The Objectively Gray Propaganda Of Masked Rascals.

Justice Horace Gray’s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has provided the basis for 14th Amendment citizenship since 1898. But history must record the fact that Gray, whether aware of it or not, had a greater personal stake in the outcome of the case than any Supreme Court justice ever has had in a case…and by a very wide margin. Gray’s appointment came at the hands of Chester Arthur. Back in Dec. ’08, this blog exposed the fact that Arthur’s father didn’t become a citizen of the United States until 1843, when Chester was 14 years old. Therefore, Chester Arthur was a natural-born subject of the British empire.

If the Supreme Court had decided in Wong Kim Ark (WKA) that the children of alien parents domiciled in the country were not citizens under the 14th Amendment, then Chester Arthur would not have been a citizen at birth. Upon being exposed, his administration might have been rendered void, his name stripped from the list of presidents, and his official actions reversed. That the Court decided Ark, and indirectly Arthur, were citizens, does not mean they were natural-born, as this requires a separate and distinct analysis.

Ok folks, this is a TREMENDOUSLY important posting. Don't just read it once, read it twice, then take notes on the third.

The information in this post eviscerates Justice Gray's credibility. Gray should have recused himself from WKA. But I have to say, I believe that if he had, the question would have most certainly been asked "Why recuse?". That would have admittedly been a sticky question, but to recuse was still the ethical choice.

WKA shifted American law into directions it was never intended to go in. It has caused a mass of confusion in immigration laws, and ultimately led to the existence of Anchor Babies in my opinion. Unintended consequences... this is why Judicial Restraint is so bloody important!

Enjoy!

Gray did a lot of peculiar things in the WKA decision, but ultimately, he upheld and affirmed Minor's definition of NBC. I believe Gray knew he could not ignore that definition, especially since Minor was unanimously decided. He opted to make a distinction between natural-born citizen and what he called "citizenship by birth" as two separate terms, but the latter still came with conditions that were needed to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Whether Gray's efforts were used to cover for Chester Allan Arthur is purely speculative. The WKA ruling supports Minor's definition of NBC: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. In the Minor definition, it never specifically says that Viriginia Minor was born in the country to citizen parents, but Gray recognized that she obviously was when he gave the holding to the case:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...

What purpose does it serve to emphasize that Viriginia Minor was born to citizen parents if it is irrelevant to her citizenship or her right to vote?? This is the million dollar question that silences all the Obots and any other persons on the fence. The right to vote if based on citizenship would be no different for a naturalized citizen than any other type or class of citizen, so why emphasize that Minor was born of citizen parents??

Danae, that this analysis appears in Free Republic, is a tribute to brilliance of the 1st Amendment. In scholarship a thesis gets reviewed and reviewed until a committee of experts feels it is ready for defense, and then publication. We have seen Mr. Donofrio’s intellectual process, first, making historical discoveries which opened questions about many other written decisions used to shape our republic. What is now being interpreted, albeit for a lay audience because the elite have too much at risk for their not having had the integrity or intellectual acuity, or both, to raise these questions, are provisions and decsions that our framers always intended to be accessible to citizens. A privilieged legal class has developed, which is no surprise, but, as Tim Stanley, and Carl Malamud argued, the legal decsions should be available to every citizen. Too bad Stanley and Malamud abused the notion by corrupting those documents, but their principle was correct. Mr. Donofrio is provided even more than they alluded to, the analysis to counter the lies of those associated with the current party in power, Stanley, Malamud, Maskill, Kagan, Tribe...

Mr. Donofrio has exposed the perfidy of a few individuals, beginning with a scoundrel president (Thomas Reeves biography of Arthur reveals Arthur's apprenticeship in the Roscoe Conklin machine suggesting similarities to Obama’s Chicago Machine). But Donofrio’s brilliant analysis of the cases is what makes his work so unique. It isn't about partisan politics or mysterious documents or hidden records. It is about flouting the law. A case can be made that Justice Gray laid the foundation which has allowed Obama and his cadre to wreck havoc on our Republic.

