Holy deforestation, Batman!
Just so you know, carbon credits are purchased to offset the electric power used to host this web site, so no trees are being harmed when I embed Donofrio’s 209-page amicus brief in the case of Farrar v. Obama (and others) below.
Donofrio argues that because Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen, nor someone who intended to stay in the United States, President Obama does not meet the definition of “natural born citizen” used in the Constitution.
I don’t know whether Judge Malihi or I will ever read the whole paper. I see right off the bat that Donofrio isn’t being honest in his recitation of the law, saying:
the Court [in Minor v. Happersett] identified, as natural-born citizens, only those who are born in the United States of citizen parents.
What is false is the placement of the word “only.” A more honest way to state it is: “the Court only identified, as natural-born citizens, those who are born in the United States of citizen parents.” The court explicitly stated that it wasn’t going to decide the status of the children of aliens. Donofrio says this case “defined” natural born citizen; associate Professor Joseph Hylton of Marquette University Law School wrote:
To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.
Donofrio then denies a long history of Supreme Court decisions that rely on English Common law for the definition of terms in the Constitution and particular the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark where the definition of “natural born citizen” is derived from the English “natural born subject.” Donofrio writes:
Additionally, the English common law term, “natural-born subject”, being a uniquely spiritual designation, was only granted to members of the Christian faith, and cannot govern the definition of “natural born Citizen”, because such a construction would be repugnant to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
”Subject”and “citizen” are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term “citizen” seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, “subjects,” for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
Whether this tome increases Donofrio’s stature within the birther community is yet to be seen but it’s impact on the case in Georgia is doubtful.