WND: Citizens in 20 More States to Form Common Law Grand Juries
WorldNetDaily is reporting the following:
The [Georgia common law grand jury] indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors [03/30/09] is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that presidents be “natural born” citizens. …
Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his Rise up for America website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama’s eligibility, as well as his performance in office.
“I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury,” he said.
Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.
Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.
He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.
However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
“If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury,” it says. “The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”
Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he’s been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.
For those of you who are sympathic to the cause of constitutionalism (and no, common law grand juries aren’t unconstitutional), realize that our friends who oppose such actions as the above do have good intentions with their sometimes biting comments. Remember that it’s better to bless them than to curse them.
Nobody knows one way or the other whether all of these groups will have their presentments officially recognized by the Judiciary. The point, instead, is to pursue every action available within our means to hold the government accountable for wrongs that we believe are an injustice.
Just like the upcoming tea parties, these, too, are groups of people that in and of themselves won’t completely resolve the issues of government unaccountability. However, continually pushing forward and never ever giving up until the goal of constitutional government is achieved is the only way to get to the end.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
-Phil
If indeed BHO is a fraud, then the whole election would be a fraudulent act. Does anyone know if he would be subject to impeachemnt, treason, (subject to criminal offenses)? Would Biden then become President and Pelosi VP or would we be able to hold a special election to replace the imposter?
Good for you! Keep up the good work!
One thing I always say is “The truth will come out somehow.”
That thought keeps me smiling.
I know that we can overcome this.
Don’t let the Obama supporters dissuade you from your goal.
We need more Americans like you.
If you need any help, let me know.
I’d be happy to help.
I know I’m commanded to pray for our leaders. I do, but it’s hard sometimes when your own country is beginning to look like the Old Testament more every day! I’ve always prayed and been frightened for the Jews, but truth be told, we are all in jeopardy. I rely on the promises of God to rescue us from this ungodly world. I don’t think anyone of us knows just how bad it will get before we’re delivered. I pray it won’t be long.
Sue says:
April 9, 2009 at 10:49 am
Jacqlyn,
“CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!”
Actually, you are terribly misguided. You are not saving the country from anything. In fact, you may be destroying this country if some of you act on the comments that have been made. No one will emerge victorious. Sadly, whoever you think the enemy is will have won because you will have played right into their hands.
***************************************************************
Sue—Again…only your opinion and in my opinion you are the misguided one….take off your rose colored glasses and come to the REALITY PARTY….you are constantly trying to get folks here to not question The USURPERS ineligibility and let an unqualified…possibly illegal alien take over our country….all because he tells you words you like to hear???? The FRAUD has done nothing to pull this country together…if anything he has made it worse and more dangerous than ever as you have admitted here…..our economy has gotten worse and the jobs are disappearing even faster than before….whatever happened to that Stimulus money??? Oh yeah….we had to pay millions for a bogus Inauguration party and God only knows how many other parties he has thrown on our tax money!!!
The FRAUD preached transparency when he campaigned and all we have seen is concealment of almost every important legal document in his background….why wouldn’t people with any common sense be concerned….evidently you are lacking in that area as are many other LIBERALS and OBOT supporters!!! Just what will it take for you and your kind to start asking this FRAUD some of the same hard questions we are asking…do we all need to wait for another terrorist(man-made attack) on our own soil….or worse yet….we start killing our own friends and family members….this issue MUST be resolved if our country is to ever unite as one!!!
Sadly…it is appearing more and more that the enemy is our own government and even our court system has a hand in the corruption…Now you are starting to appear to be on the enemy side as well….that is your choice….myself I choose to be a citizen of the Constitution and when the law is not being followed then we have every right to do what we must to uphold the law and the Constitution!!
“We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln
Jacqlyn,
“CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!”
Actually, you are terribly misguided. You are not saving the country from anything. In fact, you may be destroying this country if some of you act on the comments that have been made. No one will emerge victorious. Sadly, whoever you think the enemy is will have won because you will have played right into their hands.
brygenon says:
April 8, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Jacqlyn Smith claimed,
I did answer..read more here if you want…one of the cases mentioned below with Justice Scalia
No, you responded but you did not answer, and you are still not answering. I asked what cases you were talking about when you wrote:
There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory.
I never questioned your ability to write or parrot long-winded legal sophistry. Where are these Supreme Court cases concerning Presidents Elect? If you were telling the truth, why will you not name these cases?
