Posted on 11/18/2008 6:57:24 PM PST by STARWISE
These are the cached audio broadcasts of two radio interviews from last night and this morning by Leo Donofrio, New Jersey attorney, who has today finally had his lawsuit docketed in the Supreme Court.
Do not be a bit taken aback as I was at first by the first host, Ed, who has .. let's say a different way of speaking than the typical broadcaster... real down home, but he's good guy.
What shines is Mr. Donofrio, who is so earnest and lays out his premises in simple, intelligent, crystal-clear detail about the citizenship issue, IN BOTH INTERVIEWS, as described by the framers of our Constitution.. and why.
You can listen to both broadcasts, and decide his merits.
AND
HERE WITH ALAN STANG - 11-18-08 - (OPENS IN QUICKTIME FOR ME)
It will take some time to listen to both audios, but you'll absolutely understand how passionate he is about this pursuit, and how much he wants to protect America and her integrity.
They are MUST hears, in my view. If you can only listen to one, I recommend the latter one.
I posted the following on aanother thread and I am copying it here since it applies specifically to what Donifrio stated in one of his taped broadcasts.
From what I have read since this all came out a couple of days ago, the following paragraphs I think summarize the gist of the Donofrio suit.
There is no definition of the term “natural born” anywhere that can supercede what is contained in the Consitution itself. No law, statute, etc. can amend the U.S. Constitution, since it is the Supreme law of the land. (Or at least it is suppoesed to be.) Only an amendment can change what was originally writen in the constitution.
The only place the term “natural born” is defined (that can be considered legal) is within the Constitution itself. It is in the section refering to the president and that definition must be inferred by the fact that the founding fathers by adding the only exception to the “natural born” clause. The one exception allows for citizens at the time the constitution was adopted to be eligible to be President as well as “natural born” citizens.
The inference is pretty clear since the Founding Fathers were not “natural born” citizens because they were born as British subjects. This enabled them to be the early leaders of this country and get it started on the path they had laid out, but to deny the future leaders from having divided loyalties by birth. Hence to be a natural born citizen you must be born on U.S. soil and not have the possibility of foreign citizenship at birth to any other country.
Please correct me if any of you others who have read his suit feel my interpretation is missing something, but I think it sums up what Donofrio’s stance regarding the term “natural born” citizenship status.
I would note that when I studied the Constitution in grade school as a child, this is pretty close to the example my teacher provided to us. I will explain that in another post.
This is how my teacher explained the diferent types of citizens to us when I was a child. First she told us that there were three types of citizenship status by U.S. birth or parentage, by naturalization, and natural born which was by both parentage and birth combined. (Donofrio mentions four, but he just separated the first category into two.)
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 can not 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.
Donofrio’s case rests on Obama’s British and/or Kenyan citizenship by birth as the reason he is not qualified to serve as President. He claims that it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in the U.S. because his father bestowed foreign citizenship on him at birth so while he would be likely be considered a U.S. citizen even though his mother was only 18, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of a foreign country at the time of his birth.
The Socialist party candidate was born on foreign soil by two foreign parents, so he clearly can’t be qualified even though he is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Donofrio’s suit further claims that even though McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he was born on foreign soil, therefore he is a citizen by blood but not a “natural born” citizen.
I think I have stated it all correctly for those of you who can’t get on to Donofrio’s web page or listen to the tapes. I hope this helps. If any of the Freepers interpret things differently that I did, please feel free to state what you think. I promise I won’t be offended if I didn’t state something quite right.
Donofrio mentioned on one of the programs that the 1790 law was rewritten in 1795 because the writers realized that they could not change the definition of “Natural born” by legislation only by an amendment to the constitution.
I don’t want to take the space to restate your #22—but everyone should read it—it is excellent; and a clear cogent statement of the law as intended by the founders and drafters of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court could come down quite a bit short of this rendition and still hold Obama not eligible. But your statement of the operative principles is very good.
Among other things, in the context of John Dean’s article, it should be recognized that in a national emergency in which it was necessary to consider succession, we need to either look carefully at the Cabinet officials in the context of their eligibility to serve or amend the Constitution to provide the country with a reliable statement of succession.
Thank you!
That didn't stop the Mass. Supreme Court from changing the definition of 'marriage' with the stroke of a pen rather than by an amendment to the constitution.
(Oops! Uh...that don't count. Heh heh. What the court wants, the court gets, it seems.)
This case is posted at: http://grou.ps/zapem/home
It has the Donofrio blog, the Alan Keyes case, the audio tapes and articles are on the forums.
Forum update is here: http://zapem.aforumfree.com/leo-c-donofrio-vs-sos-nj-f5/11-19-449pm-full-conference-scheduled-with-scotus-t20.htm
Have at it, guys! Help LEO!
“Donofrio mentioned on one of the programs that the 1790 law was rewritten in 1795 because the writers realized that they could not change the definition of “Natural born” by legislation only by an amendment to the constitution.”
“That didn’t stop the Mass. Supreme Court from changing the definition of ‘marriage’ with the stroke of a pen rather than by an amendment to the constitution.
(Oops! Uh...that don’t count. Heh heh. What the court wants, the court gets, it seems.)”
I haven’t looked at the details of the Mass. Supreme Court case on marriage, in part because I don’t live in Mass. Did they change the definition of marriage or did they define the term marriage because it was not specifically defined in the Constitution? There is a difference between the two.
They are not supposed to change a definition that is already there, but they can define a term that is not defined in the constitutionm if I understand correctly.
The word, 'marriage' was already legally defined in legal dictionaries.
