Who is paying for the Lakin defense circus?  It turns out we all are.

Some of our commentators have already called attention to this web site seeking funds for LTC Lakin’s legal defense fund.

The site states:  “A vigorous defense of this case presents the ONLY present hope that Americans will finally learn whether their president lawfully holds office. If you want the proof, you can only hope to get it by supporting LTC Lakin NOW.”  If that’s true, then there’s no hope the birthers will succeed in obtaining the documents they seek, since there’s no chance they’ll do so my means of discovery in the (presumed) general court-martial of United States v. Lakin.

The first charge LTC Lakin faces is missing movement.  Of course President Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president, having been born in Hawaii, thus obtaining citizenship by birth, as provided by the 14th Amendment.  But — I can’t believe I’m writing this — let’s assume for the sake of argument that he wasn’t born in the United States and for some reason his mother’s American citizenship was insufficient to make him a natural born citizen.  How would that provide a defense to missing movement?  The obvious answer is it wouldn’t.  And since it wouldn’t, any evidence concerning President Obama’s citizenship is irrelevant to that charge.  Accordingly, a military judge won’t grant a defense motion to compel the issuance of subpoenas to obtain evidence concerning President Obama’s citizenship to defend against the missing movement charge.

Now look at the three violation of a lawful order specs.  One is based on an order issued by a LTC Judd, one is based on an order issued by COL Gordon R. Roberts, and one is based on an order issued by a COL McHugh.  Those orders are lawful regardless of whether the President is constitutionally eligible to serve.  No military judge would allow discovery concerning the President’s eligibility to defend against those specs, since any materiaI or testimony obtained would have no relevance to any matter under litigation and couldn’t reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.  I don’t think a military judge would even have to get to the de facto officer doctrine to hold that, but as we’ve previously discussed, the de facto officer doctrine exists for just such cases.  If there were a constitutionally ineligible President, the U.S. government wouldn’t grind to a halt and U.S. servicemembers wouldn’t be free to walk away from their places of duty; the de facto officer doctrine would continue to give legal effect to orders by officers such as LTC Judd, COL Roberts, and COLMcHugh.  See Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180-81 (1995).  Finally, there’s a willful dereliction of duty spec for failing to carry out Temporary Change of Station orders issued by COL McHugh directing LTC Lakin to report to Fort Campbell, as it was his duty to do.  Again, even if President Obama weren’t constitutionally eligible, that would provide no defense for LTC Lakin’s failure to carry out his duty as established by the Temporary Change of Station orders issued by COL McHugh.  No defense, no discovery.

Despite the absence of any chance that the Lakin case will succeed in obtaining any documents or testimony concerning President Obama’s citizenship, the web site proclaims:  “It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin’s supporters come to his aid NOW.”  Which now brings me to the point of this post.  According to the web site:  “American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin’s attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution.”  So LTC Lakin isn’t paying his lawyer–or, he isn’t footing any more of the bill than the rest of we American taxpayers are.  It appears that the United States Treasury will be out the money that goes to Paul Rolf Jensen to engage in his quixotic quest.

26 Responses to “A quick look at LTC Lakin’s legal defense fund”

  1. Article16 says:

    Obviously taking a dive.
    Perhaps the long-run strategy is to collaterally challenge the court martial itself. E.g., somehow arguing they illegitimately convened it all to target this poor “Constitutional” conscientious objector. If he can’t logically recognize the legitimacy of military orders, why should he recognize the legitimacy of the trial judiciary and the military appellate system?
    Such a strategy runs headlong into the exhaustion of remedies principles, the same prudential and jurisdictional obstacles that thwarted similarly motivated litigation, as well as sound reasoning, but… maybe they see it as a trojan horse that could make it all larger, at the end of the day, than just the open and shut career-ruining court martial. Remedies are never exhausted for the loony.

  2. Anonymous says:

    $500,000? I’m reminded of Dr. Evil. I only hope the MJ isn’t some closet birther. Aren’t there some so-called oath keepers (and other guano-crazy-anti-Obama-for the sake of being anti-Obama types) amongst the ranks?

