Bob Unruh, the lead reporter on the Eligibility issue (along with Dr. Jerome Corsi) interviewed me on Friday.

The article was posted Saturday morning at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=98245

There was one error which I wrote of to Mr. Unruh immediately. It was just one sentence, but contained two significant errors. Hopefully, Mr. Unruh can just delete that one misleading sentence. Otherwise, it was a good article on the Jurisprudence of Eligibility.

It was an honor following Dr. Daniel Tokaji, who I insisted Mr. Unruh contact. Professor Tokaji’s Michigan Law Review article ‘The Justiciability of Eligibility’ is a must read and I believe it was cited in my ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ blog post. Maybe not. However, the jurisprudence of eligibility is well covered by the Hollister vs. Obama up-date.

Here is my letter suggesting corrections to Mr. Unruh.

Dear Mr. Unruh,

I’m glad you got such excellent material from Prof. Tokaji. It helped make this latest eligibility article your best to date.

The Indonesian naturalization as a minor (six-years old) occurred after Obama, Sr. lost his status as ‘legal’ parent under both British and U.S. nationality law concerning the primary jurisdiction through the father. That legal conclusion can be substantiated in the 1948 British Nationality Act and 8 U.S.C. 1101, Definitions.

So, for a brief period of time (ages two through five), Obama was a U.S. citizen by default and having legal domicile with his mother in Hawaii . . . until she married Lolo Soetoro and moved them to Indonesia. Obama was not a U.S. natural born citizen, nor native born unless Hawaiian birth can be proven.

My Letter to Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy
May 16, 2009 by paralegalnm

May 11, 2009



Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia

Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543



Re: Ignoratis Terminis Artis, Ignoratur et Ars





Dear Mr. Justice Scalia,



U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5 is unique in all U.S. law because it alone requires a ‘natural born citizen.’ Unfortunately, there is no current agreement on the definition of that term of art.



When the constitution was being composed, John Jay asked George Washington, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen …”[1]



The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”[2]



Recently, Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst commented that, “The law was [sic] always been understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”[3]



Judicial ethics abjure a court from appearances of political bias. The Separation of Powers and the Political Questions Doctrine discourage hearing post-election cases on their merits.



However, Justices may be encouraged to clarify the law sua sponte when other branches of government and political forums are conflicted. The political questions will then remain in the proper forum, or branch of government.





Sincerely,



Leonard A. Daneman

Paralegal


[1] Letter to G. Washington, The Papers of John Jay, Library of Congress, 1787

[2] Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

[3] CNN Transcripts, at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... tm.01.html

So does paralegalnm mean he's a paralegal in New Mexico? Just askin'

His myspace page http://www.myspace.com/461440434

It's not surprising he only has two friends.

What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.”

[center]III. The Possibility of Irreducible Ambiguity[/center]

The analysis so far has suggested that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” may be ambiguous, or that evidence of that meaning may be insufficient to resolve the ambiguity introduced by the passage of more than two centuries. Most originalists assume that constitutional ambiguities can usually be resolved by reference to the original public meaning in context. But what does originalism say about ambiguities that cannot be resolved in this way? What if the original meaning is itself ambiguous or if there is insufficient evidence to resolve an ambiguity?

[center]* * *[/center]

Grasping the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause may lead us to the conclusion that the constitutional text does not provide the answer to all of our questions about eligibility for the office of President. Constitutional practice may require both interpretation and construction: The original public meaning of the natural born citizen clause may not suffice to answer the question whether John McCain is eligible for the office of President of the United States.

Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date.

The most plausible is an action in state court challenging an allegedly ineligible candidate’s access to the ballot, which would not present the same justiciability obstacles. Though state-court challenges to a presidential candidate’s eligibility raise concerns about consistency and political bias, the U.S. Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in such cases would provide a check against such abuses. In the event that a renegade state court wrongly disqualified a presidential candidate, or that there were an interstate conflict over a particular candidate’s eligibility, the Court would have a vitally important role to play in resolving the issue. Another possibility is that Congress could decide the eligibility of a presidential candidate through its constitutionally assigned role in counting Electoral College votes. The existence of these two alternative means to adjudicate a presidential candidate’s eligibility strengthens the arguments against the justiciability of the federal lawsuits filed to date.

One friend, Tom is a default friend sent to everyone.

Wasn't Donofrio's initial case against a state, and wasn't it dismissed on standing?

Donofrio's case was indeed in a state court. However, he took a different tack than Prof. Takaji proposes. Takaji opined that the way to get the eligibility issue heard is for a candidate to be challenged -- i.e., his/her name removed from the ballot. Donofrio sued the NJ secretary of state on a mandamus petition -- asking the court to compel the secretary of state to take particular action. The issue wasn't standing; the issue was whether the New Jersey statute mandated the secretary of state to vet the candidates, and the state court held that, no, there was no provision in New Jersey state law. The court also ruled that Donofrio waited too long to bring his suit; Obama and McCain had been on the ballot for months before Leo filed (in late October).

