There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:
“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.
Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the 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.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
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.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
“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.”
The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.
Stop and think about that.
The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.
And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”
Follow Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit here:
Citizen WElls 
Time for an email campaign. Let’s try for hundreds, if not thousands, of us to bombard these people. Please send a separate email to each of:
hannity@foxnews.com
ontherecord@foxnews.com
oreilly@foxnews.com
fns@foxnews.com
Here is a sample email you can use. It is not too confrontational and is reasonably balanced. (Don’t want them to think we are just lunatics and sore losers.)
===================================
Obama Eligibility Issues
Please report on these activities. I beg of you – for the good of the country! This is the biggest story since the beginning of television, and you totally ignore it. Even if it turns out good for Obama, there is a huge story in the number of people who are deeply concerned about this and the number and quality of lawsuits in-work with more to come. Report on THAT.
There are two different lawsuits active at the US Supreme Court right now. One is scheduled for a full conference of all nine judges on December 5. Another is awaiting response from the Obama camp by December 1. So far, Obama has resisted all attempts by journalists and courts to obtain information. He refuses to supply any data relative to his birth or citizenship.
The only available documents are posted on websites as photographs or “scans” of purported real documents. The existence of or veracity of these real documents have been in question for some time. As of this weekend, technical analysis underway has revealed, with very little room for error, that these documents have been forged.
Dear sir – THIS IS NEWS!
No specific facts of the situation are above dispute – either pro or con – but the abundance of credible information and the high level of legal activity make this an important topic. Not only should you be reporting it, but you should be involved in significant investigative journalism.
How can you promote your role as a fair and balanced information source when you do not even mention these critical activities? And, I don’t buy for a second that this is because the results aren’t final yet. You always report on significant activities “in progress”.
Continued silence is not helping anybody. You are not only allowing, but aiding and abetting, a great sore to fester. Better to address it sooner than later. And, not, it will NOT go away by itself. It will only get bigger and bigger.
The Supreme Court CANNOT DUCK Obama’s Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis (albeit the media blackout on the issue). The messiah will NOT become President! This 90-minute blogradio program explains why:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html
I believe it would be interesting to discuss the following articles (sort of summary):
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811222725/editorial/the-great-birth-certificate-scandal-cover-up-of-the-2008-election.html
“The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election”
November 22, 2008
by Joan Swirsky
————————————————————
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
“Polarik’s final report:
Obama’s ‘Born’ Conspiracy
Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud”
By Ron Polarik, PhD
Posted by Polarik on Saturday, November 22, 2008 5:09:00 AM
=================================
TO ALL THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICS.While we are still under The Bush Ad,,,You have the rights to demand that all of Obamas records be opened.This is war time ,and Homeland security is up most to the protection of all Ameican citizens.No stone should be unturned.OUR FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS.
Prior to 1948, both U.K. and U.S. defined citizenship by “geography, or jurisdiction,”
although they made exceptions for “blood, or descent.”
As the empire dwindled, facing millions of former subjects wanting to move to Great
Britain, the U.K. modified its laws to “blood, or decent,” with exceptions made for
“jurisdiction.”
The U.S. did not change.
What this means, is that if McCain had won, he could very likely be challenged.
Even now, McCain’s eligibility for Federal matching funds could be challenged sometime
over the next three years, because his case is very clear, and while Congress has
covered for him, its actions could be found to be “unconstitutional.”
What this means is that the Republican Party accepted a huge risk! They exposed
themselves to a challenge from smaller parties that could bankrupt the entire Republican
Party, if the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or American Independence Party,
either separately or collectively, sue to have ALL those taxpayer matching funds repaid.
I’m not saying they will sue, or should sue. I’m merely pointing out the risk the
Republican Party accepted when they nominated a candidate who could be challenged like
John McCain. It only proves that they too do NOT take this matter very seriously.
If they follow U.S. precedent (the law of geography or jurisdiction), and Obama can show
that he was in fact born in Hawaii, SCOTUS will be very hard-pressed to overturn Obama’s
election, because there is little precedence in the U.S. for the law of blood or descent
(for example, nobility are required to renounce their titles upon achieving U.S.
citizenship).
And so, the fact that Obama’s father was born a British subject (and hence Obama too),
that fact may not be considered at all by SCOTUS, and this case could simply be
dismissed.
But first, I feel confident that SCOTUS will order Obama to submit his witnessed birth
certificate to the National Archives and Records Administration, if he has not done so
before then.
This leaves only one remaining reason why SCOTUS will consider this case, and that is, if
there is NO authentic and genuine birth certificate AT ALL.
Unfortunately, for Obama, that possibility increases every day he or his Campaign delays.
If there is NO “witnessed” birth certificate, then all bets are really off!
Citizen Wells all this smell like Hitler to me, have you noticed how much Axelrod and Hitler look alike, you should post their pictures side by side.
Ralph
Ralph – I said this about a month ago and I should know because I was born in Berlin.
I think they should go for both.Blood and jurisdiction.That’s what the Framers wanted (for this job) and they will now shape precedence in this case as it has never been brought up before.We need a new slate of candidates both are nation-state killers anyway.A brand new election…how exciting!I wonder if they can ban the media from covering the new election as punishment…
P.S. Ralph – I just googled up “Axelrod and Hitler look a like” and 26,000 sites came up. We are not the only ones.
Miss Helga
America has suffered unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
If the group u$urp$ power on January 20th, the constitution will be broken.
Only the United States Supreme Court can relieve this outrage.
Bob – I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you think paternal citizenship would trump maternal citizenship? Of course, depending upon where he was actually born would probably also have to some into play. If US born, then perhaps paternal wouldn’t trump maternal, but I wouldn’t think it would totally negate it either.
