Replies

Mr. Donofrio has published yet another historical piece on Wong Kim Ark. This piece looks into the history of a document that Justice Gray relied upon in writing his decision in WKA.

He also very effectively makes the case that WKA is a horrible SCOTUS decision, which today’s court really should be forced to addressed. With the Malihi decision in Georgia an appeal-able case, it just may be possible to present before SCOTUS the means and ability to so just that.

Enjoy!

God bless you Leo! Thank you for giving us back out REAL history!

Mr. Donofrio's research is excellent. However, we are spending many cycles about statute while ignoring its intent.

Mr. Jay wanted to ensure the commander in chief of our armed forces had sole allegiance to the United States.

The armed forces prevent dual citizens from serving due to their questionable allegiance. They too must have sole allegiance to the United States.

If officers and enlisted personnel are required a strict form of allegiance, why would the president be allowed to command an army against an enemy to which he owes allegiance by birth or by statute???

I meant to say something about this earlier...

Now GOOGLE is scrubbing information off the internet. Is it just me or am I starting to turn into Mulder off the x-files... TRUST NO ONE.

"Besides Justice Gray’s infamous misleading quote from Binney appearing on pg. 666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, spookier anomalies have popped up throughout my research of the natural-born citizen issue. Of course, JustiaGate takes the prize and sets the standard for this kind of freaky malevolence. But just now it happened again with regard to the passage just quoted from the Great American Lawyers text. I downloaded the book from Google Books about eight weeks ago. And it’s to that downloaded copy which I have provided a link to above. The text is in the public domain and therefore, as of eight weeks ago, the entire book was available as a preview, and as a download from this link.

Well, it’s a good thing I downloaded it then, because as of today, Google has Justiafied the text, so that pg. 170 has been clipped from both the preview, and the downloadable version. The part about Justice Gray having the Binney paper in his private library has been scrubbed by Google as of today. Download the Google copy and compare it to the copy available here at my blog. They do not match. And this development has taken place recently, since I downloaded the full copy from Google Books just a few weeks ago. What a freak show, America. Raise the lights, dim the Twilight Zone theme, and let’s get down to business."

This is possibly Leo’s best research so far.. such a tangled web!

The ‘birthers’ NEED a spokesperson, better PR, and a cohesive plan to get this info. out... this has such far reaching implications, yet, only a few are aware. National security’s greatest blind-side.

IIRC, way back Leo did state at one time that WKA was correctly decided...to the extent that it did NOT make WKA an NBC but only “as much a citizen” as an NBC.

Now with this new research on the Binney boo-boo it appears Leo has made a convincing case that the much quoted “as much a citizen” passage was deleted as bogus in peer review at the law journal that published the final third edition of the paper.

As a result Leo is now taking the position that WKA was wrongly decided in even making WKA a citizen!

For those wanting to cut to the chase, here is the key section of Leo's piece as it relates to the WKA ruling:

quote

The note in the ALR version appears on pg. 13, and you can see that the following passage was stripped from the final edition:

“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

Justice Gray relied on this deleted, and discredited passage, not only on pgs. 665-666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, but he also relied on it in the holding, on pg. 693.

end quote