Letter to Mark Levin, Esq., through Landmark Legal

1) Fogbow —  Here is more fodder for your insulting commentary. You attack my character and curriculum vitae but cannot touch my citation of history and law. Hmmm. I admit, I failed to enter law school; that was due to succumbing to Guillain-Barre’, which 8 years later I am still recovering from. What is your excuse?

2) On a recent radio broadcast, attorney Mark Levin lambasted so-called ‘birthers’ in his analysis of why Ted Cruz was eligible to the presidency. The broadcast was particularly disturbing because of the tone of voice Levin took, and his acquittal of the subject admitting no discussion or debate, “Case Closed,” so to speak.

The following is my formal response to conservative pundit and activist, Mark Levin:

Re:      Mark Levin’s mistaken citation of the 1940 Aliens and Nationality Act

 

Sirs:

Thomas Jefferson advised reading the constitution as originally constructed.[1] Therefore, Mr. Levin’s reliance on the 1940 Act was fatally flawed; as one must go back to nationality law as the framers knew it.

 

There were two controlling statutes at the time of the writing of Article II, i.e., jurisdiction over a child born of a British father on U.S. soil. According to both the 1772 British Nationality Act and the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, et seq 1855, if Obama was born in the United  States in the time of the framers, he would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural born one.

 

There was no conflict between the two laws; Obama would be a British subject, just as he admitted in his biographies.

 

Place of birth citizenship has roots in an obscure 1608 common law case, but had no place in law governing who was a U.S. citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.[2] There is only one Supreme Court case providing insight into natural born citizenship as judicial notice, Minor vs. Happersett.[3]

 

Therefore, Obama, regardless of the marital status of his U.S. citizen mother, required a U.S. citizen father to be a natural born citizen.

 

True, the abandonment of the father triggered provisions in modern nationality law making Obama a ‘citizen at birth,’ however; the maiden nationality of the wife or mother had no contribution to the nationality of the child until the 1920s and 1930s.

 

The Cause of Our National Cognitive Dissonance

 

During one of Mr. Levin’s radio shows, he disagreed that congress has plenary power over naturalization law. Yet, that is what Art I, Sec 8 assigns.

 

Courts have assumed, unconstitutionally, jurisdiction over naturalization cases. The most tragic was Wong Kim Ark in which the 1898 court ignored 108-years of existing nationality law and wrote new law, in direct conflict with existing law and a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

Wong Kim Ark created, by legislation from the bench, a new, unstatutory standard of ‘born in the United   States’ citizenship, regardless of the nationality, alienage, or immigration status of the parents. It ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and its preamble more accurately defining the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause as “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,’ e.g., freed negro slaves had no nationality. Their children had no nationality through either jus solis or sanquinis. (See, the 1866 Civil Rights Act.)

 

Another case was Schneiderman (1944) in which the court ignored a challenge to a communist activist’s naturalization that was in direct violation of 8 U.S.C. 1424. The court continued asserting its jurisdiction over naturalization and nationality law through ‘cases and controversies,’ electing to ignore the congress. This continues today in such cases as Plyler vs Doe which ignored Texas law.

 

How to Stop Obama

 

Just before the release of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate,’ whitehouse.gov published a forged PDF birth certificate. That the document was altered, in itself, was a violation of federal law. The evidence has been made public by law enforcement investigators. As a photographer, my Adobe software instantly revealed ‘histories’ of manipulation of the PDF, carelessly left in the file by the White House. A mere ‘flattening’ of the image would have erased the art histories of manipulation.

 

Nevertheless, the originalist perception of ‘natural born citizen’ was not merely ‘born on U.S. soil.’ Records from that period reveal the framers discriminating between Alexander Hamilton’s ‘born a citizen’ versus John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II.

 

I have this debated with U.S. congressmen, and my conclusion is that because they are trained as lawyers, they kowtow to judicial precedent over legislative history. The ‘birther’ issue is powerful, nonetheless. It was the way to stop Obama in the first place, and it has the added benefit of repairing our broken immigration system. All congress has to do is revise 8 U.S.C. 1401 with the legislative history of the 14th Amendment[4] and Obama’s presidency is erased, and our borders re-established.