  3. Socrates says:

    Nothing is new under the Sun. It sometimes strikes me how seemingly new legal issues have roots in our religious history. For example, to me, different schools of constitutional interpretation parallel various methods of Biblical interpretation.

    So this issue with the validity of LTC Lakin’s military orders vis-à-vis the authority of the President reminds me of the centuries-old question about the validity of sacraments in the Catholic Church. The question there has been if the Priest’s authority is somehow suspect, is the sacrament he presides over still valid? (i.e., baptism, marriage, consecration of the host, etc). And you can scoff at this analogy, but for people who take such matters seriously, the stakes are much higher than a mere dismissal and a few years of confinement (cf. eternal confinement). So our Catholic elders have put much more thought into such matters than that “narrow segment” (see FOIA response) of a few modern military and lawyer types.

    Of course, the interests are inverted in this analogy. LTC Lakin WANTS the President’s authority to be invalidated; but the typical Catholic has a strong interest in having the Priest’s authority vindicated. The authority/validity issue, however, is the same: If there is a defect in the Priest’s holy orders or in his intentions, is the sacrament still valid? In theological terms, we ask whether the minister’s work is “efficacious” and grace flows from God thru him to the faithful. (Yes, there is a divine chain-of-command, too).

    It is almost as if LTC Lakin is comparing President Obama to an unordained or sinful priest – or, dare I say, Pope – and denying the effectiveness of his powers. The Catholic Church has answered this type of question with a complex analysis setting out the requirements for validity under the headings of minister, intent, matter, and form.

    Dealing solely with the first issue regarding the minister, LTC Lakin’s argument is similar to stating that POTUS holds invalid episcopal or priestly holy orders.

    The Catholic theologian would have two rebuttals. First, as long as there is at least one valid priest present and participating in the consecration, no matter how many invalid “co-celebrants” there are, the consecration happens. Here, the solitary valid priest necessary is LTC Lakin’s immediate superior. It only takes one. And just like those periods after a Pope dies, if the high office is not filled on a Sunday, masses around the world are still valid.

    Second, the Catholic Church modified its legislative history on this canon to put more emphasis on form than substance, contrary to the dominant legal approach in modern times (typically putting form over substance). Originally, Canon law included the word “legitimately,” stating that one’s Sunday obligation was fulfilled by “assistance at a Mass that is legitimately celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite.” In the drafting process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the word “legitimately” was dropped. The Holy See did not want the laity in a position of having to evaluate which Masses were legitimately celebrated and which were not (cf. Coriden, Green, and Heintschel, ed.s, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 854).

    My suspicions are that the military judge (and appellate judges, if any) in the LTC Lakin’s case will take some cues from Catholic Canon Law. The scholarship is thoughtful.

    (Oh…by the way, long live Martin Luther!)

  4. Anonymous says:

    I can’t see how the analogy would apply at all. Don’t each of the officers whose orders were obeyed hold an independent commission from which their own authority and responsibility flow? And, given their relative superiority, I suspect their commissions were issued long before the present administration came into office. So, how could the alleged ineligibility of the President to hold office have any impact at all on the validity of these officers commissions?

  5. John O'Connor says:

    Well, aren’t we always footing the bill for court-martial defense in the form of detailed defense counsel?

    And we certainly aren’t footing all of the cost of Lakin’s civilian defense counsel. Rather, the Treasury is losing only the percentage of contributions to this organization that would have been paid in income taxes but for the donation to this organization (which itself is dependent on the tax bracket of the donors). I guess in theory it’s possible some nerdlinger is sitting in the government somewhere calculating that the tax rate has to be raised because of the amount of tax revenue that will be lost becvause of donations to Lakin’s defense fund, though that seems sort of attenuated.

    Also, I guess I take issue with the general premise that “we” are paying for anything when, in fact, it’s really just a theoretical diminution of tax revenue. Also, if we’re going to start making a list of deductible “charitable” donations that “we” are paying for where I disagree with the underlying cause (a list that would include this one), that would be a pretty long list.

  6. Socrates says:

    That’s exactly my point. Please re-read my post. We come to the same conclusion. So the analogy does apply.

