Posted on 03/17/2011 10:18:52 AM PDT by rxsid
"IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.
Last week, a reader of this blog tipped me off to an incredible misquote of Representative John Bingham which appears in an amicus brief [a PDF] filed with the US Supreme Court by the Immigration Reform Law Institute – aka IRLI – for the Flores-Villar case. Here is that tip in full:
“Sallyven Says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM eIn the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flores-villar-v-united-states/
The comment was in response to articles I wrote – one which argued that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” requires a person to be born in the US to “parents” who are citizens – and the other highlighting the scrubbing of a Michigan Law Review article by a well known law professor which stated the same, but then was changed after the dual citizen issue began to haunt Obama.
My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives. One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
But the amicus brief filed by IRLI misquotes Bingham as follows:
The words “of parents” are mysteriously missing from the quote. I held back on posting Sallyven’s comment until today because I wanted to contact IRLI and question them about the error.
I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless). The staff attorney and I had a long conversation. The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:
1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles. Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog. Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney. But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.
3. IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context.
I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog. I directed him to my blog. At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified. Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on. But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago. I was then informed that…
IRLI WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THE COMPACT BETWEEN STATES PERTAINING TO ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1308.
Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308? That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent.
Well hey now. What have we here? The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility.
The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions. To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1. I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility. Obviously, that would take an amendment. But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.
Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference. Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.
I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.
He continued to assure me that the words “natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”. I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”. I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”. He told me that it wasn’t up to them. It was up to each state.
He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it. He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.
The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue. At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.
The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t. Yesterday marked a week with no response. I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back.
Something is very shady about this situation. The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation. This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease. The country is dying. It is being killed from within. If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.
If we accept that a person born with dual allegiance can be President, we are opening the White House to the potential children of despots who hate this nation. Preventing this kind of foreign influence was the “strong check” John Jay warned George Washington of all those years ago when he introduced the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
"IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do. (RE: Natural Born Citizen & Barry Obama)"
>>Something is very shady about this situation.<<
No sh!t Sherlock.
To liberals, words mean what they want them to mean, and if a “quote” doesn’t say what they want it to say, they simply change the “quote.” They do not abide in reality. They make their own. They lie, then lie about their lies.
obama is, by far, the most dangerous man to ever reside in the White House.
Just like termites, chewing a little piece here and there, and eventually the whole construct no longer stands. Death of the U.S. Constitution by a thousand cuts.
Leo is not only correct as to this situation being shady but also touches many other shady things about Obama and his enablers.
Your American Bar link doesn’t seem to be working. I tried it twice.
“obama is, by far, the most dangerous man to ever reside in the White House.”
I agree with you about 0bama in the White House. However, I think those covering for him (and that appears to include IRLI, Hawaii, Congress, SCOTUS and the media, among others) are even more dangerous - people in positions of power and/or influence willingly (or eagerly) selling out their own country.
This seems to be an epidemic in some circles.
bump
--
Dr. Chiyome Fukino
-Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
It did not say that there was a birth certificate, it said that there was a "record" of a birth certificate....
That record was most likely a result of a "late filing" by Obozo's grandmother, without presenting a birth certificate. There is no hospital record of his birth in HI (it is very unlikely he was born in HI). There is no record of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. ever living with Stanley Ann Dunham in HI. The only way that Obama could be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen is if Barrack H. Obama, Sr is not his father.
-
Here is the statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii:
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
(note- she said a "natural-born American citizen, NOT natural born United States Citizen.)
--
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii State Health Director, has issued a second statement Monday, July 27th confirming President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
(note- she said a "natural-born American citizen, NOT natural born United States Citizen.)
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago,” Fukino said, in hopes of ending the controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship.
Nowhere did she say that she had seen the original "birth certificate"
bummer...should have been:
thanks.
Written down?
Stunning the lies, deception and obfuscation perpetrated by those people.
"Written down"?? On what, a paper napkin? Or on the back of a used envelope. And WHEN was it written down?? And by whom??
All lies and deception.
A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.
(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)
It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ..."
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110118_This_is_a_collaborative_endeavor.html
The continued cover-up is stunning.
My question to him, as he is a lawyer & extremely familiar with the writing of laws was:
I am calling in regards to a question I have pertaining to how laws are written and how specific clauses within them are to be interpreted when there is no clarification in the definitions provided by the US code. The specific law I have a question on is the 14th Amendment. Our country is in dire straights financially and the influx of illegals having babies, which I call anchor babies, is costing this nation’s tax payers billions of dollars a year, thereby creating an undue burden on us in a time when the cost of living is already creating extra financial burdens due to Congressional overstepping & lack of oversight of the law.
So, my specific question is, can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.
From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?
Thank you for your time.
Now, I specifically did not attempt a conversation regarding presidential qualifications as I have been down that road with them and gotten no where. I decided to take task at a specific critical issue facing our country today & an issue that has legislation in the works but can yield the same results. I’ll be calling them back on Monday for my answer as Sen Thune will be back in the state tomorrow, as he is every Friday unless Congress is still in session. I also find I get much better results working with the local staff than I do with his “form letter writers” in DC.
Just heard a little of Rush today. He was commenting on Donald Trumps comment re: BO’s birth...
Rush said something to the effect...” We really don’t know anything about BO until he’s in his thirties....We don’t know any about Jesus until that age either!”
Laughed out loud.
This article got me curious, so I googled this up. Is it the position of proponents of the natural-born illegitimacy argument that these six other presidents were illegitimate too?
Some of these presidents weren’t the greatest ever but it does lend precedent. In light of historical precedent, I think the birth certificate questions are stronger than the natural-born argument honestly.
“Only six other U.S. presidents had a foreign-born parent. Mr. Obama will be the first in nearly ninety years, since President Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in 1929.”
“Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.”
No.
Jefferson did not meet the requirement of being a "natural born Citizen." He was, however, "grandfathered" in along with many other early Presidents because they were a "citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
To exclude themselves (those who gave blood and treasure in the creation of the country) would mean that no one would be eligible (as a NBC) until at least 1811 (1776 + 35) if you count from Independence.
As for the others, except for the original usuper Chester Arthur (his father's naturalization record not uncovered until 2008), they had a foreign born parent, but they became citizens either through statue (via marriage) or naturalized prior to their (eventual President) child being born. Therefore, they were born in country to "citizen" parents.
It's not about being born to natural born citizen parents...but to citizen parents. It's about the President not being born with foreign allegiance owed. And the best way to safegaurd against that is to require born in country to parents who owe allegience to no other country (i.e. citizens of this country). If the President is born to a foreigner...even in country, they are likely (especially in the case of G.B.) to inherit their foreign parents foreign citizenship by birthright. Obama even "admits" this on his campaign web site.
To lesson the chance of a President being born owing allegiance to a foreign country, the framers put the NBC requirement in place as a "strong check" (see Jay's letter) to that foreign influence upon the Commander in Chief of the American Army.
It's really a national security, national preservation requirement on the office of the Executive branch.
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.