 

Sincerely, [etc.]


[1] “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

[2] See ‘The Case of Mr. Smith,’ in which Madison prevailed on the principle of place of birth, but Dr. Ramsey’s treatise on citizenship at birth was the basis for the 1790 First Uniform Naturalization Act. 22 May 1789, Madison’s Papers 12:179–82

[3] “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Letter to Mark Levin, Esq., through Landmark Legal”

  1. arnash Says:

    Levin’s certainty about the meaning of nbc is a tragedy of significant proportions. It’s the result of the arrogance of “expertise” and the authority that comes with it.

    Allow a slight correction in this statement: “The most tragic was Wong Kim Ark in which the 1898 court ignored 108-years of existing nationality law and wrote new law, in direct conflict with existing law and a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

    I believe it is more accurate to frame that situation not in terms of actual law but in terms of the federal policy that was adhered to and which didn’t violate the words of any law but which was not literally spelled-out in the words of any law. The law was ambiguous and imprecise as to what subjection meant and what jurisdiction meant. Get them both wrong and an incorrect interpretation will unavoidably result, and that’s just what was possible and imposed by the Wong case.
    The jurist of the high court had no grasp of what subjection meant and then twisted the meaning of jurisdiction by assuming that territorial jurisdiction defined by boundaries was interchangeable with the exercise of legitimate authority or power, when in fact they are two totally different matters. “Born within” the jurisdiction is quite different from being “born subject to” the jurisdiction.
    That was a huge, but probably deliberate, error by the court. It had to make that error in order to justify its pre-determined “opinion”.

    The nationality of American mothers is irrelevant to their off-spring except in two condition; a foreign birth location with a foreign father, or domestic birth location with no father. The former is covered by naturalization law while the latter is covered by natural law. The child follows the nationality of the head parent. If that is the mother, then the child inherits her nationality and could not be labeled as anything but a natural citizen since no foreign alienage would be attached to a child with no foreign father.
    But no child with a foreign father is a natural citizen of any nation on earth. It’s the same with a foreign mother unless, like the United States, a nation bestows automatic citizenship to the brides of its citizens.
    Thus the nationality of Obama’s mother was inapplicable to him unless her was foreign born. The national institutionalized error that presumes that all births within U.S. jurisdiction produce citizenship is the reason why an American mother’s nationality is unaddressed in U.S. law regarding her native-born children. They are presumed to be covered by the 14th Amendment, and they are unless they are born of illegal aliens or foreign transient Visa card visitors, workers or students.

    see “Transcendent, Inviolable, A Priori Citizenship” at obama–nation.com

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    The legislative history of the 14th Amendment has a clear and immutable nexus to the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The purpose of the Act and the Amendment were the same both in intent and very close in language. Therefore, the accurate interpretation of the 14th Amendment comes directly from the 1866 Act that immediately preceded it.

    Local jurisdiction is a given, unless the parents are diplomats or foreign military.

    The ‘jurisdiction’ in the 14th Amendment deals only with nationality law. U.S. law has no jurisdiction over children of foreign parents; the child’s nationality is determined by the law the alien parents are under, i.e., being subject to a foreign power, not subject to the United States.

    Legislative history is a very powerful authority in interpreting law. Therefore, Congress, under Art I, Sec 8 has plenary power over its own statute and can add to 8 USC 1401 (which mirrors the 14th Amendment) the 1866 Act language, thus making Wong Kim Ark no longer valid law.

  3. Dr. Conspiracy (@DrConspiracy) Says:

    By your reasoning, George Washington would not have been an American either. Washington’s father was born and died a British Subject.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      All of the framers were, indeed, British subjects, only becoming U.S. citizens at the time of the Declaration of Independence . . . they were NOT natural born citizens, but naturalized by force of law. Here is the official text from the Constitution: “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;”

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Article II considers those ‘naturalized’ by the ‘Adoption of this Constitution’ citizens eligible to the presidency, which means the first ‘natural born citizen’ president was not until several presidents down the line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: