Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews
Ted thanks for the tip
Is Barack Obama Natural Born?
by Hargrove
Leo Donofrio, a retired lawyer, has convinced Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, to ask his peers to consider if Barack Obama is a natural born Citizen,” within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
Leo Donofrio’s basic premise is that the Framers of the Constitution excluded themselves from the category of natural born Citizen because they were previously subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Hence, a natural born Citizen is one who is born in the United States AND who is not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country.
According to Donofrio,
Since the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
The biggest flaw in Leo Donofrio’s analysis is that the Framers did not say that they were not natural born Citizens because they were “subject to British jurisdiction at the time of (their) birth.” What they said is that:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And they declined to define natural born Citizen, except by admitting the requirement of an exemption for themselves, thereby acknowledging that they were not included in that category. However, their exclusion could be due to the fact that they were not born in the United States, without regard to whether or not they had been “subject to British jurisdiction.”
A compelling argument against the “subject to jurisdiction” idea is that the Framers would have said it, if that’s what they meant. Besides, what they did say, contradicts that idea.
The Framers said that a candidate for president must “have been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” That means that an eligible candidate may reside under the jurisdiction of another country for 21 years or more.” Hence, it is unlikely that the founding fathers were concerned to avoid competing jurisdictional affiliations, since they expressly permitted residence in another country for long periods, including a majority of a candidate’s life.
As a matter of common sense, if the Framers wanted dual citizenship, as well as foreign birth, to make one ineligible to be president, they could have easily said so. Why would they make us guess that dual citizenship is as much of a prohibition to executive office, as the place of birth, when all they had to do was to include dual citizenship as another limiting condition.
Leo Donofrio and I agree that “the Framers “didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country,” consequently, the spirit of the law infers that reasonable issues of compromised loyalty can be raised, on a case by case basis.
In the case of Barack Obama, it is not reasonable to conclude that his loyalty would be compromised, because “British citizenship” was conferred on him at birth, due to his biological relationship to an estranged and unfamiliar father. This is especially true since, there is no evidence that he exercised any rights, burdens or privileges of that citizenship, nor did he confirm that citizenship in any way.
Leo Donofrio’s “subject to jurisdiction” theory is at odds with the traditional interpretation of the natural born Citizen, which has consistently been defined as a person who was born within the United States and it’s territories and possessions. Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii meets that definition.
The tradition of conferring Citizenship on Americans born in the United States is so fixed, in the interpretation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution until, even when neither parent is a Citizen, if their children were born in the United States, their children are American Citizens.
Surely Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, to an American citizen, makes him a natural born Citizen, eligible to be President; and the event of a “citizenship,” conferred on him because of his father’s nationality, does not extinguish his natural born Citizen status.
Finally, Barack Obama’s participation in his British Citizenship was non-existent, to the extent that it does not rise to a reasonable issue of compromised loyalty, and consequently, it should not merit a review on that issue. Therefore, Barack Obama should be allowed to assume the Presidency of the United States of America, without judicial interference.
OK folks, Team Obama and its allied MSM have finally responded to Leo Donofrio’s Supreme Court position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” — proceeding from phase 1 (ignore) to phase 2 (ridicule) now to phase 3 (respond with legal points) … on the way to phase 4 (acceptance).
Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNews — http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-Barack-Obama-Natural-Bo-by-Hargrove-081207-817.html — in a nutshell is as follows:
The Framers elected not to define “natural born citizen,” except by exempting themselves, which self exemption “could be due the fact that they were not born in the United States without regard to whether or not they had been subject to British jurisdiction,” and the Framers’ lack of concern about dual citizenship or loyalties is shown by their only requiring Presidents to have been residents in the United States for 14 years — meaning an eligible candidate born in the United States still could have resided under the jurisdiction of another country for 21 years or more; and even if the Framers WERE concerned about split loyalties, those were intended to be addressed on a “case by case basis” — and it would not be reasonable to conclude that Obama would have British loyalty since the British Citizenship conferred on him at birth was only “due to his biological relationship to an estranged and unfamiliar father.”
Team Obama concludes that the Framer’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as “Citizen” meaning all that is required is birth in the United States, even if neither parent is an American Citizen.
I’d say, if that’s all they got, Leo’s case is a slam dunk!
The article states:
“…However, their exclusion could be due to the fact that they were not born in the United States, without regard to whether or not they had been “subject to British jurisdiction….”
Thus part is misleading speculation as an assumption is made namely that the Framers did not regard whether or not they had been subject to British jurisdiction. Speculation by definition should be regarded as legally null and void. Exactly for that reason we should follow the content of the Constitution in it’s purest form.
