Replies

Whether Obama is a British Subject or not is only a supporting argument to determining whether he does satisfy Article IIs requirement of a President of the United States.

I beg to differ. It is the ONLY argument in Donofrio's case.

Again, from his blog:

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship "at birth" and therefore split loyalties "at birth", he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. A "natural born citizen" would have no other jurisdiction over him "at birth" other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words "natural born" and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, "natural born citizen", pertains to the status of the person's citizenship "at birth".
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, "at birth", a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional "natural born citizen" status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
Obama has admitted to being a British subject "at birth". And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.
As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer "natural born citizen" status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a "Citizen", and only if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

This is the only argument he talks about.

I beg to differ. It is the ONLY argument in Donofrio’s case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You will find that Donofrio has claimed that 3 candidates in NJ are not natural born citizens of the USA pursuant to Article II of the constitution.

What Donofrio argues on his blog is not necessarily what he might argue
on a Cert Pet hearing, if it ever gets that far, as we hope.

Again the context is not that British Law “trumps” US law. If Obama was a British Subject at Birth, that does not by itself exclude him from office. He would have to be in fact “born in Kenya” and not a “natural born American”.

This natural born requirement is a wild card which can result in him being a valid candidate, depending on what logic SCOTUS would apply to the case if they hear it.So Donofrio is not asking SCOTUS to abdicate its duty to “British Law.”

It is entirely possible for SCOTUS to decide that Obama, even though in fact born in Kenya, is a “natural born” American as the natural son of a US Citizen.

My son, born in Newfoundland, was issued a “Certificate of Birth of an American Citizen Born Abroad” by the US consulate in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for example.It is frequently issued for the sons and daughters of military personnel.

So even if Obama was indeed born in Kenya as a matter of fact, we are by no means out of the woods.Article II has had no SCOTUS law decided under its provisions. Its new legal territory.

So British Law does not “trump” US law. It is merely an argument that can be made, that Obama fits within the exclusionary version of an historical argument. Scotus does not necessarily have to apply that argument, and will decide for itself what “natural born “ actually means. No case has decided that before.

Lets hope it gets to the hearing stage.