  7. glenn says:

    Jensen co-founds American Patriot Foundation. Lakin isn’t their first project. That would be…

    “Americans for Accountability, or A4A, which debuted yesterday with a Freedom of Information Act request seeking “all Obama Administration documents and data pertaining to Sen. Tom Daschle’s tax evasion.”

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=9359

    Read the post to see who else is involved. Lakin is being used. These guys play dirty.

  8. Anonymous says:

    But by reference to the Church’s views of certain ordinations and the acts of the “priests” so “ordained”, aren’t you supporting LTC Lakin’s position? (See e.g. “Apostolicae Curae”, describing Anglican ordinations as “absolutely null and utterly void”, thus denying that Anglicans participate at all in the apostolic succession.)

  9. kismetique says:

    “Of course President Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president, having been born in Hawaii, thus obtaining citizenship by birth”

    Well, you forgot to add….to that statement – In your opinion.

    Those of us who feel as Obama does as well, the paternal citizenship of the father is passed on, thus making him a dual citizen with dual-allegiances at birth – precludes him from being eligible – have a differing opinion.

    President Obama SAID he held dual citizenships at birth.
    President Obama SAID he was governed by British Law at birth.

    Are you calling him a liar? Or do you just choose to ignore these facts?

  10. Anonymous says:

    But, kismetique, so what: How does any of that give LTC Lakin permission to disobey LTC Judd, COL Roberts, and COL McHugh?

    Even if they were born in another country they deserve the same obedience and respect as any other Army officers.

  11. glenn says:

    No. His father was British. I just think that your theory is ridiculous. As did the judge in the Ankeny v. Daniels case.

    Birthers: Making stuff up daily.

    As you can see, it really doesn’t matter to the Birthers whether or not President Obama releases his birth certificate. They have many other theories to fall back on. Someone made a cartoon video about that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjRthxvSFg

    The arguments shown in the video are by no means the complete list.

  12. Gorefan says:

    Where specifically does it say in the constitution that dual citizenship makes someone ineligible to be President?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Facts, I don’t think that word means, what you think it means.

    Let me make sure I understand your, and I use this word loosely, argument. Even though, statutory law makes clear that being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen (see e.g. a term you might use “anchor baby”), the same statutory law that says even if born overseas you only need one parent to be an American citizen (with some stipulations as to prior residency in the US), and even though we have a birth certificate that the state of Hawaii says exists and is valid.

    Even with that, you still think Kenyan-dad means Obama can’t be president because “paternal citizenship is passed on.”

    And where do you cite support for this…fact? Where do you cite support for the…fact…that President Obama said he held dual citizenship at birth? Or that he was governed by British law at birth? And why would either of these two things make him not a natural born citizen given that he was born in the US, on US soil to an American mother?

    I certainly understand the attempt you are trying to make. You strike me as someone slightly less crazy enough to understand the birth certificate argument just ain’t working so you are going for the next slender reed you can grasp because you can’t stand having an Afri…errr, Barack Obama president.

  14. Anonymous says:

    OK, that video was…hilarious, a must-see.

  15. Socrates says:

    You are correct to this extent: if every single officer in LTC Lakin’s chain-of-command held an invalid commission, he would have a point.

  16. Anon says:

    Can anyone explain how this can qualify as being tax deductible?

  17. btw says:

    I placed a comment on a related topic about a possible way to send donations with your thoughts to American Patriot Foundation, Inc. – T Lakin Defense Fund:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/23/retired-army-general-supports-lt-col-lakin/comment-page-1/#comment-9033

    Hope you find it useful.

  18. funnyhaha71 says:

    Kismetique,

    Too bad for you that US State and Federal courts (including the USSC) disagree with your “belief” that someone who once had dual-citizenship at birth can’t be POTUS. The courts have been constant on this issue for the past 150 years, saying that if one is born here, they are a natural (aka native) born citizen and are eligible to run and be POTUS. Both of Obama’s parents could have been non-US citizens at the time of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and he would still be a NBC. That isn’t opinion, that is fact. Why is it fact? Because it is what the courts have decided NBCship to be for almost 200 years.