The one Supreme Court case you named, District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller, was about the handgun ban in D.C. It had nothing to do with a President Elect.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It was filed in District Court for the District of Columbia in February 2003, and finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. So Jacqlyn, who do you think was President Elect?
Is a little honesty too much to ask?
****************************************************************
Brygenon————-Keep searching you will eventually find them..the cases are out there….I don’t have time to search for you….I am busy with organizing a “tea party” and I am part of a citizens grand jury so knock yourself out and keep looking…eventually you will find them and then you can PAT yourself on the back for doing your due diligence….CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!
Jacqlyn Smith claimed,
No, you responded but you did not answer, and you are still not answering. I asked what cases you were talking about when you wrote:
I never questioned your ability to write or parrot long-winded legal sophistry. Where are these Supreme Court cases concerning Presidents Elect? If you were telling the truth, why will you not name these cases?
The one Supreme Court case you named, District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller, was about the handgun ban in D.C. It had nothing to do with a President Elect.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It was filed in District Court for the District of Columbia in February 2003, and finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. So Jacqlyn, who do you think was President Elect?
Is a little honesty too much to ask?
Sue,
Sandra Ramsey Lines. Go look up Keyes v. Lingle on my site; her affidavit is included therein.
While we’ve been over this many, many times before, the bottom line is that she is officially on record as saying that the online COLB is inconclusive to determine eligibility, and that, in her opinion, the original birth certificate would be needed to sufficiently determine eligibility.
Dr. Ron Polarik is also on record as having debunked the online COLB, though most illegitimizers have attempted to discredit this gentleman for the fact that he prefers to remain anonymous on the Internet (he’s already claimed to have had death threats levied against him).
What I would absolutely appreciate seeing is a forensics expert from the opposition who would go on record saying that the online COLB is conclusive with respect to determining eligibility.
-Phil
Phil,
“Perhaps the question RE: their having seen the certificate is under what context did they see it. Again, the idea is that most health department workers aren’t going to haphazardly go around looking at birth certificates for grins.”
The Hawaiian Health Dept. officials were not looking at Obama’s BC for grins. The reason was to stop the excessive phone calls.
If Hawaiian Health Dept. officials do not have the authority to inspect/view people’s original BC, then how do you think they provide people with a certified BC when the information for the certified copy is taken directly from the original BC?
When the Hawaiian Department of Health officials stated that they had Obama’s original BC, they could not have said this if Obama had not been born in Hawaii as they would not have his original BC. And, that is the only issue regarding Obama’s eligibility–that he was born in Hawaii. The rest is just BS.
BTW, which so called expert are you referring to?
Sue,
Perhaps the question RE: their having seen the certificate is under what context did they see it. Again, the idea is that most health department workers aren’t going to haphazardly go around looking at birth certificates for grins.
Which leads us to the following:
I don’t think anyone is going to debate that Hawaii does not have the President’s original 1961 birth certificate. The issue is — and I keep saying this over and over again, apparently to no avail — that the question is one of eligibility. Further, HI Health officials cannot substantiate eligibility based on what they’ve seen, because that’s not in their power to do so.
To put it a different way, just because someone claims to have “seen and verified” a given document doesn’t mean that the individual about whom the document speaks is eligible for President. One must still go about determining requirements for eligibility, and thus far, the certification of live birth — that piece of paper upon which is derived, in theory, the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate — has already had one expert declare that it’s inconclusive to determine such requirements.
-Phil
Phil,
“Remember that the bottom line is that the HI Dept. of Health only ever verified that they have a document on record. They never said (and cannot say) that it substantiates eligibility.”
Actually, the HI Dept. of Health said this:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i , along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
They said that “they had personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Unfortunately, the Hawaii State Dept. of Health miscalculated that Americans had enough sense to know what ORIGINAL meant. The Hawaii State Dept. of Health would not have Obama’s ORIGINAL BC if Obama had not been born there. And, don’t quote the foreign birth BS because that has already been debunked. And, I have yet to see anyone produce a Hawaiian BC of someone who was born in a foreign country, have you? Except of course for the 1906 one but that was prior Hawaii becoming a State.
Byrgenon—wrote foolishly—–
I asked: Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect? If you told the truth, Jacqlyn, then why do you not answer?
*****************************************************************
I did answer..read more here if you want…one of the cases mentioned below with Justice Scalia…I will let you research for the others……..You have to understand the history of the discussions since the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was written….THINK IF YOU CAN…I know it is difficult being a LIBERAL and all!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.
THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.
