Natural Born Citizen, Leo Donofrio, Vattel, Obama not natural born citizen, Ron Paul, Citizen Wells, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Marbury vs Madison, Citizens, Natives, Natural born citizen video

I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:

“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
Bad news.  He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th.  Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.

Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website.  Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment.  Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed.  The more the
RELEVANT references the better.   Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul.  Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
Are you’ll up to that challenge?  If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and

Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.

I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,

Natural born citizen explained

Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.


The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue.  I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution.  It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”.  A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced.  The difference is subtle, but so very important.  “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”.  It is a manner of acquiring citizenship.  And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Two different sentences.  Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”.  Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are.  Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states,  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says.   All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens.  A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”.  He’s a native forever.  He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens.  They are the same.  According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

He goes on as follows:

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”.  It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”.  Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President.  But the framers did read his work.  And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen.  That is clear in the Constitution.  Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”.  He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

Citizen = legal status

Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.

Vattel also wrote:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens.  Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age.  But nobody can renounce a fact of birth.  The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not.  The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.

And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States.  The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen.  Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”.  And to that distinction there can only be one effect:


According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous.  If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect.  According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.

President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.


I am not going to protest any longer.  As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak.  Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer.  I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here.  As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God.  Peace be with you.

Leo C. Donofrio



Read more:


I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.


15 responses to “Natural Born Citizen, Leo Donofrio, Vattel, Obama not natural born citizen, Ron Paul, Citizen Wells, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Marbury vs Madison, Citizens, Natives, Natural born citizen video

  1. zachjonesishome

    Amen! Obama is not my President until he demonstrates that he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Zach Jones – A Natural Born Citizen

  2. This is an appropriate time for my shameless plug to grab a few of my de Vattel Tees and hoodies:

  3. And one thing is certain. The only case that’s going to win this battle with the corrupt system we have is the following:

    RNC v DNC

    And the only argument necessary is the fact the DNC vetted and certified “Obama” using Amendment XIV instead of Article II. Since Amendment XIV doesn’t explicitly state it was redefining Natural Born Citizen, this argument will stick to the wall like glue and the RNC has standing.

    Like we’ll ever see this lawsuit.

    The only other individuals who can make this argument are U.S. Military personnel. And somehow I am getting the uneasy feeling these cases will NOT be heard until soldiers are under arrest and defending themselves against the U.S. Government.

  4. I also respectively disagree with Leo -Obama is not President. If a person calls himself a medical Dr. & places a phony diploma (in this case a phony COLB) on his office wall that doesn’t make him a Dr.

  5. Stephanie……..
    Right on the money,great lady.The problem is the alleged doctor is fairly easy to get rid of. So should a phoney president of the US. Apparently there is no longer any strength within the GOVERNMENT,or he would have probably been gone before he was elected by a bunch of JACKASSES, who don’t know the difference of UP from DOWN, or LEFT FROM RIGHT. They are the true danger to this country.

  6. JeffM……..
    Everyday that I live and breath, I have the fear that what you have said is going to occur, and probably much sooner than we all realise. There will indeed be soldiers imprisoned, for having done nothing more than tried to help other soldiers make our government adhere to the rule of law and our Constitution. The fight is COMING and as I told Stephanie much sooner than all of us realise. It will be bloody.I am 76 years of age, and have been involved with our Indiana National Guard for two years of my life and then requested active duty in the US Navyfor a period of 4 years. This all occurred before and during the Korean war. I saw some pretty mangled bodies, and helped others to escape from 37 degree water after they ditched their shot up aircraft. Many required our guys to go and get them out of their sinking aircract. Many were seriously injured in the ditching process, and the part that still causes me to get blurred vision is those who we simply could not assist quickly enough. Alive or dead they ascended to the deep. Until we got helicopters on the scene it was up to the DESTROYER sailors.

