https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0171-34

“The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,”

go take a look at the constitution of the state of new york from the late 1600’s early 1700’s and I think you will change your mind.

It looks to me like the founders just put some more meat on it.

Tim is a soft spoken attorney who avoids the limelight. He’s not the kind of guy who gets involved in something without thinking it through first.

Vince,

I noticed your comment concerning Quo Warranto. I think Quo Warranto is applicable. Mandamus sure wouldn’t make any sense.

I was only clarifying the definition of “natural-born citizen”.

In addition to momma being American born, I’m pretty sure Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth. However, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not provide any information about the citizenship of his mother or father at the time of his birth.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg

The U.S. War Criminals could be arrested today under USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 – War Crimes.

I posted this on another thread, but think it may be worth reposting here.

**************************

Momma was American born. So what is your point here?

The phrase “natural born citizen” is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution by the word “or”. “Natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution other than its specific separation from the term “U.S. citizen”.

The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of “Natural born citizen” as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

John Bingham, considered to be the “Father of the 14th Amendment” confirmed the understanding and the construction that the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction. While speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, he said:”

“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

—Unfortunately, as I am reminded, that would indicate that even though one who was born in within the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth, they may not be eligable to serve as POTUS if the parents were not U.S. Citizens.

Quote: While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship” to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic “citizen at birth”. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the links. I must agree with Vince; we should try to stay on topic for the thread. If you want, you can contact me over at live com using uinm. -I think you can decode that.

Vince,

“Lot of military and ex-military flocking to Cook and Taitz because of doubts about birth.

Don’t remember military folk doubting GW Bush’s claims about Saddam’s WMDs, his purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and his links to AlQuaeda and responsibity for 9-11 when they were sent into Iraq.”

Military personnel don’t have the luxury of verifying intelligence information. They do have a problem when they ask their CIC -”Who are you?” and their CIC does a dance to avoid answering. An order based on bad intelligence is still a lawful order. An order from a fraudulent commander is not lawful.

Don’t get me wrong. Military personnel get pretty ticked-off about bad intelligence. Unfortunately, they can’t undo what has already been done.

Sure, a healthy, reasonable skepticism is good.

Don’t remember military folk doubting GW Bush’s claims about Saddam’s WMDs, his purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and his links to AlQuaeda and responsibity for 9-11 when they were sent into Iraq.

Put it this way Gore says the science is settled on global warming but is it. http://www.petitionproject.org/

how did the towers come down? I thought it looked awfully much like a couple of big jetliners ran into them caused some columns to shear, forces to re-distribute and the fires caused the remaining columns to have an added thermal stress and then column buckling and collapse due to excessive stress.

While jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel it certainly burns hot enough to cause thermal stresses and those stresses can be quite high. An 800 degree temperature differential can cause a significant amount of additional stress. Please see this example at the link below and keep in mind this example is only an 80 degree differential:

http://physics.uwstout.edu/statstr/Strength/Stress/strs381.htm

once you understand this concept I think you will see how steel can fail at high temperatures that don’t cause melting to take place.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

I think most of the people here are good people.

When I stumbled upon this blog, I had no idea who John Turley was. -I don’t watch Rush, or Beck, or Olberman. I just found the topics to be interesting.

I have noticed that if you agree, you’re a good guy. However, if you disagree, you’re a troll, or a neocon, or some other term used with the intent to make you leave. Some seem to forget that honorable people can disagree.

Words are just words. They generally don’t express feeling, unless you work hard to make them do that.

Be patient. -I think Mike S. may be having a bad day. He’s generally a pretty good guy. I’m not sure what he did for a living, but I think it had something to do with psychology. He likes to analyze people. Unfortunately, typed words are not the best reference material and he arrives at the wrong conclusions. What really bothers me is..why analyze any of us? We are all just trying to share our points of view. We all want a better country. sometimes we approach it from a different direction.

I don’t think too much about past elections. We can’t undo the past, so why dwell on it? As for 9/11…it’s pretty much BS from beginning to end. Anyone who thinks those buildings went down because of a kerosene fire doesn’t know physics…fortunately for those perpetrating the sham..most of the country doesn’t understand physics.