We are reading the galley proofs of what should be the political blockbuster of the decade, if not the century. The avoidance of the issue by both major parties, state-run media, and our entire legal establishment, is a testimony to the importance of both the 1st Amendment and individual freedom. Most people follow leaders and pundits, but leaders become beholden to their community's acceptance for income and social recognition. To think about and discuss the issues being brilliantly discovered and analyzed by Mr. Donofrio requires intellectual independence, and, in spite of, perhaps because of, infestation by many prominent Obama operatives, Free Republic is where this issue is being discussed.

When the promise of a compilation of Mr. Donofrio’s works is announced, even if it is just the published collection of articles, these are documents of historical significance, I will subscribe. Perhaps Mr. Donofrio can find an editor, perhaps his sister, to organize the pre-press release, for which I know there will be a market? Jack Maskill will certainly be a customer, and probably Mark Levin. It appears that the Center for American Progress knew full well of the percent established by Minor, but they may not have dug into WKA.

And, while Mr. Donofrio has barely hinted, focused as he is on unraveling the cloud created by Justice Gray, and later by Obama’s cadre, WKA was the justification for anchor babies. Anyone who has thought about the issue has wondered at the decision to accept as citizens the children of illegal immigrants, immigrants who may hate our republic and all it stands for. That we accept responsibility for their education and health care seems just another insult to a nation premised upon individual responsibilities. What if WKA is wrongly decided? Of course, this administration is preparing by removing obstacles to voting by non-citizens, but that the law may have been wrongly decided is suggested by the many questionable interpretations based upon WKA.

Well said Spaulding! You caught onto precisely the same things I did regarding what a tremendous service Mr. Donofrio has done this country. He is giving us back our REAL history, in context. There is no way to pay back this debt.

I would love to see Leo publish a book, a compilation of his blog postings, further analysis, what ever he should choose to do. I would without a doubt be the first on the list to purchase it. This man has done so much work and so much research... If money can be equated to a statement of value, and I think that an easy argument to make, then Leo Donofrio should be a rich man due to the work he publishes at his site. And it is all made available by him for free. God Bless him!

Here is where it gets sticky.... WKA was born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the Untited States. This made them Nationals of the US, but NOT citizens. Further, the treaty that Leo spoke of, states that by treaty, WKA’s parents had legal status in the USA and were subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States which is why their child was born a Citizen, but not a natural Born Citizen.

Now, look at Obama, Stanley Ann could not confer citizenship because she was 18 when Barack was born. By law, she had to reside in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 in order to do so, and she does not fall into that category at the time her boy was born. Second, Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the USA. He was a transient student on a visa. Because Citizenship follows the Father, Barack Jr was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948, because his father was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain. Stanley Ann doesn’t matter in this, if anything she became a British Citizen upon her marriage - but I am not going to hold firm on that assertion because I don’t have the specific information to back that up, only the part about the age of being capable of passing on citizenship in the case where a child is illegitimate or the father unknown etc.

So.... this means that Barry Obama was born British, and because he father was not permanently domiciled here, and his mother could not convey citizenship that Barry was born British, with a 14th amendment claim of American Citizenship, but NOT with Natural Born Citizenship Status.

It is the “Permanently Domiciled” part that matters to a great degree. Obama can’t hide who his father is and that he was never a permanent resident, so he distracted people with his place of birth instead. Just like Chester Arthur did.

Obama should be removed from Office IMMEDIATELY.

I don’t doubt it.

It all comes down to the status of the parents. WKA’s were permanently domiciled here, and the treaty with China states that this status meant that they had switched their allegiance to the USA.

Barack Sr. never had any sort of allegiance to the USA. His son was born British. Whether he has ANY citizenship status in the USA is HIGHLY questionable legally. Citizenship follows the father. Ann married a Brit, but had her son too young to confer citizenship to him. Barry MIGHT be a Citizen of the USA, but there is no way in hell he was ever for a nanosecond a Natural Born Citizen. He was born a British Subject.

He should be removed from office IMMEDIATELY.

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.