This is interesting and needs an Amendment, if the SCOTUS reads that definition as you do. Because no one can stop another country from conferring its citizenship on anyone. I realize we are talking about newborns here, and no one knows which newborns would later run for President.
However, the State Dept now finds that a baby born in another country to Americans is a natural born American. John McCain is a case in point but there are many others. The Americans have to meet a standard (like the one that Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet, not having been old enough to confer citizenship on her child had he been born outside the USA). But then the child is natural born.
However, some of these natural born citizens are also automatically considered citizens of the countries in which they were born. If that's a problem for being eligible for the presidency, we would need an amendment to the Constitution.
Here is another angle, even more common. A child is born here in the United States, to two naturalized citizens. Yet their countries of origin still consider them their citizens for life, anyway, even though the two have become American citizens. Not only that, but any child of theirs is also considered an automatic citizen of that country at birth. Thus you have an American, natural born, with another country also claiming he's a citizen there, too. It seems unfair to disqualify people from the presidency if at birth through no fault of their own another country claims them as citizens.
“The word, ‘marriage’ was already legally defined in legal dictionaries.”
I am not an attorney, just a “lowly” citizen trying to understand Donofrio’s case and asking a lot of questions about it too.
I personally beleive that a marriage should be between a man and a woman only. I personally I don’t like the decision of the Mass. Supreme Court. While I do not know the details of the case, I assume this was another case where liberal judges once again have redefined something based on their liberal beleifs. This was in Mass. after all! LOL! There is far too much of a liberal mindset in the courts today and I don’t think it is good for our Nation at all.
.
“Hence to be a natural born citizen you must be born on U.S. soil and not have the possibility of foreign citizenship at birth to any other country.”
You make some very good points in your post. I think it was the state department manual someone posted a link for earlier. In that manual there was one section that pointed out that a person was a citizen but not necessiarily a natural born citizen. The manual specifically stated that the term had not been defined and specifically mentioned the section of the Constitution that outlines the qualifications for president. You might want to go back and take a look at the manual that they posted above if you are interested in this issue.
I do think Donofrio’s case deserves to be heard by the full court because it is clear that people in this country and in fact even here on FR have different opinions as to what the term “natural born” citizen means. Some base their definition on English law, some with only the Constitution, and some on laws that were passed. If we on FR can not even come up with a concensus of opinion, when we are all pretty conservative people, then think about the magnatude of the difference of opinion nationwide.
I definitely think the time has come for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate and make a determination as to what constitutes a natural born citizen.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 103
CONTINUES:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
Ping to post # 33. ;o)
Thank you for posting the reference.
I know Donofrio specifically mentioned the 1790 law and the 1795 one that replaced it. In one of his radio interviews he specifically mentioned these two pieces of legislation. IIRC he stated that the 1795 legislation was passed because the writers of the 1790 legislation realized that they could not change the constitution and therefore rewrote the law.
He said that this interpretation was based on historical letters that discussed the pieces of legislation. I don’t remember specifically who he said the letters were addressed to and from, but I think he did name specific legislators from that time period. Perhaps another freeper who listened to the broadcasts remembers more than I do about the historical letters.
Of course, McCain didn't need any back-scratching, but Obammy made it sound like he did.
“Obama’s ploy with McCain was simply ‘I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine when the time comes.’
Of course, McCain didn’t need any back-scratching, but Obammy made it sound like he did.”
I think Senate bill # 511 & S. 2678 clearly illustrates that Obama was tring to pull sonething, that is for sure!
I definitely agree with your post.
It is time for the Supremes to fully define “natural born citizen.”
Flamenco Lady, I commend your grade school American history teacher, as well as your logical presentation of her explanation. I agree with what you wrote, as far as it goes.
There are some exceptions in legal precedents.
From 1952 until 1986, immigration law read, “If one of the parents is a US citizen and the child is born in a foreign country, the child is automatically a US citizen IF at least one parent has lived in the US for 10 years, 5 of them over the age of 16.” - section 4 of http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html
This implies that the U.S. citizen must be 21 or over, which rules out 18-year-old Stanley Ann Dunham Obama. Since 1986, the law reads, “2 years after the age of 14.” That is not retroactive; only the proviso about military and government employees is retroactive.
Therefore, if the birth took place anywhere outside the U.S., its territories and possessions, Stanley Ann’s citizenship is NOT conferred, and Barack Obama II is solely a British citizen by parentage from Barack Obama Snr.
But you will say, “That doesn’t apply if Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii.” No, it doesn’t. In that case, Stanley Ann’s U.S. citizenship was conferred, regardless of her age. Barack Obama Snr’s British citizenship was also conferred by parentage, making Barack Obama II a dual citizen. As such, he was not solely “under the jurisdiction thereof [of the U.S.]” per Amendment XIV, which may or may not make him a “natural born Citizen,” according to how the Supreme Court interprets “natural born.”
According to 1677 British civil law, Mr. Obama is in. But according to the 1795 revision of the Immigration Act of 1790, “natural born” is specifically excluded from such circumstances. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution also makes it plain that “natural born” does not include British subjects born on U.S. soil.
But after all is said and done, with only four originalist justices, the U.S. Supreme Court may say whatever will justify what they do, and then do just about anything.
Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski (The two who have the Stay Applications currently at SCOTUS) were on Plains Radio last night. http://www.plainsradio.com/show.html
The Joe Thunder interview with Leo and Cort from last night, 11-27-08, is found on the above link. The audio file is located on the left column, 3rd button down, it says “Joe Thunder’s Thurdays Show.”
There was some new information Leo discussed. Check it out.
Leo said he would have a new website up shortly:
http://wwww.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
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.