Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

World Net Daily ^ | April 01, 2010 | Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

[Seizethecarp]

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

[little jeremiah]

You’re a courageous and dedicated heroine and the enemies of truth are small, insignificant buzzing flies, and their days are numbered. The truth will be revealed.

Take care of yourself and your family and rest peacefully!

[AnalogReigns]

Unfortunately the law is what the Supremes deem it to be—period. I don’t see this Court allowing for a major constitutional crises—with huge racial overtones (and a potential for even civil breakdown and war—in every major city in the USA)—because of the natural born clause.

If Obama was fully Caucasian...with the same issues surrounding his birth, maybe. But as the first black president... NO WAY.

[BP2]

< Note: this is a long post, but please stick with it ... there's important NEW info & citations within >

This is why amateurs shouldn't cite case law, they invariably get it wrong.

Indeed. You just described the average Obama-supporting After-Birther who wanders through here, quoting from bulletpoint "fact" sheets created by some half-ass Progressive legal assistant ... LOL

one only needs to read this paragraph from Justice Fuller lamenting the very reality created by the majority's opinion...

ROTFLMAO ... so instead of citing CASE law, you're now quoting Dissenting Opinions to attempt to make your point? Now that's funny.

Well if you're playing that game ... Justice Gray laments the very reality created by the Minority opinion (Justice Fuller) ... about 11 paragraphs down in Gray's Majority opinion:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

So ... FROM WHERE would "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that" come? Obviously Common Law, although Natural Law (Vattel, Locke, etc) had a very strong influence as well (seeing how France financed a lot of the Revolutionary War and the Colonists had a general disdain for British law).

However, let's delve deeper on the subject of citations used by Justice Gray in US vs. Kim Wong Ark. HINT: Don't hang your hat on A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law" (1896 edition) as used in Justice Gray's US v. Kim Wong Ark Opinion (1898).

Obviously you're aware that BAD Supreme Court opinions exist, as you've referenced the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) that "overturned" Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Obviously there are many other landmark decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.

The first modern case that pops into my head is the 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms”, which overturned nearly 70 years of BAD Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion.

It's a VERY good bet that today's Chief Justice Roberts' SCOTUS Court will eventually "clarify" historically-incorrect sections of Justice Gray's 1898 US v. Kim Wong Ark Opinion and his historical analysis therein.

Here's why:

See, the quote you offered, "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England ... whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject." was first published in the unrefined 1896 First Edition of A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law."

Justice Gray used the two-year-old First Edition version of Dicey's book in his 1898 US v. Kim Wong Ark analysis. (Gray used other weak references to make his point in his 1898 US v. Ark Opinion, too, like Binney's 1853 "Alienigenae of the United States" ... a pamphlet rejected by Congress, where Binney contradicts himself in 1854, LOL).

However, in Dicey's SECOND Edition of "Conflict of Law" published in 1908 and subsequent editions, you will NOT find that quote from Dicey.

Dicey "corrected" himself later ... perhaps why Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has been cited only EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record.

You'll find that Dicey — after further analysis of Common Law of the latter-18th century — revealed THIS in his 1908 Second Edition of “Conflict of Laws”:

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (Hint: This would DIRECTLY IMPACT Barack Hussein Obama and his lineage to his British father and British subject, regardless of Obama Jr's birthplace).

By 1932, an older and wiser A. W. Dicey wrote:

“To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.”

Dicey finds the proverbial acorn with his 1932 observation, as the SCOTUS of yesteryear and today references Blackstone's Commentaries on a very regular basis! This methodology to determine the Framer's Original Intent — by referencing Common Law as it existed at the time of the Framing "towards the end of the eighteenth century" — has been re-affirmed by the SCOTUS and Constitutional experts time and time again.

Again, citing DC v Heller (2008), the SCOTUS must make Opinions as "interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."

As attorney and Constitutional expert John W. Guendelsberger — who Barack Obama appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in August — pointed out in 1992 regarding US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653):

“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874).

To reiterate: Blackstone has been referenced THOUSANDS of times by the US Supreme Court to define the Framer's Original Intent ... nearly 20 times in DC v Heller alone! Blackstone's Commentaries has stood the test of time; A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law" — used by Justice Gray in US v. Ark (1898) — HAS NOT.

So ... what does Blackstone say about British subjects, Allegiance and "service to two masters" (i.e., Dual Citizenship)?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

[Forty-Niner]

Kim Wong Arc decided that a person born in the US of Legal Non citizen Residents was a citizen, with the same rights as if he were a Natural born citizen...... note that they did not say say he was a Natural Born Citizen....for he is not, and although he retains the same rights as an NBC, he does not meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency...... Drew you need new reading glasses....

Why are you so interested in seeing Non- Natural Born Citizens become eligible for the Presidency? Are you one of them Globalists/Internationalists?

Optical Rectitus is treatable.....see your proctologist.

[BP2]

To the rest of us, Kim Wong Ark is pretty clear.

Obviously it's not. Bias blinds logic and reason from his followers ...

From US v. Wong Kim Ark:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.

So, kindly get this into your thick Obot skull:

Citizen ≠ Natural Born Citizen

If it did, the US v. Wong Kim Ark opinion would have said it.

Words mean things.