From the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.
Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”
This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he 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.
Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:
Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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…[6]
It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.
In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:
The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10
Now look at “footnote 10″:
E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);
Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?
I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 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. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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. 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.
Jacqlyn Smith wrote,
It’s right there at the link I provided:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
What’s the point of accusing me of fabrication when anyone who bothers to check the link will find the accusation to be false?
Jacqlyn, you had claimed:
I asked: Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect? If you told the truth, Jacqlyn, then why do you not answer?
Sue,
Sorry, I don’t have Hawaiian State statutes memorized word-for-word in my head. However, doing a simple search on my site as well as Google will show you a number of such citations. In fact, if you look under Martin v. Lingle and Keyes v. Lingle, you’ll find some actual postings about it.
Nevertheless, the point of the matter is that the authorities in Hawaii aren’t going around every day looking at peoples’ birth certificates just for grins; there has to be a defined purpose for doing such, and your quote regarding the Director of Health essentially states this.
Remember that the bottom line is that the HI Dept. of Health only ever verified that they have a document on record. They never said (and cannot say) that it substantiates eligibility.
-Phil
Phil,
“Probably for the same reason that people keep making false statements that somehow the Hawaii Department of Health somehow verified that the certification of live birth stipulates that the President is eligible for his office.”
This seems pretty to the point to me.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i , along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.””
“1. Hawaiian State officials cannot legally look upon the original birth certificate per State statute. They also never said they actually saw the document, nor did they actually confirm anything but that the certification of live birth was what it was.”
Again, please cite you source for your statement above. You did not provide me with your source for your above statement.
Jacqlyn,
“you must understand it under the whole of what de Vattel and the Law of Nations says and the discussions throughout history…Please note what John Bingham says….considered the father of the 14th amendment. Following is an excerpt from Mr. Donofrio’s website which explains it in depth.”
You are the one that misunderstands, along with Donofrio.
And my blog is about eligibility, States’ rights, and certain other issues.
And the proposed actions regarding contesting “eligibility” through a CLGJ may be crimes.
If you don’t want to warn others that their zeal may land them in jail, that’s fine.
Sue says:
April 7, 2009 at 6:57 am
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Natural-born citizen
“Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.”
* There is an exception in the law – the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.”
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Wong
“As for the question of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one “owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes” — the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country’s soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country’s territory. Since neither of the above exceptions applied to Wong Kim Ark’s parents, the court held that he was unquestionably a US citizen by virtue of his having been born in the US.”
Neither of the above exception applied to President Obama’s parents.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
****************************************************************
Sue—-You are defining citizenship and not the intentions of “natural born” as the framers of the Constitution intended and as should be applied to anyone wanting to be POTUS!! You can not just take bits and pieces….you must understand it under the whole of what de Vattel and the Law of Nations says and the discussions throughout history…Please note what John Bingham says….considered the father of the 14th amendment. Following is an excerpt from Mr. Donofrio’s website which explains it in depth.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED THROUGH HISTORY
Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.
THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.
From the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.
Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:
The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”
This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he 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.
Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:
Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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…[6]
It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.
In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:
The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10
Now look at “footnote 10″:
E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);
Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?
I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 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. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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. 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.
brygenon says:
April 6, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Jacqlyn Smith made stuff up and wrote:
There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory. Each time it was clear the person had to be “at birth” loyal only to the United States. If you are born within the U.S. or its territories, you are not automatically a “Natural Born Citizen”, but by law you are a “U.S. Citizen”. (See link to Amendment XIV U.S. Constitution above). No where does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born” citizen status.
The links indicate that you are making stuff up, Jacqlyn. Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect?
The foreign citizenship of your parent or parents may directly affect your ability to be qualified as a “natural born citizen” (loyal only to the United States at birth).
Here’s a non-fabricated reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
It cites actual case law including:
“Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 [...]“
*******************************************************************
Brygenon…..most of what you say is fabricated especially if you are using google and taking one brief part of the whole…I am using the 14th Amendment….and referring to the intentions of the framers of the constitution and what you can glean from other cases in our past history…..no matter how you want to spin it…..the USURPER is not a “natural born” citizen…never was and never will be….his historical birth (if in HAWAII) makes him nothing more than a citizen….and seeing how he is working so hard to keep all of his documents sealed I would venture to guess he is hiding much more than what meets the eye!!!!
Sue,
Since I cannot read peoples’ minds, I suppose you’re going to have to ask Mr. Berg himself for his reasoning behind that action.
