SITREP Obama Citizenship Dec 1 ‘08 – Donofrio Sharpens the Focus

By DemocracyRules

In my Nov 30 SITREP, I described a piece by Judah Benjamin, which concludes that Obama is not eligible to be President, by Obama's own admission.  That is, Obama has clearly and publicly stated he was born a dual citizen because his father was Kenyan, and the laws of Kenya at that time conferred Kenyan citizenship to the newborn automatically.

Benjamin explains where the “natural born citizen” phrase comes from.  He explains that according to British common law, “natural born citizen” means that when a baby is born to British soil, and it has an undivided allegiance to the British Crown, then  the baby is a “natural born citizen.”  (Actually the British called people “subjects”, but the Framers of the US Constitution substituted “citizens”.)

Benjamin then concludes that more Obama documents are irrelevant, because Obama was born with divided allegiance between the US and Kenya, so he is not now, nor shall he ever be, a “natural born citizen”.

Judah Benjamin is not a lawyer.  He has legal training, but his arguments are based on his careful reading of sound legal sources.  He cites his sources and he exposes his reasoning so clearly that if he makes a mistake, people can find it and challenge it.

That’s what lawyer Leo Donofrio did today.  He challenges Benjamin’s reasoning in an interesting way.  Donofrio digs deeper, and in the process makes the case even stronger.  He also makes it easier for me to understand! 

Donofrio agrees with Benjamin’s conclusion.  He agrees that Obama is ineligible because he was born with dual citizenship.

But Donofrio has a problem with the way Benjamin uses the precedents set by British common law.  Benjamin refers to a landmark legal book by Blackstone, from 1769.  Blackstone defined “natural born subject” just the way I described. 

But Donofrio points out that once the Framers had consulted Blackstone and other sources to write the Constitution, they mainly dispensed with British common law after that.  America was a new country, and they made a fresh start.  From then forward,  Americans would use their Constitution as the legal point of reference, not the British common law. 

This makes sense.  The British didn't (and still don’t) have a written Constitution.  Instead they rely on the precedents set by the hundreds of years of legal judgments that they call the Common Law.

Donofrio says the meaning of “natural born citizen” is clear even in the Constitution itself.  One doesn’t need to bother referring to British common law.  He points to the whole passage in  Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, which says:

 “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;”

He focuses our attention on “or a Citizen of the United States,” and asks what it’s doing there?  The Framers were very economical with their words, they got rid of meaningless phrases.  He says it can only mean one thing.  If a person was born before the Constitution was adopted, they were probably born in Britain, but even if they were born in America, they were still born as British subjects. As Americans, they would have had divided allegiance.

The day the US Constitution was adopted, everyone became US citizens, but no one was a “natural born citizen”.  The new babies would be, but no one else would be.  Everyone but the new babies would technically have divided allegiance because they weren’t “natural born citizens” of the USA.  Thus, that extra phrase is for the citizens that weren’t “natural born”.  They could still be President, if they were born before the Constitution was adopted.  But after all those people died of old age, then it was “natural born citizens” only.

So now the clause makes sense, and each part fits with the other part.  The whole thing goes together to make one meaningful unit:

 “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;”

From that day the Constitution was adopted, people knew who could become, and who could not become the President of the USA.

So that’s Leo Donofrio’s argument, and I like it better than Judah Benjamin’s.  The two are very similar, but Donfrio’s is more economical, because he doesn’t need to use British common law.  I must say though, that I didn’t really understand Donofrio’s argument until I had read Benjamin’s!

Judah Benjamin’s argument is here.

Leo Donofrio’s argument is here

The bottom line is, whether you prefer Benjamin’s argument or Donofrio’s argument, Obama can’t become President because he was born with divided allegiance.  Therefore he can never be deemed a “natural born citizen”.

Pro Patria

Comments

[Ted]

"Dirty Pool" at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio's companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II "natural born citizen" reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio's case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!

[Claudia]

Referencing the above case scenario by Donofrio as opposed to Benjamin's case, Donofrio has it PRECISELY RIGHT!!!

I have been saying this all along since I first figured out that Obama is a dual citizen, which he freely admitted, on his Fightthe Smears website, and that the very admission of those words makes him NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS..... PERIOD, end of story, end of game, he is out for the third strike, done, fini, over, ended, not eligible to be President, therefore they must remove him and stand by the Constitution, for that is their primary loyalty.

We only need four out of nine to send it to hearing. Now we need to get Wronoski's (sp?) case heard along with it and Berg's on the 5th also.

Repetition makes for strength in this particular instance and the more that they hear the same day during the same session, the better our case is and it holds a stronger chance of getting a more positive reasoning, when they see that there are a lot of people in this country who are demanding that they stand by our Constitution.

[Claudia]

Follow-up: WND is offering FedEx delivered letters to SCOTUS by Friday AM (not faxes or emails) letters, printed on paper, for a cost of #10.95, charged to your Cr card or Debit card, in the hopes that numbers of people will be sending them in to prove to SCOTUS that there are many people who are following this agenda and want to be heard on this particular item. To send your letters in, follow this link....

https://shop.wnd.com/store
/item.asp?roi=echo3-3217226414-2658931-810baa4f5389f448b6fd3778cba4d5b7&DEPARTMENT_ID=43&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=152&ITEM_ID=2559

just go to their site and enter your info and send that letter to show that you are an aggrieved party to this action.

[yes but truthfully]

Stop chasing your tails. Look at what your lovely Bush did...

