I can't help but wonder exactly which treaty The Paraclete believes the U.S. has to consult to decide how citizenship is granted in its own country.

1. The Jay Treaty says British subjects are to be treated "as if" they are natives. But remember: they are not actually natives!
2. SCOTUS says "the law of nations" must be consulted when interpreting treaties!
3. (I, Donofrio say) "The Law of Nations" says two-citizen parents are required!

Ergo: Obama, born with CUKC status, cannot be a natural-born citizen. Q.E.D.; R.I.L.

What you Obots have to realise is that all the SCOTUS decisions Lead to the fact that Obama is ineligible to be president! Aside from these dealing with citizenship

This is the neatest summary of what Vattel was actually talking about than any I have read here or on PJ.

Article IX addresses restoration of property rights of those Loyalists who were forced to abandon their land -- often considerable holdings -- when they fled to Canada or the Caribbean between 1776 and 1783. This was one of the major issues during the negotiation of the treaty. The language of the provision is unambiguously aimed at their right to be fully restored and to convey good title to their lands. IOW, their title (to real property) was just as reputable as American citizens' title to their lands.

What is it about birfer lawyers that they cannot read statutes, treaties and cases, and understand the clear intent of the language that is obvious to the rest of the English speaking world?

I suspect it is because since the great Constitutiinal Crisis, which is a scary Black man being elected president and the evolution of birfistan and Vattel rising from the dead is the first time they've ever been exposed to, much less read them.

Well, except for Orly... She's never read any of them... never will.

Maybe I'm answering a rhetorical question, but my opinion is that it's just that they're kinda stoopid.

So busy!


The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark.

versus:


* * *

The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.

Leo should go back to playing poker and try to improve his game. That would be a service to the people of the United States.

On a roll!: New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.

Summary: In George Lynde Catlin's book The Presidential Campaign of 1896, there is an editorial by the New York Tribune suggesting a minor candidate was ineligible due him being born to parents who had stepped off the boat literally a day before the candidate's birth in New York.

Donofrio uses this article as further proof of the Chester Arthur conspiracy (to conceal his roots) and his "theory" about Wong Kim Ark (which was decided in 1898).

Manic phase.

I always feel a little bad for him when he crashes.

I have always considered him among the least despicable of Birthers... because he is simply not well. And that's not entirely his fault.

As opposed to the mentally healthy and sound Orly Taitz, Sharon Meroni, Dr. Kate, Teresa Cao?

Leo, it says simply "U.S. citizenship". Not "natural-born U.S. citizenship". So, even by your reckoning "generally" was only there to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies. No big deal.



Is he really suggesting that an actually "reigning" Head of State of country A who was also a citizen of country B when visiting country B could be apprehended for dodging the draft?

I think Donofrio has read the wrong Wikipedia article. Instead of the one on diplomatic immunity, he read the one on Carlos Gardel.



So, Ike should have been content being a Senator?

And what about Spiro Agnew - whom we know for sure was also Greek when he was VIce-President?

You see, Leo, that is the big difference between Obama and Ike on the one hand and Agnew on the other. Neither Ike nor Obama were dual citizens when they were Presidents, so your silly impediment never aroise.

And when you finished pondering that, please explain how Thomas Jefferson could be a French passport carrying U.S. President without anyone complaining about it.

I am not even mentioning the angle that Russia on August 30th, 2008 could have granted Russian citizenship to anyone over the age of 72 who was ever a prisoner-of-war in a communist country (ostensibly to thank them for their role ion the downfall of communism). And how the fact that any country could pull such a trick would put any diplomat all over the world into trouble if there was no such thing as diplomatic immunity (and yes, visiting Heads of state, and even Senators on a mission are considered diplomats while visiting). But then we know Donofrio is a dabbler at poker, chess, law, music and playing God.

Not sure about Teresa... but I do not think the other three are mentally ill. I believe them to be despicable human beings.

Cao............Not taking enough medication or self medicating waaaaaaay too much.

Dr K(H)ate....Bitter, twisted, hate filled, racist with truly insane ideas (water has memory, chemtrails etc) but not actually insane.