So they believe that the 2000 election was stolen from them but don’t believe it could of been done in reverse this time.

I concur. The 14th does ensure that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship, would be considered a natural-born citizen, and therefore meet that qualification requirement of Article I.

Nothing in the Perkins entry on fees for birth challenges. Lots of money for campaign legal expenses. I posted about this on the Cheney site linking to Irregular Times.

Leaving town for a while. Expect only a spot or two.

I am sure JT is happy the we, his posters, have rearranged our playpen and are now playing well with each other.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html

Again it would be as simple as saying to some independent examiners go see it for your self. Then they could make a statement that says we have seen and verified the original birth certificate. I realize people such as Kos, Fact check have seen and held the COLB but NO ONE HAS TESTED if it was a forgery.

I’m not sure if a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents would be considered a natural-born citizen. (I haven’t researched it)

jim byrne 1, June 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm

“Anyone born in the U.S. top [sic] U.S. citizens is eligible to hold the office of President.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/17/obama-adopts-cheney-policy-and-opposes-release-of-white-house-logs/

Thank Goodness. I thought I was a birther. Fortunately, I don’t think a natural-born citizen is required to have two U.S. Citizens as parents.

“President Obama has spent over a million dollars to hide the vault copy of his birth certificate.”
That is a persistent birther rumor, but no proof has been offered. Some people believe this implicitly, yet doubt Obama’s birth certificate.

If we all agree, we can continue all these born discussions at the most recent natural born citizen thread, and direct any birther posters to our replies there, or to any other thread mutually agreed upon:

Transferred

The comments seem to be at odds with Professor Turley’s other comments in the article and with previous comments he made on the Donofrio case on MSNBC’s Countdown program.

Dumb move to post that on the site hosted by Joh Turley of the Chicago Turleys.

As they may say in Chicago, what is black and blue and bleeds and floats in Lake Michigan? Answer is the last guy who said “i just don’t trust anyone from chicago..”

Just kidding. Some low-hanging over-ripe fruit is just too tempting.

That is false.

He has a legitimate birth certificate on file, and he has shown it.

We do not let false information go unchallenged on this site. Try somewhere else.

for me, i think that if obama had a legitimate birth certificate on file in hawaii he would have shown it by now..

i think he has something to hide..

i also think the fix is in and the court will not entertain any of the appeals..

i don’t give a rats-ass if he is black, mulatto or whatever..
i just don’t trust anyone from chicago..

there is always a good side to most any president..
i hope obamas good side wins and his socialist side goes away..

Prediction: Another loss for Leo and his friend.

You read it here first.

“The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.”

Take that, troublemakers.

Once again, thank you.

10:15 AM

Supreme Court denies application for stay in Donofrio case..

Bye, Leo.

Get it first at the Turley site.

In the latest flash, naturalborncitizen wrote HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH. There is no breakthrough. All he has is a story that Arthur’s father was naturalized in 1843, long after Arthur’s birth, but that in no way affected Arthur’s eligibility for the Presidency.

There have always been charges that Arthur was actually born in Canada, but there has never been any proof, and there is still none. Donofrio concedes that Arthur was born in Vermont. His so-called revelation is that Arthur’s Irish-born father was not naturalized until 1843, years after Arthur’s birth. His father was actually born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, established by the Act of Union of 1800.

Discussing a pamphlet of the time, he writes QUOTE Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth. UNQUOTE

Donofrio argues that only a natural born citizen who has two U.S. citizen parents is eligible for President. That is false.

Donofrio has hopelessly confused citizenship and jurisdiction, and his confusion permeates his arguments. It is evident when he says “citizen/subject,” blending distinct concepts. An individual may be born with citizenship in one country like England. While he remains there, he is a citizen and is “subject to its jurisdiction.” He may travel or even emigrate to another country. He may remain a citizen of England and may consider himself to be an English or British subject, but he is not subject to its jurisdiction or power unless he returns there. Conversely, noncitizens in Britain may still be British subjects.