[Lmo56]

You'll find that Dicey — after further analysis of Common Law of the latter-18th century — revealed THIS in his 1908 Second Edition of “Conflict of Laws”:

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (Hint: This would DIRECTLY IMPACT Barack Hussein Obama and his lineage to his British father and British subject, regardless of Obama Jr's birthplace).

The British Nationality Act of 1730 [(4 Geo. 2) C A P. XXI.] was the governing nationality law at the time of the Founding Fathers. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers, having trained in British Law, would have known this. The Act conferred "natural born subject" status to children born out of the ligeance of the sovreign, as long as their fathers were "natural born subjects". The 1730 Act stated:

" ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ... "

This provision was further clarified by the British Nationality Act of 1772 [(13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI.]. This Act extended "natural born subject" status to the children of the children also. The 1772 Act stated:

" ... An Act to extend the Provisions of an Act, made in the Fourth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, An Act to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her late Majesty QueenAnne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the Children of the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, to the Children of such Children ...

... and therefore that not only the Children of such natural-born Subjects, but their Children also, should continue under the Allegiance of His Majesty, and be intituled to come into this Kingdom, and to bring hither and realize, or otherwise employ, their Capital; but no Provision hath hitherto been made to extend farther than to the Children born out of the Ligeance of His Majesty, whose Fathers were natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain ...

... That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom ..."

[Aurorales]

You just hit the nail on the head to “butterdezillion” with that post.

All these poster-trolls want to do is disturb the peace, dampen our spirits, and gain info.

“Ol’DeckSwamie” is enormously annoying. I have no idea why anyone feeds into his ego by telling him how wise he is.

If you go back over his/her/their posts over this topic (especially in the beginning) you will see OlDeckEgo was always pro-Barry. Even before knowing any of the facts.
I caught him in a few lies and he refused to admit them. Just ran away crying to his room.

Always gives out his vast resume and ridicules others. (He says he is a lawyer and yesterday walked on water and waddya know....turned that water into wine!)

Nothing you or I say will ever be taken for anything more than the rumblings of a peon.
I don’t know if you know but Barry is a lawyer and so is Ol’DeckPoop, so that makes them realllllll smart!

[rodguy911]

Thanks Pen much appreciated.

[rodguy911]

You know you are an idiot!

If you need to, start with Polarik, go to Atlas Shrugs and then follow the hundreds of links,and if your summation, your conclusion is that zero is such a wonderful source that we should believe anything he says over what hundreds of freepers have dug up, than you are the fool and you have nothing, IMHO.

[rodguy911]

As you will learn we have a huge troll problem here at FR. the mods are getting better but are slow to get rid of the long term trolls like El sordo and drew 68. It will happen, just takes a while. But, they do screw up thread after thread,its a shame really.

[esquirette]

You are simply incorrect in your assumptions and are ignoring very the valid and long standing reasons for why the general public can’t just wander up and demand the private records of other citizens.
______________________________________________

When a man runs for president, his life should be an open book. What he has done in private life shows his character, and his character determines what he will do in the future.

[rodguy911]

Great links!

I love the part where zero in a debate years ago with former ambassador Alan Keyes when challenging ozero about his Kenyan birth got this reply:

"so what I'm not running for potus"

indicating that he knew he was not eligible years ago.

The joker and his minions have done an excellent job of covering up his past but like any congenital liar, Bill Clinton included, they always miss something.

[Waco]

Rest assured that the SCOTUS will NOT overturn the health care bill or O’bs presidency, rather they’ll stall off, shuffle their feet and eat watermelon,,,bet on it ?

[rodguy911]

ROTFLMAO—GOOD ONE!!

[rodguy911]

Exactly, and when that open book is closed and locked shut to the point where even his grades are top secret, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out a lot is being hidden.

[danamco]

But I'm sure this is just part of the conspiracy.

Which for sure, you and your other "paid"(?) Obama 2.0 partners are the biggest part off!!!

[Uncle Chip]

Well researched -- Thanks.

The Obamabots consider Wong Kim Ark to be their Constitution and Justice Gray their founding father and 1898 to be the date of the founding of their Obamabot regime. And yet these supposed "case law professionals" who wrap themselves up in their own self-important elitism, can't even understand the words of their own "Constitution".

[OldDeckHand]

"I caught him in a few lies and he refused to admit them. Just ran away crying to his room."

Let me be perfectly blunt. You've never "caught me in a lie". You, and your moronic, unsubstantiated ad hominem drive-by attacks are beneath contempt. I believe you demonstrate characteristics that may underlie a more serious personal character flaw - and by flaw, of course I mean psychological personality disorder, but you'd need to undergo serious psychological counseling to make a firm diagnosis.

Succinctly stated, you may be nuts. Absolutely, unequivocally nuts.

[OldDeckHand]

"Obviously you're aware that BAD Supreme Court opinions exist, as you've referenced the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) that "overturned" Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Obviously there are many other landmark decisions in the history of the SCOTUS. "

Stop right there. Anyone who compares the Ark decision to Dred Scott has broken with reality. You're delusional.

[OldDeckHand]

"Well researched -- Thanks."

If by "well researched" you mean sophomoric and idiotic, then sure, it's "well researched".

Thousands of constitutional scholars and lawyers writing in a hundred law reviews and journals each month, and not one has proffered legal theory resembling the idiocy that BP2 just spouted, and yet you morons think it's "well researched". It's ridiculous.