-Phil
Sue,
Probably for the same reason that people keep making false statements that somehow the Hawaii Department of Health somehow verified that the certification of live birth stipulates that the President is eligible for his office.
-Phil
DictatorsGoHome,
Thanks for the kind words and reading.
-Phil
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Natural-born citizen
“Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.”
* There is an exception in the law – the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.”
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Wong
“As for the question of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one “owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes” — the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country’s soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country’s territory. Since neither of the above exceptions applied to Wong Kim Ark’s parents, the court held that he was unquestionably a US citizen by virtue of his having been born in the US.”
Neither of the above exception applied to President Obama’s parents.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
“Yeah, and? What does this have anything to do with the fact that no eligibility case has been won or lost by anyone?”
Phil,
The point is that Berg had the opportunity for his case to be heard on his evidence or facts and Berg did not take the opportunity to do so. Why if the “evidence” is concrete. Seems to me Berg would have jumped at the chance to provide his evidence to the court to be judged on the merits of the case.
“Factually incorrect:”
“1. Hawaiian State officials cannot legally look upon the original birth certificate per State statute. They also never said they actually saw the document, nor did they actually confirm anything but that the certification of live birth was what it was.”
Please cite you source for your statement above. Here is the official news release from Hawaiian State officials:
“On October 31, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released the following press release:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i , along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i .”
See Hawaii DOH News Release, Oct. 31, 2008 (08-93).”
“2. What has happened with previous Presidents has absolutely zero bearing on the present situation, as Presidents are in no way, shape or firm “tied” with each other (in other words, each Administration is mutually exclusive from the other). This is nothing more than an illegitimizer red herring being brought into the discussion to diminish the allegations of eligibility.”
Then why do people keep making false statements that previous Presidents have produced their birth certificates in this issue?
BTW Reality Check, I don’t believe Dr. Taitz gave her ramblings to the federal marshals in Idaho. As I understand it, Chief Justice Roberts instructed her to give the documents to the secret service men who were with him. I could be wrong – maybe you should be busy researching it to make sure I’m on the right track. It’s posted on her website.
The lawsuits filed thus far have been in order. What we have is a corrupt system of judges who need to be removed for aiding and abetting and covering up the facts that have been uncovered. Those of us who have done our indepth research before the Usurper ran for the presidency have more facts to blow up a cannon ball. Many have downloaded documents before the Usurper’s team [some possibly blogging here] had a chance to scrub the internet. So let’s stop the mindless games. You’re only frustrating yourselves. The truth always, always, always prevails. ALWAYS!
Phil,
Just had to write and say I think you’re doing a fantastic job keeping up with the facts surrounding the topic of the great Usurper sitting in the White House, while his crows blog on your site the same crap they’re trained from the “Rules for Radicals” manual. Brainwashed people don’t know they’re brainwashed.
What is truly important is that the news the media is hiding is finally spreading rapidly across our nation. Much thanks to you and others like you, people are angry enough and ready to act. Keep up the great work keeping the public informed. There are thousands of us drawing information from your site to help you get the word out.
Phil asked,
Not sure what you’re asking. What I explained goes against the Constitution was your claim, Phil, that the presentment of one these CJGJ is the same thing as the presentment of a real grand jury, in the context of whether a court can honor it. And I explained where it runs afoul of the Constitution: the due process clauses of the 5′th and 14′th Amendments.
But that was you equating the presentment of grand jury convened within due process of law with the presentment of one of the so-called grand juries described in the article, right? Do you remember writing:
A presentiment derived from due process of law is nothing like the same thing as any finding by these pretend juries. If you had any real respect for the Constitution and the rule of law you would not have so confused them.
Jacqlyn Smith made stuff up and wrote:
The links indicate that you are making stuff up, Jacqlyn. Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect?
Here’s a non-fabricated reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
It cites actual case law including:
“Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 [...]“
Bob,
And my blog is about eligibility, States’ rights, and certain other issues.
Can we be any more obvious?
-Phil
Who said anything about policing thoughts?
Again, just pointing out that there are laws out there people may run afoul of.
Bob,
So, “folks might want to do a little research before copying Swensson,” because he could be committing crimes in the future?
What are you, Bob, the thought police?
-Phil
Lots of things could be this or that; I prefer to stick with what’s actually in hand.
Just pointing out that there are laws out there people may run afoul of. Folks might want to do a little research before copying Swensson.
There is no Court involvement happening at this time
Nor will there ever be.
nor are any of the individuals presenting paperwork to same.