So citizenship can follow a person, whether she wants it or not. It does not give the home country any jurisdiction over her when she is abroad. Please, everyone, make this distinction and keep it in mind.

So Great Britain had no jurisdiction over Chester Arthur at his birth. He could have been a British citizen under their law, but that gave the UK no power over him in the US. Even if GB regarded him as a British subject at the time, that had no effect on his eligibility for President, because he was subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The 14th Amendment provided for two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized. The President must be born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Donofrio claims Obama is a “native born citizen”, not a “natural born citizen,” but those are his words. There is no provision for “native born” in the constitution. He is making this up.

Obama met all the requirements of the Constitution. He was born in one of the United States under U.S. jurisdiction. He was not subject to the jurisdiction or legal power of the courts or government of any other country at the time of birth. There was no dual jurisdiction. Some other country may have considered him as its citizen, giving him dual citizenship, but that did not imply dual jurisdiction.

Donofio’s approach could have dire consequences for our own country. Hundreds of thousands have fled communist Cuba and communist Vietnam and settled in the US. Their children born are natural born citizens. What if communist Cuba or communist Vietnam had a law providing all children of refugees are citizens of Cuba or Vietnam from birth, and thus have dual citizenship? Do we let the law of a foreign communist country disqualify loyal American citizens from the Presidency? Of course not. Our country does not allow the laws of a foreign nation to determine who may or not be President. Our own Constitution and laws determine this.

Other countries may even maintain that its emigres are still its citizens even after they become citizens of their new countries. This would disqualify even the children of naturalized citizens, in Donofrio’s view.

Any purported citizenship in another country has no effect on the natural born citizenship of a person born in the U.S subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or “born under the American flag.” So any British or Kenyan law treating Obama as a citizen had no effect then or now. Dual citizenship based on a foreign law is no bar to the Presidency.

So Donofrio conceded his case when he admitted Arthur was born in Vermont. He conceded his case when he admitted Obama was born in Hawaii.

And yet, even if you assume for the sake of argument that there was dual jurisdiction, which I do not, it still did not bar him under the 14th Amendment. As I have said over and over, the 14th Amendment only states “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., not “subject to sole or exclusive jurisdiction,” or “not subject to any other jurisdiction.”

This was all settled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The question was “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” The Court answered yes. 169 U.S. 649, 705.

So a child born with two parents subject to a foreign power became a citizen at the time of birth. He was a natural born citizen, not a naturalized one. He was therefore eligible to be President, despite that fact that he was born to parents subject to a foreign power.

The Court also explained the jurisdiction requirement. The Court said that “The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words ‘all persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state… “ So, aliens, diplomats, and Indian tribes [tribal law has changed and all Indians are now US Citizens].

Under the civil rights act of 1866, “’all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” had been declared to be citizens of the United States. The Court stated the words “not subject to any foreign power,” were not “intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright.” But, the Court stated ”any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

So, there it is. The purpose of the jurisdiction clause was to exclude diplomats and enemy aliens, not all so-called foreign subjects. The Amendment expressly dropped the words “not subject to any foreign power.”

Now Donofrio is trying to read back into the Amendment the words that were expressly excluded. That is a fundamental error of statutory and constitutional construction. There is no basis for Donofrio’s dual jurisdiction argument. The Supreme Court has held that there is no express or implied provision that a child born in the U.S. must not be subject to any other jurisdiction.

If he dislikes it, get an Amendment ratified. Many have tried. In the meantime, he will not be allowed to cheat millions of Americans of their birthright, on no more basis than his own say-so.

The bar against naturalized citizens from the Presidency is bad enough. Now Donofrio wants some children born in America to be second-class Americans, also barred from the Presidency. It is a totally unheard-of idea, and it is going nowhere.

He also would like to overturn the choice of the American people in a free election based on his bizarre theories of who should be a natural born citizen.

This is a splendid example of a modern day nativist, Know-Nothing attitude.

Also note they tried this whole “natural born” stuff with Barry Goldwater since he was born in Arizona prior to it entering the Union.

If you had Jerry, you need no advice from the likes of me. Whatever Jerry taught you 40 years ago is still twice as good as what I could teach you today.

JT