    So, you may believe what ever you wish. But, the courts, including the USSC, disagree with you over and over again. You are certainly entitled to disagree with over 200 years of court rulings about NBCship, but your disagreement is meaningless in the eyes of the law.

    You state:
    “Those of us who feel as Obama does as well, the paternal citizenship of the father is passed on, thus making him a dual citizen with dual-allegiances at birth – precludes him from being eligible – have a differing opinion.

    President Obama SAID he held dual citizenships at birth.
    President Obama SAID he was governed by British Law at birth.

    Are you calling him a liar? Or do you just choose to ignore these facts?”

    The below information shows that Obama is a NBC. Since some of the citizens discussed in these cases were born to non-citizen parents, they to would hold dual-citizenship. These cases destroy your argument. I doubt you will agree with the courts on this issue, but nevertheless, according to the laws of the US, Obama is a NBC whom is eligible to be POTUS.

    There are only 2 types of American citizenship; Natural (aka Native) Born and Naturalized (I have posted court cases that use native born and natural born to debunk the argument that they are different forms of citizenship). Those born on US soil don’t have to apply to be naturalized because the government considers them to be NBCs. Obama is a NBC. NOTHING in the Constitution states that a NBC cannot be a dual-citizen (and Obama is no longer a dual-citizen). The cases listed here span from 1999.

    From “US Congress – Mr Dowdy reports on the meaning of Natural Born” http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80?autodown=pdf . I have used ALL CAPS to emphasis sections; I am not yelling! :o) When I add a comment to the quoted material, I will place that comment in [].

    ‘”In the Dred Scott Case, 60 U.S. 393, l.c. 576 in his separate opinion, Justice Curtis stated:

    “The first section of the second Article of the Constitution used language “A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. UNDOUBTEDLY, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood In this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, WHICH REFERRED CITIZENSHIP TO THE PLACE OF BIRTH.”

    Lynch v Clarke (1844): “that every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, WHATEVER THE SITUATION OF HIS PARENTS, was a natural born citizen.” He added that “this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. …

    The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I THINK NOT.”

    [Please note that Lynch v Clarke says that allegiance is tied to place of birth, regardless of the citizenship of a child’s parents. Obama was born here and his allegiance is to the US. I think his history of service to the US is proof of that.]

    Luria v United States: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the presidency.”

    Knauer v. United States: “I do not find warrant in the Constitution for believing that it contemplates TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS, excepting only for two purposes. One is to provide how citizenship shall be acquired, Const. Art. 1, p. 8; Amend XIV, p. 1, the other to determine the eligibility for the presidency. The latter is the only instance in which the charter expressly excludes the “naturalized citizen” from any right or privilege the “native born” possesses.”

    [One is either a NBC or one is a naturalized citizen. We know that Obama was never naturalized so he is a NBC.]

    US v Fisher ““A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all of the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”’

    From: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/natural-born-citizen-at-law/#more-6125

    “Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States”‘

    “Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”‘

    [2 of the Plaintiff’s are not NBCs because they were not born in the US. The Plaintiff’s youngest child, whom was born in the US, is a NBC.]

    “Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen of the US):

    “The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***

    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds”‘

    [So this child, whom was born in the US but spent much of his childhood in his parents country of Greecef, is still a NBC!]

    ‘”Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. SHE WAS BORN IN A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WHETHER HER PARENTS WERE NATURALIZED OR NOT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION SHE IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.”‘

    ‘”State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):

    “According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are TWO METHODS BY WHICH A PERSON MAY BECOME A CITIZEN: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.”‘

    From http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    Perkins v Elg; “Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
    ***
    First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the

    “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. …And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

    Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.

    This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: [Prussian father had child in St. Louis/USA. Four years later, father returned to Germany with child. When child turned 21, he was drafted. Father requested US intervention on ground that “son was a native citizen of the United States,” but declined to have son return to US.] On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

    “Young Steinkauler IS A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. HE CAN RETURN TO AMERICA at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, IF THE PEOPLE ELECT, HE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; …. ”

    ***

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”‘

    [Note that the court maintains that a Native born citizen is eligible to be POTUS. The courts have repeatedly stated that native and natural are the same.]