But they are presenting paperwork to various prosecutors; because such prosecutors cannot initiate suits based on these “indictments,” again there will never be court involvement.
Bob,
Lots of things could be this or that; I prefer to stick with what’s actually in hand.
There is no Court involvement happening at this time, nor are any of the individuals presenting paperwork to same.
-Phil
Have you actually seen the GA CLGJ’s paperwork?
No. Nor did I say what the CLGJ did was illegal. But similar acts elsewhere could be.
the citizens of the CJGJ have no more or less power than any other legal entity outside of the Judiciary who are presenting paperwork to the authorities.
A CLGJ isn’t really a “legal entity” — it is just an unincorporated association of people. Any such association would have its paperwork rejected by the court, as only a properly consistuted grand jury can return an indictment or presentment.
Reality Check says:
April 5, 2009 at 7:24 pm
You have certainly not “riled” me. I just happen to believe that President Obama is a good man, an honest man, and an outstanding president as well as a natural born citizen, by the way. He has certainly already shown himself to be much better at the job than the last guy in just a few weeks. When I see him defamed by lies and innuendo and being held to standards for qualification that have not been applied to any president before and are not in the Constitution I feel obliged to speak.
***************************************************************
Check—Speak all you want but we don’t have to agree with your opinion and at this site you are in the minority!!
No one here is defaming or telling lies about your guy……..Many are simply questioning his highly suspicious actions of sealing every document that would allow the American public to see who he is, where he has been and if he is physically and mentally up to being the POTUS. This transparency is highly necessary if he is to precede as POTUS! No other President that I know of has ever gone out of their way to not answer something as simple as “can we see your legal birth certificate nor have they sealed so many telling documents such as birth certificate, college records, medical records and selective service registration papers….in fact…the past Presidents who have libraries have many of their documents like copies of their legal birth certificate for all to see……I guess if BO actually survives until 2012 he may have an empty library of historical documents.
Now having said that I believe you just gave your opinion about President Bush in a very disrespectful way..but that is my opinion. First of all…comparing 70 some days in office to 8 years as better is sort of comparing apples to oranges…BO has done nothing so far except get us deeper in debt and has weaken our defense budget…I don’t call that doing better!!
It is my opinion that former President Bush is a good and honest man whose actions to keep our country safe from another attack of terrorism was one of courage and honor….that is why the military look on him as a true Patriot who loves his country and they loved him too! Never did Bush go on foreign soil as your guy just did in France and spew Anti-American rants running down America and its citizens and the previous administration….Bush has more class than that and loves his country unlike the present occupants of the White House! If I remember right….Mrs. O has never been proud of this country until her guy got the nomination for President….how shallow is that????
So speak all you want…but the fact of the matter is we are not the United States of America….we are currently the Divided States of America…so until the eligibility issue is solved and ALL AMERICANS can BELIEVE and TRUST the man who is leading our country we will continue to be DIVIDED and there is no way on this green earth that your guy will survive if he doesn’t face his “doubters”….United we stand…Divided we fall!!
Phil—I want to thank you for defending my facts against Brygenon and Sue….I really don’t have time today to rebut them and I knew many of their statements were ambiguous and misleading to say the least!! Thanks again!
Brygenon—–The facts, and your refusal to face them, mean that you are not dealing with reality.
*******************************************************************
It just so happens that I have the same opinion of you….you are not living in the reality either….and that is that we could possibly have an illegal foreigner occupying the White House and you act as if it is no big deal and we Patriots should not be allowed to question and ask for proof that the USURPER is qualified to be there. Nothing you wrote before and nothing you can ever write will make BO a “natural born” citizen and eligible to be POTUS…the facts are below that confirm this….now what is highly suspicious is why BO is afraid to show the legal documents being asked of him…other Presidents didn’t need to show their birth certificates because they weren’t ever asked to and never were suspected of a HOAX with the exception of Chester Arthur who was found out after he was long gone from POTUS!!
Here are the facts—–Read them and understand….
When Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961, regardless of location, he was a “British subject” at birth. Obama knows this and has never disputed this fact. Obama has claimed dual citizenship. It is not relevant “where” Obama was born, because Obama’s father, Obama Sr., was a British subject of Kenya when Obama was born. The territory now known as “Kenya” was a British territory when Obama was born and Kenya did not become an independent country until Dec 12, 1963 after Obama was born. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107678.html
Obama Sr. was still subject to British law as was the citizenship of his children when Obama was born. By British law, Obama was a British subject “at birth” with split or dual loyalties and citizenship “at birth” if he was also born in the United States as he claims.
