme Court to apply to all persons born in the US.
This is absurd, since it obviously wouldn't apply to offspring of foreign diplomats, who happen to be born on US soil, or offspring of an invading army, who might be born on US soil, while their parents are attacking America, but many think that it does apply to invading civilians.
The key phrase is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". An illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country. When invading America, an illegal alien is simply subject to removal.
Now born in Indonesia (14th paragraph)
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html
That makes:
Honolulu
Kenya
Vancouver, BC
Indonesia
Anywhere else?
Interesting. That’s the first time I’ve seen Indonesia as ‘the birthplace’ mentioned!
That’s amazing. Written in 2006. The press didn’t bat an eye.
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are in the US.
Our prisons are full of em.
Nice try though.
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.