    You may read many, many more sources at the above links.

    One point to clarify; Obama is no longer a dual-citizen. He allowed his British/Kenyan citizenship to expire. Obama is a NBC of the US. The courts have repeatedly stated that:

    1) One is a NBC if born in the US or born abroad to US citizens.
    2) Dual-citizenship is irrelevant to the status of one’s NBC status, thus dual-citizens, as NBCs are eligible to be POTUS.

    Now, you are welcome to post court rulings that support your opinion that a dual-citizen cannot be POTUS. You are welcome to post cases that show that one born to non-citizen parents in the US isn’t a NBC. But you won’t find such cases. Your opinion is simply your opinion. The law is fact. The law supports that Obama is a NBC and that dual-citizenship at birth has no impact on his eligibility to be POTUS. The dual-citizenship argument used by birthers isn’t relevant because Obama isn’t a dual-citizen.

    You may disagree with the law, but such disagreements have nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS. He is legally President.

  19. btw says:

    funnyhaha71
    (and everybody who is interested in this matter),

    It would be good to read the comment just above of yours

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/04/22/a-quick-look-at-ltc-lakins-legal-defense-fund/#comment-13904

    and follow all links there, in particular “The ultimate proof…”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6687

    The Constitution is written for every US Citizen, not only for judges; every reasonable person can read Article 2 and 14th Amendment and make a proper inference about the definition of Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution. And it will be equivalent Vattel’s classical definition: “…those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens”

    It would be useful also to read this article: “4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”. IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN”
    by John Charlton (Oct. 18, 2009):

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

  20. funnyhaha71 says:

    “The Constitution is written for every US Citizen, not only for judges; every reasonable person can read Article 2 and 14th Amendment and make a proper inference about the definition of Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution. And it will be equivalent Vattel’s classical definition: “…those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens” ”

    Should I be surprised that you didn’t even read my post??? After all, it goes against one of the justifications you have for wanting Obama out of office.

    In other words, you can’t prove me wrong using court cases. Nor can Post and Email. The cases that Post&E list are simply cases that refer to the word parent(s) as being relevant to citizenship; sometimes when the words parent(s) is used in these cases, it is simply discussing various opinions and isn’t ruling on what a citizen is. As you can see from the numerous cases I posted, the citizenship of one’s parents has no bearing upon the citizenship of a child born on US soil.

    P&E discussed The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch. This case doesn’t deal with citizenship at all!!!! It deals with property rights during war and who should fight on behalf of the US when at war!

    “I will not pretend to say what distinctions may or may not exist between these two classes of citizens, in a contest of a different description. But in a contest between the United States and the naturalized citizen, in a claim set up by the United States to confiscate his property, he may, I think, protect himself by any defense which would protect a native American. In the prosecution of such a claim, the United States is, I think, if I may be excused for borrowing from the common law a term peculiarly appropriate, estopped from saying that they have not placed this adopted son on a level with those born in their family.” http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

    Imagine that, I actually went to the case and read!

    At P&E, one of the cases discussed is Shanks v. Dupont. Shank v Dupont had to do with a woman born a British subject BEFORE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was written. That case has no bearing on the issue of NBCship.

    P&E then references Minor V. Happersett. P&E glosses over the end of the paragraph it quotes because it doesn’t like the last sentence, which states “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. Minor v Happersett is only discussing various authorities regarding citizenship. All that Minor v Happersett does is define that there are only 2 types of citizenship, NBC and citizenship by naturalization.

    Then P&E discussed United States v. Wong Kim Ark. P&E selected one brief paragraph from a case that actually shows NBCship to be tied to place of birth, not to the citizenship status of one’s parents. Wong Kim Ark was deemed to be a NBC!!! Even though his parents were not US citizens at all!!!!!!!!!

    (Big H/T to Tes at http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/)

    Why doesn’t P&E refer to the USSC’s ruling in Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1913)? The US Supreme Court said: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” WOW! That case is 100 years older than Venus! Even P&E agrees that there are only 2 forms of citizenship, NBC and naturalization. So why would P&E leave out Luria v. U.S. when it is a USSC ruling on NBCship????

