Tag Archives: United States Supreme Court

Defining Natural Born Citizen

Hollister v. Soetoro

Natural born citizen

While coming tantalizingly close, no US Court  has ever decided the definition of “natural born citizen”. The term was not explained in the debates of the Constitutional Convention, nor the state legislatures when it was ratified, nor by individual framers in their speeches, letters or papers. Where do we go for a definition–to an 18th century Swiss philosopher–to an appeal to our shared prejudices?

The US Constitution is replete with terms that it doesn’t define: citizen, impeachment, felonies, treason, bribery, bankruptcy, warrants, grand jury and attainder. These are, however, familiar terms in the common law. The Supreme Court wrote in the case of Smith v. Alabama (1888) 124 U.S. 465:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 62 }

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court

A visitor to Obama Conspiracy Theories left this comment:

The Supreme Court clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” in the case Minor v. Happersett (1874). Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case. The Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being a person born in the United States to “citizen parents” — this definition does not include Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., because his father was not a United States Citizen.

It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen’” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). It would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark that would definitively answer this question in 1898. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 29 }

The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages

Partial lists don’t carry the full impact of citations scattered here and there. This project is to collect everything accessible and to the point into one place If it takes much context or argument, a brief reference and a link is included. I promise you that the quotations will mean the same thing when you read them here than they mean if you read the larger context, and the larger context will be linked to the text. No tricks, no deception.

For additional citations, see The “Natural Born Citizenship” Clause (Updated) to whom this article is indebted for some of these citations. And for EVEN MORE citations see SCOTUS & “Natural Born Citizen” – A Compendium and History of US citizenship laws. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 99 }

Dr. Orly Taitz (updated)

Dr. Orly Taitz

Dr. Orly Taitz

Brief Biography

Dr. Orly Taitz is a California attorney and dentist. She, an emigre from the Soviet Union, is said to speak 5 languages. She gained prominence among Obama controversy followers as the attorney of record in Keyes v Bowen, et al. As one of the 180,000 attorneys in California, Dr. Taitz is bound by the California Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the California State Bar Act. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 297 }

Bookmarks

Following is a list of articles that I’ve bookmarked regarding Obama conspiracy theories and fringe ideas:

Birth Certificate

Citizenship

Obama in Indonesia

News Coverage

Lawsuits

Fact Checking and Debunking

People

Born in Kenya

Odds and Odds

Offensive

Conspiracy Theories

Critics

Associations

  • ObamaBook – facebook clone list nefarious connections to Obama – claims paid for by RNC

Smears

Blogs

Read full storyComments { 1 }

Judge and Jury: Arguments on “natural born citizen”

Judges and juries are different. Juries are lay people like you and me, who make decisions like you and me. Juries decide what the true facts are when there is doubt they are never asked to decide what the law is. Judges have special training in the law. They decide based on rules, laws and precedents. Judges decide what the law means.

Just as judges and juries are different, arguments on the meaning of “natural born citizen” are different. There are arguments addressed to lay people and there are arguments addressed to judges. Lawyers make both kinds of argument. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 13 }

Leo C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo C. Donofrio is a retired lawyer and professional poker player. His connection to Obama conspiracy theories is through his lawsuit, Donofrio v. Wells, which challenged the presidential election in New Jersey because the New Jersey Secretary of State (Wells)  did not personally verify the eligibility of the candidates for president on the New Jersey ballot, three of whom Donofrio believes were ineligible.

Donofrio maintains a blog site called Natural Born Citizen in which he discusses the case,  related cases and citizenship issues.

Donofrio is also a proponent of the argument that President Chester A. Arthur was not a legitimate president because his father was a British citizen when Chester was born. He accuses Arthur of intentionally misdirecting investigators to keep them from discovering his father’s naturalization status. This is discussed here in the article: “The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur“.

After the refusal of Donofrio v. Wells by the United States Supreme Court (and that of another litigant Cort Wrotnowski) Donofrio has taken on a conspiratorial view of things including explaining the Court’s decision as cowardice rather than judicial opinion.

He wrote:

you have no Constitution and you have no “Supreme” court.  You have a filthy corrupted snake pit which tried to protect itself from responsibility for this issue by using clerks like brutal praetorian guards.

Read full storyComments { 67 }