Tag Archives: Marbury Vs Madison

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
House.”

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,
2008:

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.

“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.

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:

ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.

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.

FAREWELL.

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

03.18.2009″

 

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/

 

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.

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