P.P.S. Ralph – I just googled up “barack obama’s ineligibility to become president” and found over 1,100,000 sites. People are interested.
ms helga
Good day, Mr. Wells. Stopped in briefing to catch up. Thanks for your continued efforts in sharing new developments and updates with the rest of us. Cannot wait until this issue surrounding Mr. Obama’s birth can be resolved one way or another. Happy Thanksgiving to you sir.
Al
Sally – the one or two times this issue has been decided since 1866, SCOTUS has decided on the basis of “jurisdiction,” because of this XIV Amendment language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .”
This is the language that Leo Donofrio needs to overcome . . . and I’m not saying that he can’t.
In fact, he may have other language that can work to his advantage, and he appears to be a very capable and aggressive attorney — I admire that — but he has undertaken a HUGE task, knowing that a lot of things have been stacked against him.
We cannot now insert ideas that are NOT there.
As for me, I’m growing more and more pessimistic: — namely, that there NEVER was a “witnessed” birth certificate. I believe that conforms more closely with how Stanley Ann Dunham chose to live her life.
I don’t believe that her own “death certificate” exists — though, I would like to be proved to be wrong about that, too.
Remember, Barack Obama, Sr., did not take her with him, when he left to go to school in Boston, and they divorced. — Where are those papers?
There’s a lot we don’t know about Barack Obama, or the Dunham family.
They aren’t going to do one damn thing about Obama.
The US is done.
I do not want to discourage anyone from writing the media to beg them to do their job.
I would like to say that most everyone on this blog (and 100’s of others), have been doing just that for at least one year, ON A REGULAR BASIS.
As a matter of fact, this blog is monitored by some pretty big names.
No matter, they will NOT report these law suits.
Go figure.
As my daughter would text me from time to time, LOL, for “laugh out loud!”
Here’s a full blown essay on the subject why Hillary Clinton may not be “eligible” to serve as Secretary of State, with narry a single word on whether Obama may not be “eligible” to hold the top job —
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227548910
It’s a yawner (I did read it all), but at least we know they’re awake to a discussion about the Constitutional issues surrounding this Election, so there may be a spark of life among our pundit nobility — but it still looks like they made need a dose of something by syringe to keep them sitting on the couch erect, in order that they don’t topple over onto the carpet, as dead as a doornail!
I agree–I think there are alot of things we do not know about the Dunham & Obama families. I even wonder why they cremated Grandma so fast –could it possibly be because of DNA? Why did neither grandchild go to her Memorial?Why did they not bury her next to her husband? Grandma probably took all the secrets with her–and I bet she knew alot. I bet my mom Grandma would be dead before the election and sure enough she was gone. There are just too many coincidences in this whole mess. I just hope and pray it all eventually catches up with him. By the way, I think Axelrod thinks he is Hitler. bkw
http://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html
Most, over 85%, of the Framers were born on American soil… with very few exceptions:
Pierce Butler – County Carlow, Ireland
William R. Davie – Egremont, England
Thomas Fitzsimons – Ireland
Alexander Hamilton – Nevis, British West Indies
James McHenry – Ballymena, Ireland
Robert Morris – Liverpool
William Paterson – County Antrim, Ireland
James Wilson – St. Andrews, Scotland
So your assertion that the grandfather clause was placed in the Constitution to give the Framer’s an opportunity for Presidential service is interesting. I would look for secondary sources and the various written arguments to substantiate that claim.
I still think that the Indonesian connection, the fact that Obama had to be and Indonesian citizen in order to attend the madras while living in Indonesia is a very interesting lead. I also believe that his ability, as a “US Citizen” to visit Pakistan while there were extreme travel restrictions on US citizens there is worth looking at.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Mr. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.
Mr Leo Donofrio makes an interesting point. I think that as there is no legal defintion of Natural Born Citizen and apparent precedent goes w/ the 14th admendment and 8 USC 1401 that this will be ruled a non-issue.
Furthermore I put out that it doesn’t matter where he was born. There is a concept here of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law. Basically if you look at 1401 you will see that a case could be made by the Letter of the Law that he is not a US Citizen, natural born or otherwise. However, this is clearly a residence issue and the law was put into place to stop someone from living aboard for several years with a foreign husband and then trying to claim US Citizenship for their children. Look at it like this, if you are a woman married to a foreign person, Kenyan, Scottish, German, Mexican, Canadian, etc and you’re 18 and while visiting the in-laws you suddenly deliver. You haven’t changed your residency or shown intent to do so. So I would say that given the Spirit of the Law you are still a US Citizen and so is your child.
The issue is not whether Obama is a U.S. Citizen but whether he is a Natural-Born Citizen. The SC needs to examine this issue and clarify it once and for all. Obama’s case is a good testing point – why not do it now. Natural Born Citizen should mean – the a Citizen is a Citizen without any law giving Choice in the matter, the most obvious case of this is a child born of Citizen Parents in the U.S. Whereas – when a child is born with dual Citizenship at Birth then he may become a Citizen of the U.S. if he (or parents) want him to be – but that Citizenship is not forced on him should his parents chose to raise him in a foreign country and become a Citizen of that country. America will not force him to be a U.S. citizen and will not force him to register for draft and will not force him to fight in our wars. Thus his U.S. Citizenship Status was granted or allowed by laws or statutes and is not Naturally inherited. Obama is such a person – his Citizenship at birth – was allowed by law.
Pingback: Did Mike Huckabee Really Misspeak?| The Post & Email
Pingback: | NwoDaily.com
Pingback: Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial | Citizen WElls