Further it is stated:
“…Surely Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, to an American citizen, makes him a natural born Citizen, eligible to be President; and the event of a “citizenship,” conferred on him because of his father’s nationality, does not extinguish his natural born Citizen status…”
Now here, and this is a dangerous aspect of Leo’s statements in regards to him being certain that Barack Obama/Soetoro/Dunham indeed was born in Hawaii, they conviently sidestep the serious questions in regards to whether or not Barack was born in Hawaii while there are very strong indications he wasn’t and got norn in Mombassa, Kenya. Also the issue of the obviously forged COLB is kept out of the equation. Of course this is due the Donofrio approach in which those questions are not addressed.
@Ted
That’s correct. The only way you can argue against Donofrio is by excluding all comments and arguments made by the framers, whether by those of the Constitution or the 14th Amendment, all additional laws and later court rulings, and only by looking at the words themselves. I have made the same argument long ago, to see if one can in principle come up with a defense strategy against Donofrio. It’s almost impossible. It would need some hardcore reductionist thinking, only looking at the words themselves, with an almost linguistic approach, and also some constitutional creativity, especially with the 14th Amendment. And I definitely don’t know if such a strategy would succeed in court. Actually I doubt it would.
So if the SCOTUS wants to dismiss the case, they have to do it for other reasons, e.g. on standing etc.. But since Donofrio claims that he has standing, I wonder what arguments they will come up with.
S.Res.511 where the Senate tried to make McCain a Natural Born by Resolution., The Resolution is of course is silliness, not legally binding at all. But while discussing the resolution, some very interesting things were said. I quote from page S.2951
Chairman Leahy (to Secretary Chertoff): “[…] You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he [John McCain] is constitutionally eligible to become President?”
Secretary Chertoff: “My assumption and my understanding is that if YOU ARE BORN OF AMERICAN PARENT(S), you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
Chairman Leahy: “THAT IS MINE, TOO. Thank you.”
http://tinyurl.com/6zw7uq
I wonder why nobody answered: ……American parents? PLURAL?—Obama? Hellooooo?
“The light starts to go for alot of people when they ask themselves, “What distinction did the Framers make reference to between “Citizens” who could be Senators….. and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be President. “
Hargrove’s argument has one HUGE flaw. He writes that “if the Framers wanted dual citizenship, as well as foreign birth, to make one ineligible to be president, they could have easily said so.”
That’s a categorical error, as Donofrio has already shown. In the Qualification clause they already distinguish between “natural born citizens” and other “citizens”. If they had wanted to include other classes of citizens, they would have written only that the President needs to be a “citizen”, or a “citizen (excluding naturalized citizens)”. But they didn’t: They wrote “natural born citizen”, as opposed to other citizens.
In my opinion, Hargrove has no real argument here.
Carol……
In order to be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” —– BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO BE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES…..With that being said Mr. Obama is not a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” because his father is Kenyan and his mother US….Mr. Obama is not eligible to be POTUS……..
OK - Again Folks … They have produced not one ounce of paper trail to be substantiated about hardly anything. The ONE document he has produced has him as an Islamic Indonesian citizen. Once you give up your claim to US citizenship you can well be “born again” but you’ll never be natural born. We have all the proof he isn’t eligible, where is his proof that he is as he says.
“I’m sorry, Mrs Soetoro, it’s the rules & I don’t make them. Little Barry can’t play Junior Soccer if you can’t provide us with a birth certificate.
No Carol, that is not correct. To be “natural born” is the status of the the child born and has nothing to do with where their parents were born. I was born in America but my parents were not, yet I am a natural born citizen.
As for Obama’s or anyone’s question about what “natural born” meant, one only need to open up a DICTIONARY:
Natural: occurring NATURALLY; NOT ACQUIRED
Naturalized = ACQUIRED, not occurring naturally
Key word: “natural” is NOT “acquired”
@SayWhat?
Your argument is false, because the status “natural born citizen” refers to the moment at birth. If LATER one has an additional (or sole) non-US citizenship, and EVEN LATER returns to be a citizen of the US, one would still be a natural born citizen. It’s only the status at birth that counts, and it is perpetual and indestructable. What comes later, is totally irrelevant, no matter what.
And that’s the issue I have with the Indonesia theory: It disregards that it’s irrelevant, because either Barack is eligible AT BIRTH, or he’s not. In both cases, it doesn’t matter, what comes later.
PS: And being a Muslim is nothing bad. I have lots of Muslim friends. But lying about being a Muslim in order to win a US election… that’s something else. (But for that you need proof, and it has to be a bit more than one facsimile from AP.)
Dear SayWhat? I beg to differ on the Indonesian issue in sofar that by obtaining the Indonesian nationality his American Nationality would have been revoked given that Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship.
Also on the subject of Islam I differ given that in Islam one commits oneself to the Ummah, or citizenship of the Nation of Islam. For Islam The Umma supersedes any wordly nationalities and more importantly so loyalities.
Taqqyya allows for the Muslim, when it is the interest of Islam expansion, to openly deny being Muslim. In theory it would even be allowable to make a pledge on for instance the Bible if this would further the interest of the Ummah,
I would advise checking the relevant sections on this site dealing with islamization and the dangers thereof.