  7. Little confused bout Leo. Agree, his first case was hastily put before the courts and was side tracked by Pickle.

    A lot of work was done by him in the QW research. I believed if I had done that I would wanna go the extra mile and kick a$$. I believe he has an ax to grind whether he will pursue. Guess he has indicated he is done.

    He has also indicated that the QW may not work either, has to get someone to file it. If this is the last chance, guess Obama is gonna win!

  8. How many times does this make that leo has quit?If someone with his knowledge does not want to get involved with the process any further who will?Leo talks the talk but won’t walk the walk.

  9. notscarednews

    I have to make it public. It’s suppose to be secret, however most people in Austin, Tx knows about it. The police department has machine that can read your mind. It can also change the way you feel. Sexual impulses, anger, and causing you to feel fear paranoia, basically anyway they would like to feel. This means it can cause a girl or boy to feel sexual. So sexual that they will have sex with strangers. This is just like rape. This is just one crime they commit with this machine. A machine that can read someone’s mind will be used to violate everyones civil rights. Ideas and secrets about company will be stolen by their competition with ease. People will be spied on in there homes, without a warrant. (this means someone will be able to watch you during intimacy without your knowledge.) There are a lot of people all over the United States knowing about this machine and the police department being able to use it. Start thinking about how the government has given the police department a weapon to commit not only one of the biggest civil rights violations of all time, but to commit war crimes such as rape and interrogation without the knowledge of the victim. I know it is hard to believe however if you happen to know someone in the police department, just ask if they have this machine. After that, I would also like people to think about how we are able to get the government to stop letting the police department violate civil rights and commit war crimes against there own citizens.

  10. historiandude

    Leo is a great legal researcher. He is a terrible synthesizer. He does not have the patience to reach reasonable conclusions so he gives up halfway and leaps to the conclusion he wants. Sadly, in so doing he often as not leaps into the void.

    But his appeal to Marbury v. Madison is frankly bizarre. If an Amendment cannot render an earlier clause redundant, moot, altered or invalid… then why bother to call it an “Amendment?”

    When Donofrio warns that he has “had a revelation,” you should take the warning seriously. He has been “hearing voices” alright. This is what happens when you are off your meds.

  11. I would like to comment on the last paragraph of Leo’s article. There is no answer other than God’s judgment that can begin to explain the chain of events that has brought us to this place. He is I believe, allowing this desperate situation to continue to give us a glimpse of the hopelessness that prevails apart from Him.
    We call ourselves a proud and noble nation but today while most of the nation, I included , were listening to news, thinking about the stock market and the economy, 4000 helpless babies were discarded as trash in America. Do we think this goes unnoticed?
    We need to turn to God and repent and maybe then the blindness will be lifted. Mr. Obama has shown us a shock and awe campaign targeted at all that is good and right, and many of us realize that he is just a puppet. The forces that control him will take that campaign to new levels if they are not restrained.
    Leo realizes that this battle is raging in both the natural and the spiritual realm. We are struggling against the second most powerful being that exist. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world. Let’s not try to go it alone.

  12. You got to admire the level of legal analysis that can make this statement:

    “According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. ”

    The 14th Amendment was not adopted until 50+ years after Marbury v. Madison. Unless Donofrio is suggesting that Marshall engaged in time travel, quite clearly Marshall was not saying anything about the 14th Amendment in Marbury v. Madison.

    Mr. Donofrio should stick to poker.

  13. George –

    I suggest that you read the Marbury v. Madison case here: to get your answer.

    Mr. Donofrio is arguing for a principle established in this case, viz. that no part of the Constitution of the U.S. (unless explicitly repealed by a subsequent amendment to that Constitution) may be disregarded by the courts in interpreting the legality or relevance of a case before the courts.

    Thus the 14th amendment (which does not repeal Article 2) cannot displace, override nor render “superfluous” that article, including its “natural born citizen clause.”

  14. I understand that even Ron Paul is not a natural born citizen. One of his parents was not a citizen when he was born.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s