Ahh. Right. Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up. So the candidate would be sued directly? And the grounds for the suit would be that he was not eligible? I wish there were a book for non-law students that presented the 1L courses.

I contacted her some time back and informed her of his use of paralegalnm. She denied any connection to Mr. Daneman, and was planning to take some sort of action regarding the name, if possible.

Well, it's not that the candidate would be sued directly, but there is a mechanism in each state for disputing a candidate's right to have his/her name on the ballot. It is usually pursued by another candidate or would-be candidate. The candidate whose name is knocked off the ballot clearly has standing to sue state authorities to have/her name placed on the ballot. If the state court denies the relief sought on grounds that the Presidential candidate failed to meet the qualifications for office, e.g., not natural born, did not reside in the US for the requisite number of years, the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear the case. All of this litigation is pre-election and must be initiated sufficiently early to allow the case to be heard and appealed before election day.

Yet no state has a law that it has to verify eligibility, I thought. They just take the word of the political parties, right? I know in one state someone was thrown off the ballot, but that case was rather obvious, if I'm not mistaken, and there were no facts at issue other than he was a citizen of Nicaragua or somewhere. I can't see how this would have worked pre-election when it didn't work post-election.

State-court litigation might proceed as a lawsuit seeking to keep a presidential candidate off the primary or general election ballot, on the ground that he or she does not satisfy the requisite qualifications. There exists some recent precedent for this type of case. In 2004, supporters of presidential candidate John Kerry brought a number of state-court actions seeking to deny Ralph Nader access to state ballots. In In re Nomination Papers of Nader, for example, registered voters in Pennsylvania filed suit in state court, seeking to have the names of independent candidate Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo excluded from the ballot. As in several other states, the objectors challenged the petition signatures submitted by the Nader-Camejo campaign. In addition, the Pennsylvania objectors argued that Nader and Camejo were not qualified to appear on the general election ballot by virtue of the state’s “sore loser” law, which prohibited candidates from running in a general election after running in state primaries. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that its statute did not in fact justify the exclusion of Nader and Camejo from the ballot, there was no doubt as to the state court’s ability to entertain a challenge to a presidential candidate’s qualifications in the course of determining whether to deny that candidate access to the state ballot.

OK. Thanks, BB. Yet if a state had no statute that mandated that the state verify eligibility, what would be the allegation?

Uh-oh. Maybe I'm dense

#
Jack Ryan says:
May 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm

“Relying on the Metabolitepatent case, I convinced Dr. Orly Taitz to include in her SCOTUS petition a direct question on the Definition of the Term of Art Natural Born Citizen.”

You link to a case summary based on the briefs filed in a case that was dismissed. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories where the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-607.pdf

That’s important and helpful why?
#
Leonard Daneman says:
May 16, 2009 at 7:48 pm

It’s not the outcome of the case, but the jurisprudence that has value.

The Political Questions Doctrine hinders your case, except for the question of the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ which is unique in U.S. law, as it appears only once . . . and that is in U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on that question, and it does not interfere in the political process or violate the separation of powers.
#
dr_taitz@yahoo.com says:
May 16, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Yes Mr. Daneman, I’ve written it . Let’s hope we are not talking to the wall

Finally, I believe that important considerations of the public interest—including that of clarifying the law in this area sooner rather than later—argue strongly for our deciding the question presented now.

:lol:

Leonard Daneman got called out, and Orly still doesn't get it. It's no wonder the first didn't finish law school, and a wonder that the latter did.

Daneman is obviously relying on this language from the Metabolite decision:



The problem is, this is from Justice Breyer's DISSENTING opinion.

So, no, Leonard, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that it has original jurisdiction to decide a question of public interest just cause the law needs clarifyin'. Luckily your argument is buried among Orly's three alternative rambling arguments. Monday morning Orders are going to read: Petition DENIED.

Yet no state has a law that it has to verify eligibility, I thought. They just take the word of the political parties, right? I know in one state someone was thrown off the ballot, but that case was rather obvious, if I'm not mistaken, and there were no facts at issue other than he was a citizen of Nicaragua or somewhere. I can't see how this would have worked pre-election when it didn't work post-election.

17. That the Office of the Secretary of State of California is the California agency responsible for certifying candidates for inclusion on the ballot.

That, historically, California Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, verifying that the candidates that were submitted by the respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were indeed eligible.

That in 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. That the then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President. That using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. That Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States.

That, similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the Presidential primary. When the then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was similarly not eligible, and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot.

That currently, we have a similar situation in that the Democratic Party has submitted the name of Senator Barack Obama as candidate for President;

His myspace page http://www.myspace.com/461440434

It's not surprising he only has two friends.

I posted over on his blog a few months back. He edited my comments to delete the factual content and then proceeded to insult me for my ignorance.

This guy is so full of himself, it's a miracle he doesn't explode.