    Now, you can believe that the de Vattel quote is meaningful, but your belief isn’t supported by law.

    As to your point about “The Constitution is written for every US Citizen, not only for judges; every reasonable person can read Article 2 and 14th Amendment and make a proper inference about the definition of Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution.” Obviously that isn’t true, because you yourself are referencing federal court cases for a definition of NBCship. In addition, if that is true, then why are the birthers constantly trying to get federal courts to define NBCship for them?

    No where in the Constitution is the dual-citizenship issue mentioned. So, you rely on de Vattel. Then you go to Post&E to reference tiny clips of court rulings P&E has falsely interpreted. While I provided quotes, I also provided sources for you to refer to that give you much, much, much, much more detail about the cases I discussed.

    So again, my challenge to you is “post court rulings that support your opinion that a dual-citizen cannot be POTUS. You are welcome to post cases that show that one born to non-citizen parents in the US isn’t a NBC.” I would also encourage you to use something that isn’t de Vattel linked since de Vattel is meaningless.

    Please note, if you go to http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html you will find much more complete analysis of the 4 cases presented by Post and Email. The site also discusses many, many secondary sources, which I think you will find interesting. http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html .

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

  21. Dwight Sullivan says:

    funnyhahah71, thanks for the Luria cite, which does indeed equate “native citizen” with “natural born citizen” for Article II, § 1 purposes: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. U.S. 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913). Luria also cites Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), which includes the following: “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.” Id. at 101. So there you have the Supreme Court saying that “citizenship by birth” is “natural born Citizen” status for purposes of Article II, § 1.

  22. funnyhaha71 says:

    You are most welcome, Dwight! I am amazed by how much I have learned about the law as I have watched the birthers flail in court these past 20 months.

    I think that it will be very interesting to see how Lakin’s court martial proceeds and how Lakin is sentenced. I am pleased that the military is finally putting an end to such non-sense and are taking swift action. It is unfortunate that Lakin is willing to be a sacrificial lamb for his puppet-masters, but he is an intelligent man. He has made his choice. I suspect he will truly be surprised when he doesn’t get discovery for anything related to Obama.

    At least Lakin was smart enough to not accept Orly as one of his civil lawyers! On her website, Orly asked her followers to find out how to contact Lakin. I suspect that she contacted his spokeswoman, Margaret Hemenway who less than politely refused Orly’s offer of assistance.

  23. btw says:

    I appreciate that in your post (funnyhaha71, April 24, 2010 at 11:22 pm) you noticed my statement : “The Constitution is written for every US Citizen, not only for judges; every reasonable person can read Article 2 and 14th Amendment and make a proper inference about the definition of Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution. And it will be equivalent Vattel’s classical definition: “…those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens” ”

    I also see that we have an agreement “that there are only 2 forms of citizenship, NBC and naturalization…”

    It leads immediately to the definition of NBC according to the 14th Amendment:
    NBC = “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    You see – there aren’t in the Constitution words (definition): “NBC is…”. But using a reasonable logic any reasonable person easily gets the definition of NBC (according to the Constitution) that is written above.

    I remember that Mr. Donofrio have stated that the Constitution doesn’t have a definition for NBC. As you see, I agree with him literally (there aren’t such words in the text like “NBC is…”; because it was obvious (an axiom) what does it mean at the time of the creation of the Constitution) ; but it doesn’t mean that we cannot logically get the definition of NBC (see above) based strictly on the text of the Constitution.

    “…why are the birthers constantly trying to get federal courts to define NBCship for them?… ” I’d rather use the term – Constitutionalists. I think they know well what NBC means. I think they are trying to convince (so far unsuccessfully) courts to not dismiss cases of Obama’s Eligibility, but consider them on merit – on the base of the Constitution (and this would force courts to clearly state what clearly follows from the Constitution regarding the term NBC).

    The meaning “..subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was shown in “The ultimate proof…”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-6687

    that I believe you have read (but have not discussed at all).

