THE OBAMA FILE PART 2

Submitted by: LadyByrd

Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 "'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children bornin a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives ornatural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.  For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.  It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168." Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt.  Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth.   He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British. Attorney Leo Donofrio contends the citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.  (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v. Happersett, here and here.)  Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.  That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.  My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship. THIS is an important essay and should be read and understood by all.

Donofrio On Minor

Spaulding says the 1790 Naturalization act asserted exceeded the authority of the Congress, and was eliminated from US Code in the 1795 act.  But it was a "Naturalization Act."  There are two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized.  Like the 14th Amendment, the most it could have done was to create a naturalized "born citizen", which was called a "native born citizen of the US, as Obama declared himself to be.  The 1790 act, deceptively used by Obama’s constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe, when he asserted that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to two citizen parents in the submission by Tribe and Ted Olson to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over Senate Res 511, which was signed in agreement by all senators including Obama, but excluding McCain (as it could have cause legal trouble had he prevailed over Obama).       Leo Donofrio has erased any legal doubts about whether Justice Waite's statement was dictum.  The Minor case was built upon the “..., it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” statement, previously common law understood by our framers, as were almost all terms used in the Constitution.  It was the only constitutional definition of a class of citizen before the 14th Amendment.  Virginia Minor was one of the majority of citizens who were natural born citizens, thus asserting beyond doubt that she was a citizen.  About the class of naturalized citizens there were many doubts, so Waite told us his decision was independent of the 14th Amendment by design, and thus uncorrupted by the doubts about who were citizens.      No law, no amendment, no supreme court decision has altered the definition made precedent by Minor v. Happersett.  It is a remarkable time when states, beholden to political forces, unions, statists, will resort to altering the constitutional definition of who is eligible to be president in their official documents.  It is more understandable that Obama’s fellow travelers, people who honestly, as Barack told us, want to dispense with the Constitution because it prevents them from doing what they feel the nation needs.  The owners of justia.com, federal judges who are all political appointees, will lie to protect what they perceive as their political comrades.  Now both New York and Indiana have shown that holding temporary power -- because that is all that it will be -- trumps the constitution.

Apuzzo On Minor

Attorney Mario Apuzzo says you have got to love Obama’s enablers. They have a web site called, "A Place to Get the REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship." Clearly, the title of this web site refers to this web site, "Natural Born Citizen -- A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers," which I created in December 2008.    Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are "perfect gentlemen." Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask ourselves whether these so-called "owners" are just straw owners who take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.     Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II "natural born" Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory "born" Citizen, we hardly saw the clause "natural born" Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a "Citizen" of the United States or a "native-born citizen," whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all "natural born" Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have given to it if they pushed it that far.     Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog. They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a "natural-born citizen" given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a "citizen" in order to determine whether as a "citizen" she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a "citizen," it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a "citizen" did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a "natural born Citizen" or just a "citizen." Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a "citizen" she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the "natural-born citizen" path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a "natural-born citizen" was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" and therefore also a "citizen." After the Court told us what a "natural-born citizen" was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a "citizen." The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" which necessarily also made her a "citizen."    Appuzo provides a detailed legal analysis of this question here . . .    And concludes:    Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the "Birthers" with the same brush and paint that they paint those who question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks, and whether there is some plot to create a "One World Order." But there is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II "natural born" Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by documentation that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a "natural born" Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.     And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a living.

Chester Arthur

Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before.  Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life. He wasn’t a "natural born citizen" and he knew it. We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year. Historical facts here, and there's more juicy stuff on Chester Arthur in the video above.

The Boston Globe On Natural Born

Donofrio's blog has a news item from the Boston Globe saying for presidential eligibility, "native born" does not equal "natural born." You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be president.  Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune.  These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News. Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka "The People’s Lawyer."  (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the "People’s Lawyer" of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.) The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:           "The fact that the Constitution says "natural" instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed.  A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.  A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen."       It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens.  But Bridgham also states that while these children are "native born" citizens, they are not "natural born" citizens and therefore cannot be president. Bridgham further states:      "A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution.  The very definition of natural is "fixed or determined by nature,"…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning."

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.  That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution).  The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects.  If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S.  The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen.  If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct. In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (above).

Perkins v. Elg

Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is. In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S. Citizen: On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States.  Civil Rights Act of 1866: Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) native-born citizen: This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis) Natural Born Citizen: U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts:  Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907.  Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).] U. S. Supreme Court's Holding:  The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).] Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907.  The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse. Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

The Acts of 1906 and 1907

After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well. Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York.  The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law.  The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a "natural born citizen," you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR).  The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth.  The  U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen"  using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why.  The law is corroborated. All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof.  Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman's status was tied to that of her husband.

Derivative Law

Elg's Mother derived US citizenship when her father was naturalized.  This was automatic -- it's called derivative citizenship.  These are the forms of derivative citizenship that were effective due to federal statute at the time Elg was born:  1.  An alien woman obtained automatic US citizenship when she married a US citizen male. 2.  An alien woman obtained automatic us citizenship when her alien husband became naturalized.  So, in 1907 when Elg was born on US soil, both of her parents were US citizens, therefore she was a "natural born citizen." Funny thing is, when the US Supreme Court decided the case, the derivative citizen laws had changed, however, they retroactively applied them... because they had to.  They had to use the law at the time of Elg's birth... because that's when she was born, hence she was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth and nothing could change that. In essence, the 19th Amendment gave a woman equal footing under the law overriding the common law (e.g. judge made law) which referred to women as "property" of a man.  That is the essence of derivative citizenship.

19th Amendment

The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.  It was ratified on August 18, 1920. Prior to this date, a woman's citizenship was derived from her husband.  If the husband was an American citizen, then the wife was an American citizen (derivative law). This fact plays a role in determining natural born citizen status -- two American citizen parents. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, a woman's citizenship status is determined on her parents, place of birth or naturalization.

Immigration And Naturalization

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1, Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization.

TWO Citizen Parents