|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
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 descendi
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded
vattel1
[My interview tonight on The Chalice Show - 9:05 -11:00 EST - will be the last you're going to hear from me on this issue for some time.]
The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office. I call him President because he is President - under our Constitution - unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible. That is the only venue of review currently available under the law.
The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US). Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”.
In parts 1, 2 and 3 of my quo warranto legal brief, I laid the case out for the various processes under the District of Columbia Code available to law enforcement officials as well as private plaintiffs and attorneys. So far, not a single “eligibility advocate” has used the statute - the only national law which uses the word “usurper” in its very text. As they scream usurper at Obama, they patently ignore the only statute empowered to remove him. And yet the “donate” buttons keep getting pushed. And those cases continue to be rightfully dismissed.
People deserve exactly what they settle for.
I am not a carnival barker or circus aficionado. The law I write about is that of legal fact not fanciful fiction based on clumsy metaphorical wordplay meant to confuse. When I write about the law, that writing is grounded in the Constitution, statutes and SCOTUS interpretations as precedent. If the law makes it hard for me to find a path to justice, I do not go about blasting justice away for the sake of getting the result I want.
To commit blasphemy against the Constitution’s separation of powers would be a sin against justice. True enemies of the Constitution care not if they destroy it by installing an ineligible president or if they destroy it by seeing him removed unconstitutionally. If your ultimate intention is to destroy the Constitution, both results are a win for you.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
You can make a stand. That’s what can be done.
United States Attorney Taylor appears to be a straight arrow.
- US Attorney Taylor stood up to Monica Goodling and caused her to be investigated when she improperly tried to bring political influence upon Taylor’s hiring of a certain US Attorney.
- US Attorney Taylor prosecuted Blackwater stating public outrage that Blackwater operatives had illegally fired on Iraqi civilians. After they plead guilty to 14 counts of manslaughter Taylor said, “We are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war…”
- US Attorney Taylor withdrew his US Attorney confirmation bid instead of playing politics when Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton opposed him.
- US Attorney Taylor recently raided the Office of Technology a week after the head of that office was appointed by Obama as Chief Information Officer.
Mr. Kundra has taken a leave of absence while that scandal plays out. When the story first broke on March 12, I noticed some references to US Attorney Taylor having been in charge of the raid. The next day, March 13, I released my open letter to US Attorney Taylor. That evening I could not find anymore references to US Attorney Taylor’s involvement. Was his name scrubbed from Google news searches? The only reference I could find there was the actual Government press release. Notice it’s on US Attorney Taylor’s letterhead.
- US Attorney Taylor’s Press Release concerning the office of Technology Raid
Only one news source covered the press release, and I found it on an obscure search engine. The Imperial Valley News reprinted US Attorney Taylor’s press release.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF AS TO QUO WARRANTO REQUESTS.
While I don’t think AG HOLDER would be representing Obama in a quo warranto, since QW doesn’t challenge any official Government activity, I believe now that AG Holder does, in fact, have a conflict of interest. If Obama is removed then - according to the precedent regarding Mr. Shields and Mr. Galatin in the Senate (see QW legal brief part 2) - the election would be void, Obama would be stricken from official POTUS history and it would be as if he were never president. This would probably also void Obama’s appointments. AG Holder could lose his job. This creates a new conflict of interest issue.
MAKE A STAND.
Unless you make EVERY effort to be heard then you will never know if justice was at your fingertips. How much do you believe in this issue? Back in the 60’s when civil rights were being denied, the people came to Washington… a million man march. The law was changed and history with it. There is power available to you. Stop being so defeated. Stop depending on charlatans. Use your mind. Think for yourself. Don’t believe Leo Donofrio. Do your damn homework. I have provided you with the research materials. Use them.
If you don’t have the support of the people, the Government will not listen. You need to assemble peacefully and be heard. If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t be heard. It’s that simple. Go get the people. Bring them to Washington DC. Be heard.
Those who believe this issue needs to be resolved are being divided and surely will be conquered. You may choose truth or you may choose lies. The comments to each blog post here contain virtually every possible argument you will face. And each has been dissected and destroyed by the full light of the truth written here. You are intellectually armed with knowledge to go forward and be heard.
Don’t be distracted.
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
[No comments to this article will be posted. If you'd like to send a private message to me, then use the comment feature. But no comments will be posted to this blog.]
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