    “…Framers of 14th Amendment clearly determined “What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means”

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

    By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 Updated 8/10/09
    “…The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. …” (the last 2 sentences are bold and underlined in the article – btw)…”

    I’m adding one more quote from that link:
    “…Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every 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.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant…”

    Only after all of this I’m stating that the classical Vattel’s definition of NBC (“…those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens”) is equivalent to the definition of citizens at birth (or, in orther words, NBC) according to the Constitution: “… born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” In other manner:

    NBC = “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” = “those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens”

    You write: “…Now, you can believe that the de Vattel quote is meaningful, but your belief isn’t supported by law…”

    Quite opposite, Vattel quote is very meaningful, and it’s supported by the highest law – the Constitution.

    As we see, NBC, exactly as their parents, are “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
    ——————————————————–
    You could see in “The ultimate proof…” (see the link above) the second way to get the same inference about requirements for being NBC – born in the US + only one jurisdiction (US) is allowed. That inference is based on the Constitution and the Oath of Allegiance for persons wishing to become naturalized citizens. I’ll not repeat the second proof entirely here – please read it in “The ultimate proof…” All naturalized citizens have to (before that) take the Oath of Allegiance (I did it): Renounce foreign allegiances, Support and defend the Constitution. As a result of that they are “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” But we agree that citizens of both groups (NBC and naturalized) are equal (except only one thing – only NBC have an ability to become POTUS). That means that NBC are also “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. It may be ONLY if their parents are the US citizens. You know very well that this isn’t Obama’s case.

    Why this requirement – “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”? It was a clear intention of framers – not to have any foreign influence on US citizens.

    In support of that statement I’m quoting from

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/18/palin-rejects-import-of-article-ii-section-1-clause-5-of-the-u-s-constitution/comment-page-1/#comment-5732

    “…In Washington’s eulogy, Henry Lee stated:
    “Methinks I see his august image and I hear falling from his venerable lips these deep sinking words:

    … shut up every avenue to foreign influence,…

    Based on Washington’s letters, recently published at:
    http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/

    Would it have been reasonable for Washington to have said that?

    And then in 1866, John A. Bingham appears to have echoed “shut up every avenue to foreign influence”, when he stated:
    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every 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. . . . ”

    John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)…”
    ***********************
    I enhance this “shut up every avenue to foreign influence” statement by a following hypothetical example: let’s imagine that Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc. got a son from an American woman, and that son was born in the US. If that person would be considered as NBC (of course I object to this), he could have a chance to become POTUS. Do you like such a perspective?

    Having a foreigner father such a person would have a dual allegiance at birth. Thus he isn’t NBC /Article 2-1-5/ and NOT eligible to be POTUS regardless of his birthplace. Of course this person may potentially become a naturalized US citizen after renouncing his foreign allegiances.
    ————————————————–

    As we see, there is a requirement that follows as a result of an analysis of the Constitution for citizens of both groups (NBC and naturalied): “Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”.

    In other words, It means – NO dual citizenship (according to the Constitution): This is the answer on your statement: “…No where in the Constitution is the dual-citizenship issue mentioned. So, you rely on de Vattel. ”

    From “The ultimate proof…”:
    “…It can be said that there are laws accepted by Congress during the history of the US that recognize different circumstances of getting citizenship – e.g., recognizing citizenship at birth for babies born abroad to 2 parents who are citizens. It only means that those laws contradict Constitution (as it is for now) and have to be corrected (or Constitution has to be amended). The same statement pertains to some practice of tolerance to the dual citizenship – this practice contradicts Constitution…”

    In my opinion, Congress “forgot” what was written in the Constitution
    “…All persons born… in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

    and have used a wrong substitute:

    “…All persons born… in the United States, OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
    There is a huge difference between a usage words “AND” and “OR”!

    As a result of that a statutory (not Constitutional) category of native citizenship arrived giving a citizenship at birth to persons born in the US (regardless of their parents origins; as a result of that – the problem of anchor babies). Yes, I saw mentions that originally (at times of arriving the Constitution) meanings “native” and “natural born” were the same. But now “native” means just “born in the country”. Because of that the site “Fight the smears”

    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    placed the following:
    “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.”