_______________________________
{From DR -- I'm sorry YBT, but your comment is far to long, too rambling, and too unfactual. I'll edit what I can, and delete the rest. Please, keep comments short, focused on topic. If you make extravagant claims, provide proof to support them! -- Pro Patria}

____________________________________

Guantanamo 'a stain on US military'

Darrel Vandeveld tells the BBC why he quit as a Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, By Gordon Corera

("BBC News" is a heavily Socialist News Source, by their own admission. The BBC is constantly critical of the US. They have been caught distorting facts, misquoting sources, and selectively focusing on any errors of the US or capitalism. They almost never criticize Communists, no matter what they do.)

The BBC claims that Lt Col Darrel Vandeveld said,
"I know so many fighting men and women who are stained by the taint of Guantanamo, so I'm here to tell the truth about Guantanamo and how a few people have sullied the American military and the Constitution."

There is no independent verification from Lt Col Darrel Vandeveld that the quote is genuine.

A reservist, Darrel Vandeveld was called up as a military lawyer after 9/11 and served in Iraq, Bosnia and Africa.

In 2007, he became a prosecutor for the military commissions which tried terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, a role he took enthusiastically.

"I went down there on a mission and my mission was to convict as many of these detainees as possible and put them in prison for as long as I possibly could," the BBC claims he enthused ecstatically.

It was one case in particular, that of a young Afghan called Mohammed Jawad, which caused most concern.
Mr Jawad was accused of throwing a grenade at a US military vehicle, but of course that couldn't possibly be true.

Col Vandeveld says that in a locker he found indisputable evidence that most BBC reporters secretly yearn to be water boarded.

After Mr Jawad had tried to commit suicide by banging his head against a padded wall at Guantanamo, Col Vandeveld says that psychologists who assisted interrogators advised taking advantage of Mr Jawad's vulnerability by subjecting him to "extra-mean interrogation techniques".

He was moved from cell to cell every few hours, with the aim of preventing him sleeping properly, and encouraging a confession.

The BBC claims Vandeveld didn't like this, because it wasn't "nice".

As a result, he took the unusual step of emailing a Jesuit priest called Father John Dear, who is well known for his peace activism, his farm machinery, and his lawn tractors. "To my dearest John Dear", he wrote.

John Dear is claimed to have replied, "I sort of didn't believe it. But on the off chance he was a military prosecutor I wrote back and said 'quit' (and buy more lawn tractors!)."

Col Vandeveld says his jaw dropped when he read the email, "I lived in dread of that answer." The surgeon who re-attached Col Vandeveld's jaw was not interviewed.

"I never suffered such anguish in my life about anything. Ouch! Ow ow ow w-wow!" he said, looking sadly at the drooling BBC reporter, who was writing all this drivel down, hoping to find a way to spin the story so he could keep his job.

Col Vandeveld was prosecuting six cases, including that of Binyam Mohamed, the last British resident held at Guantanamo.

Col Vandeveld declined to discuss details of Mr Mohamed's case and others which remain classified. The BBC, however, is sure that the accused are all innocent. However, we can be pretty sure the BBC wouldn't want any of them living next door.

But Binyam Mohamed's lawyers say he was tortured as part of the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme. They claim he was forced to eat tea and crumpets at every meal, dress poorly, have bad teeth, and ride around in "trams".

Darrel Vandeveld explains why he has gone pubic. He was forced to undergo a mental status evaluation after expressing his concerns, and his military career is over. Interrogators lashed him to a torture rack and asked him questions from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). He passed out from boredom several times.

But he has returned to his community in Erie where one local Commie rag has praised his stand. According to the BBC, he has no regrets about anything except the 5 new lawn tractors he had to buy.

The BBC reporter has no regrets either, but that's because on the MMPI, he would have scored high on the psychopathy scale, and psychopaths don't regret anything.

In response to his claims, a Pentagon spokesman told the BBC: "We dispute Darrel Vandeveld's assertions and maintain the military commission process provides full and fair trials to accused unlawful enemy combatants who are charged with a variety of war crimes."

President-elect Barack Obama has said he wants to shut Guantanamo. However, we can be pretty sure he wouldn't want any of them living next door either. "How would that help my family?" commented Michelle Obama.

Someone has suggested renting a large building in London to house the Gitmo inmates. It is currently occupied by a certain British Broadcasting Company, whose name has not been disclosed. The plan is to lock the Gitmo people in with the reporters, and let them go wild.

[rrobin]

This info came from the DD site and the link below is BIG!

It’s a link to the Earthfrisk blog posting of the Hawaiian Health Services site where their own words differentiate between a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth versus what Obama has posted, forgery or not - a Certification of Live Birth.
It’s at the very top of their page - you won’t need to scroll down hardly.
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog//?p=134

[beth]

PLEASE SEE ALSO: The Yale Law Journal: “Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility” at: http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html

(and its link to Jill A. Pryor’s, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty” 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988) at: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf )

______________________________

{From DR -- Thanks for the links. Judah Benjamin discusses these papers on Texas Darlin. They don't seem to add or subtract much from the issue at hand. (One of the key articles is written by a freind of Obama's!)

Although the articles are interesting, they mainly address what the Constitution "should say". Or they discuss how it should be revised and amended. Legals discussions about Article II Section 1 have been going on for at least 150 years. Congress has set out to amend that part many times.

But ultimately no amendment has passed, and nothing has changed the Constitutional meaning of that clause. "Natural born citizen" still means what the Framers intended it to mean.

Scholarly articles about how it should be changed are fine. But until Article II section 1 is changed by Constitutional amendment, it means what the Framers intended it to mean.

Obama is out.

Pro Patria}