Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Justices answer, US Constitution, New Jersey, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 2008

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Here are the three distinct aspects of Donofrio’s lawsuit that should be reviewed and clarified
by the US Supreme Court Justices:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“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.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:

“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

16 responses to “Donofrio vs Wells, US Supreme Court, Natural Born Citizen, Obama not eligible, Father Kenyan,British rule, Supreme Court Justices answer, US Constitution, New Jersey, Connecticut lawsuit, Secretary of State, Oath of office, Marbury Vs Madison, Monday, December 8, 2008

  1. 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 — — 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!

  2. Ted, i agree!

    What they are basically saying is that Hugo Chavez and his wife could show up here in America and have their baby delivered on American soil and then return home, and 30 years later that child could show up here and claim that he was a nbc because he was born here.

    Natural born citizenship is not that easy.The way they’ve laid it out, anyone from any country could have a child here and claim nbc status.Not true!

    If nbc status was that easy, don’t you think every terrorist organization in the world would be sending people over here to have their children delivered on American soil so that 35 years from now that child could come over here and run for POTUS just to help destroy this country.

    Hat tip to the Framers! They were very wise men 🙂

  3. The Obama people are all about fancy speeches that sound good but have no meaning and don’t stand up to fact. That’s how He got elected. He put on a show just like that Wizard from that OZ place. Now they are afraid someone will pay attention to that man hiding behind the curtain.

  4. This is what Hargrove said:

    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.”

    This is how I replied to him:

    I asked Hargrove to please read the Declaration of Independence to find an itemized list of what it meant to them to be a Colonist, and subject to the British Crown.

    I also referred him to Chisholm v Georgia (1793), where Chief Justice John Jay wrote a long essay on what it means to be an American Citizen — a sovereign without subjects. The exact quote is “Under that Constitution, there are citizens, but no subjects.” [Page 2 U.S. 456]

    I don’t think the Framers could be any clearer than that about what they wanted for all of us!

    However, American history moved on to the 82nd Congress, which passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (over the veto of President Truman).

    In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act. These regulations are now all codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

    The Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    If citizenship you hold is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, then you are NOT a “natural born citizen.” Barack Obama’s citizenship is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” because it came through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    In other words, if the citizenship you hold is based on an Act of Congress, then your citizenship is based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. You are a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth. The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

    How much simpler can it be said? That is our law — and it was passed by Congress, and NEVER REPEALED! It applies equally to 300 million of us!

    The Supreme Court must decide this matter, or the likelihood is very great members of 111 Congress will stand in violation of their Congressional Oath of Office, if they certify the election of Barack Obama on January 6, 2009. That is a total of 535 Oaths!

  5. CW —

    From what you write, it is OBVIOUS that the Supreme Court now has to BAIL OUT 3 Political Parties, 50 State Secretaries of State (or their equivalent), 535 Electors, 535 Senators and Representatives, who’ve really done a whopper on 126 Millions Voters!

    Don’t you think they’re going to want to run and hide in the tall grass?

    Ollie to Stan: “That’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into!”

    Where’s Will Rogers, when we really, really need him to keep an eye on the “hired help”?

  6. It is difficult to do but they are subject to impeachment.

  7. Let the difficult impeachment process begin now, or America as we know it will soon cease to exist. May God be with us.

  8. Well at least it’ll keep their minds off the economy…and their hands.

  9. Folks,
    I’ve been so despondent since Nov. 4th, I’ve sent letters to the SC Justices, I’ve donated money to the cause. What if this con is successful? What happens if the case will not be considered? The flood gates of “Constitution be damned” are opened. A lawless country. What if they throw the case out? Everyone seems to blame someone else, SoS, the DNC, courts, the electors, etc. Sorry about seeing the dark side, I just came home from a lecture regarding WWII.
    Let us have our proseperous America, secure borders and strong military back.

  10. Amen to Joy’s comment!

    “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
    -Daniel Webster

  11. This is where the rubber meets the road. I pray the Supreme Court has the strength to guard and defend our constitutional rights concerning
    this case with so much involved in it. What a mess!

  12. Bob, some great thoughts. I have been practicing immigration law for over 20 years. Most immigration atorneys spend their time interperting the INA and 8 CFR, 20 CFR and few immigration attorneys are versed in the complex issues of derivative citizenship, acquisition of USC. If I understand your analysis, because Barak’s dad was a Kenyan his USC is governed by the INA. If someone born in the U.S. and both parents of that person also born in the U.S. then that person’s USC is governed by the Constitution not the INA? Your arguments are a good contrast to the Yale memo on NBC.

  13. In 1795, the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the 1790 statute, to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered “natural born citizens” of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born citizen” per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change, and yet did not veto it.

  14. Click to access 120808zor.pdf

    Today’s Supreme Court orders show 08A407 Leo Donofrio, stay denied. But the writ of certiorari is nowhere mentioned. Cert has not been decided.

    “Never, never, never give up!”

  15. “Writ of Certiorari” hopefully the SC will put this to full conference. If not, then the Fall of American begins, the Constitution will mean nothing, all lives lost to protect it, meaningless! Is there no one who can save us now?

  16. 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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s