    Of course they know very well that in the Constitution (Article 2-1-5) there is only a category “Natural Born Citizen” – among requirements to be POTUS. It’s up to interested persons to ask them: why they didn’t use the Constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” instead of “native citizen”?

    As a result of a wrong interpretation and usage of the 14th Amendment one can observe the following: Justice Ginsburg have stated that she always considered her grandson (born in France to 2 American citizens) as a NBC (???). Compare this with the statement of Mr. DOWDY from one of your links:

    “I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the Ulnted States could ever be ellglble to occupy the Office of the President of theUnited States.

    In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born in Mexico and Is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80?autodown=pdf

    I absolutely agree with this statement of Mr. DOWDY (it doesn’t mean that I agree with all other his opinions).
    —————————————————————–

    As one can see, I didn’t use any court’s decision in order to get the definition of NBC according to the logical analysis of the Constitution. I gave in my previous post that link to the article in P&E only to show that courts used the same definition (I’m sorry but I don’t need any court’s decision for my understanding that under the sun the snow is white and the clear day sky is blue.).

    I repeat here what I placed above:

    NBC = “All persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” = “those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens”

    I hope you’ll read this stuff (including “The ultimate proof…”) without a prejudice.

    I’m thankful to moderators of this site for a possibility to freely discuss this subject in best traditions of the true democracy.

    I believe that it’s a duty of every citizen of this great country – to help to uphold the Constitution.

  24. Dwight Sullivan says:

    “btw,” do you agree that the purpose the first sentence of the 14th Amendment was to reverse Scott v. Sandford? Because it was, that language “born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can’t possibly mean “those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens.” Because neither slaves nor free Blacks who were the descendants of slaves were citizens per Scott v. Sandford, if the 14th Amendment actually required that even one parent be a citizen (much less two), then no child born of the union between a slave or free Black and another slave or free Black would have been a citizen. In fact, under that rationale, many (if not most) of the African-Americans in the United States today wouldn’t be citizens since their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., never would have become citizens unless naturalized. Because the whole purpose of the 14th Amendment’s first sentence was to make former slaves and free Blacks citizens, it can’t possibly adopt a requirement of birth in the United States plus parents’ citizenship.

    Note that “the ultimate proof” adds a word to the 14th Amendment’s language to make its point. The actual wording of the 14th Amendment can’t be fairly construed in the manner “the ultimate proof” urges. So “the ultimate proof” changes the language. The actual language indicates that the exemption was for those entitled to diplomatic immunity.

    Finally, in the mid-1860s, the notion that non-citizen immigrants in the United States weren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would have been laughable. Under a statute adopted by Congress in 1863, many non-citizen immigrants were subject to the draft during the Civil War. Enrolment Act, ch. 75, 12 Stat. 731 (1863). As you will recall, the draft sparked a certain amount of resentment and discontent in the North. It would have been absurd for anyone to claim in 1866 — when the 14th Amendment was proposed — that an alien who had been subjected to involuntary conscription during the Civil War wasn’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in that war’s immediate aftermath. History thus confirms what the 14th Amendment’s language and judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s language tell us: anyone born in the United States whose parents aren’t immune from prosecution under the laws of the United States is born a U.S. citizen and is thus a natural born Citizen of the United States.

  25. btw says:

    This is my short “closing statement” in front of the jury of respected readers regarding my last long post (Apr 28, 2010 at 3:18pm) and “The ultimate proof…”

    I’ll just repeat only one quote from the framer of 14th Amendment, John Bingham: “…every 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….” I don’t think anyone can say better than that.

    I believe that framers of 14th Amendment knew and understood the meaning of 14th Amendment better than any comments made later after them: “…not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty…”

    It’s perfectly relates to the spirit of George Washington’s quote: “… shut up every avenue to foreign influence,…”

    The question is: Do current US citizens wish to carry out the well-thought wise will (testament) of that one of outstanding founding fathers of the US Republic?

  26. captain obvious says:

    btw, when a public statement by the framer of an amendment conflicts with the actual text of the amendment…the text of the amendment is authoritative, not the other way around.

    That is all.