See British Nationality Act of 1948 Part II Section 5—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
Obama MIGHT be a “U.S. citizen” if he was born in Hawaii as claimed. There has been much dispute as to this fact. The birth certificate Obama has provided does not prove he was born in Hawaii, but this is not relevant to his lawful disqualification of ever becoming President. The birth certificate provided only proves Obama was certified as a live birth by the Hawaiians, again not really relevant to his lawful disqualification of ever becoming President. This document does make Obama a “U.S. citizen” under the 14th Amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
This Birth Certificate does not confirm or prove Obama is a “natural born citizen” as described by the founding fathers in the constitutional qualification to becoming President. “Natural born citizen” does not refer to “where” or “how” you were born.
Therefore; Obama is a U.S. citizen born in the United States according to his Hawaiian birth certificate, but he is not necessarily a “natural born citizen”. “Natural born citizen” does not refer to “where” or “how” you were born. It refers to your citizen status at birth. Obama by law was without question, a British subject at birth. Obama’s U.S. Citizen Status is not relevant, because Obama was a British subject at birth; Obama is not lawfully qualified to ever become President of the United States.
See Article II Section (1) of the U.S. Constitution http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory. Each time it was clear the person had to be “at birth” loyal only to the United States. If you are born within the U.S. or its territories, you are not automatically a “Natural Born Citizen”, but by law you are a “U.S. Citizen”. (See link to Amendment XIV U.S. Constitution above). No where does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born” citizen status.
The foreign citizenship of your parent or parents may directly affect your ability to be qualified as a “natural born citizen” (loyal only to the United States at birth).
Remember the founding fathers were also British subjects at birth.
The founding fathers did not want anyone with birth loyalties to another country (especially British) to ever become President. In fact, because the founding fathers had by birth been British subjects themselves, when they excluded all citizens with British citizenship at birth, they had to grandfather themselves into be eligible for President. This was done by the clause “…or citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…” Article II Section (1) of the U.S. Constitution. Obama was not around at the time of the adoption of this constitution.
“Natural born citizen” was the term used by the founding fathers in the constitution to describe subjects and loyalty only to the United States “at birth”. As Obama was not around at the signing of the constitution, he is not grandfathered in this clause. Not only is Obama not eligible to become President, but Obama is exactly who was being excluded, “a British subject at birth”, expressly prohibited by the founding fathers from ever becoming President.
Do you really think the founding fathers wanted a loyal “British subject” by birth as President? I think not.
This is no joke. Obama legally is not qualified to be POTUS……..And as a constitutional scholar I think he has known this from the beginning of his bid for the White House!!
It’s amateurish “activism”.
I mean, go right ahead and do it. It makes it easier for Obama to push through his political agenda when the right wing is splintered with people running in circles chasing after windmills.
Reality Check,
While I could see some innuendo going around concerning this President, I’m not sure about the lies. After all, for a lie to be a lie, something would have to be proven to be such. If we’re talking about eligibility, there’s been nothing proven to date about this President.
-Phil
You have certainly not “riled” me. I just happen to believe that President Obama is a good man, an honest man, and an outstanding president as well as a natural born citizen, by the way. He has certainly already shown himself to be much better at the job than the last guy in just a few weeks. When I see him defamed by lies and innuendo and being held to standards for qualification that have not been applied to any president before and are not in the Constitution I feel obliged to speak.
Reality Check,
Riling folks such as yourself up would be a good enough reason, to me, to report on such things. Well, that, and overall activism. After all, while the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to be heard, nothing can stop anyone from saying what they wish to say, and continuously doing it.
Slow day today. Finally took the time to go to Wordpress and do a search on comment preview plug-ins. Hopefully it’ll work better for readers; it’ll greatly help me out, as there are enough mistakes people want me to fix that this should take care of that issue.
-Phil
As I stated previously, the NGJ’s, CJGJ’s, or whatever they call themselves have the same authority as the Wednesday Afternoon Ladies Bridge Club. So why is this “news”? It is all show. It is like Orly Taitz “filing” her cases by giving boxes of her inane ramblings to the federal marshals in Idaho. It is all show and no substance. That is the Birther movement in a nutshell. All show and no substance. “Show” is nice but after a while there must be some meat, some facts, some substance or the show will die.
By the way, thanks for the “Preview” feature. It is a nice improvement.