Meroni.........Delusional, REALLY racist, entitled, narcissistic and would be a perfect fit to fill in the "orders" in any totalitarian regime (classic "I was only following orders" type)

Taitz..........Blend Dr K(H)ate and Meroni, add huge quantities of extra bigot, buckets of extra narcissist and deluded ignorance, stir in a jigger or two of self hate, paranoia, media whoredom and did I mention stupidity...? Unstable but not actually clinically insane except in the fashion and make up sense.

YMMV

I didn't say clinically insane, or insane. I said mentally ill. Narcissism is a personality disorder (which I read, a mental illness), and the others demonstrate severe symptoms of a number of disorders. Rare is the time I disagree with Eppy, but this is one of them. Oh, and I forgot Walter F. Fitzpatrick III. Mentally ill, yet responsible for his crimes.

I prefer the term, "fucked in the noodle."

My personal preference is "Barking mad" for these foul creatures

I see your dog and raise you ....

Yeah! Two more.

New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.



http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... for-potus/

The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... in-the-us/

I was about to post a link to this one. Summary:

John Bingham (Paul to Vattel's Peter!) said in Congress in 1872:

...Dr. Houard was in jail in Spain; Bingham's comment had nothing to do with, say, the meaning of the natural-born citizenship or the 14th Amendment.

And: Necessary/sufficient fallacy. Also. Too.

So, for fun, I am poking Donofrio about this post -- his mad at Obama for not granting a U.S. passport to a vet whose birth was not duly registered under state law. (As noted, it was Bush's State Department that initially denied the passport; it was also Bush's State Department that instituted the policy that births-by-midwives in border states may be insufficient to obtain a passport. Still Obama's fault!)

In a followup, Donofrio wrote, "You seem to think [Obama]’s powerless to implement a policy which would grant Mario [the vet in question] a passport via the State Department… but it’s OK to grant passports to the children of illegal aliens…"

So Donofrio is critical of giving passports to children of illegal aliens, right? (Gotta play to the nativist audience!) Well, I pointed out that another person that he cited in his article as example of Obama's alleged hypocrisy was an illegal alien! It's bad to give children of illegal aliens passports, but it is more wrong when Obama denies passports to children of illegal aliens! I also point out that there's no evidence that any of the people he cited in his article had parents that were legally in country. (They all were born in Texas, birthed by midwives, and have Hispanic surnames -- surely no reason to suspect the parents were not here legally!)

So I point out this, ahem, inconsistency to Donofrio. And what does he do?: Deletes the comment.

Donofrio called Solum an "intellectual coward" for "scrubbing" his article (Solum, in fact, did the opposite: he was quite transparent about the changes). Yet Donofrio deletes unfavorably points, and calls other people hypocrites.

And then just deleted my comment.

Coward.

Must be a lull in poker season: The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

Summary: In an 1896 article, Percy A. Bridgham (I'll take "Who??!?" for $200, Alex) wrote:

Donofrio comments: "It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens."

You see, in law school, they teach you rely on opinion pieces not published by a court that precedes a major constitutional case on the exact point you are trying to disprove. Because you like the result.

The vapors then start to get to Donofrio:

In comments on Leo's blog I recently the law-review articles by Gordon and Pryor, and asked: Are there sources from during Barack Obama’s lifetime, but before he declared his candidacy for the presidency, that imply a foreign father makes the child ineligible? Donofrio couldn't cite any, and it was not for lack of trying.

First he went with Breckenridge Long's opinion piece of 1916 questioning the eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes. I pointed out that it is obviously not from Obama's lifetime, and in fact Long makes the point, “Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”

I followed, repeating my question, and Donofrio cited the Lawrence Solum's 2008 paper which later revised, or as Leo put it, "scrubbed", to make clear that it was never meant to imply that a president's parents must be citizens. The paper fails to respond to my question both ways: it wasn't from before Obama ran for president, and it doesn't support Donofrio's side.

So next, Donofrio challenged the validity of the question. I responded that if it was settled before he ran for president, as the legal literature asserted, that's all Obama needs. Donofrio turned ad hominem. I followed up again, but he stopped approving my comments.

Here's my follow-up that, alas, did not win Leo Donofrio's approval:


Since then Leo has written more articles citing sources even older than Long's 1916 essay.