If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Joseph DeMaio, ©2020

44th President or Second Usurper-in-Chief?

(Jul. 21, 2020) — In the continuing saga of the “natural born citizen” eligibility issue, one of The P&E’s fairly regular contributors, one Tom Arnold, recently posted this article.  The post revisits the perennial question: was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. constitutionally-eligible to the presidency, or was he a common usurper?  While most P&E articles attract several comments, perhaps even dozens, this post has – thus far – attracted 64 comments.  Yikes.

Apart from Jack Maskell at the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and Messrs. Clement and Katyal contending that Obama was a “natural born citizen,” who says the issue of Obama’s eligibility has been “settled?”

Given the growing volume of comments to the Arnold post, a case can be made that the question remains far from settled, although the better argument points to a conclusion that Obama was, in fact, constitutionally ineligible.  Accordingly, he became the Second Usurper-in-Chief (“SUC”) of the United States, Chester A. Arthur being the first.

While many of the comments to the Arnold post address various aspects of the question, several commenters – including one Jeff Davis – pose some interesting questions and points in support of the conclusion that the SUC was, purportedly, constitutionally eligible.  Many of the multiple comments relate to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (“WKA”), the “holy grail” for those enamored of the opinion’s dictum addressing various other cases mentioning the term “natural born citizen.”

That’s right, Virginia, all – as in “the totality” – of the discussion of the abstract term “natural born citizen” contained in the WKA decision is obiter dictum having no precedential weight… at… all.  The reason for this comes from the fact that the sole and exclusive legal question on appeal presented to the Supreme Court was whether under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution – not Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5, the Constitution’s “Eligibility Clause” – Wong Kim Ark was a “native-born citizen of the United States.” (Emphasis added).  169 U.S. at 651.

In fact, all of the discussion by the Court in WKA about the term “natural born citizen,” and later cases parroting that line of thought – the term “natural born citizen” appearing nowhere in the 14th Amendment, which was the only provision under consideration in WKA – constitute irrelevant “dicta, pure and simple….” (Emphasis added).  See C. Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. Law Rev. 1, 19 (1968).  At the time he wrote his article, Charles Gordon was the General Counsel, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.  And as the Supreme Court has correctly noted: “Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it.” (Emphasis added).  See, Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 351, n. 12. (2005).

Bottom line: a “native-born citizen” under the 14th Amendment – which amendment wasn’t even in existence until 1868, some 80 years after the term “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution – is not…, repeat, not the same as a “natural born citizen.”  To conflate the two terms as being purportedly the same under a claim that the WKA decision “settled” the question is, to use polite terminology, flat wrong.

Moreover, semantic gymnastics such as that totally disregard the 900-lb. gorilla back in the corner of the room, i.e., the “grandfather” exception for mere “citizens” who were to be deemed eligible during the infancy of the Republic.  The Founders realized that no true “natural born citizen” as contemplated under § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations existed in 1787, so the “grandfather clause” was needed until a true natural born citizen appeared.  That person was Democrat Martin van Buren, born in 1782 in Kinderhook, New York to U.S. citizen parents Abraham van Buren and Maria Hoes van Alen.  Eligibility “scholars” who ignore 900-lb. gorillas do so at their peril.

Another point made in the comments to the Arnold post by Mr. Davis is that “[i]n Perkins v. Elg it was undisputed that Marie Elg was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.”  That is an interesting comment meriting further analysis.


First, Davis notes – correctly – that there was no objective question that Marie Elg’s parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.  However, the original 2009 CRS eligibility memo addresses the Elg case by engaging in deceptive wordsmithing.  Specifically, the memo erases by ellipsis omission certain words from quoted text in the Court’s decision and falsely suggests that her parents were aliens, rather than U.S. citizens – in order to drive the desired result.  That result as to the SUC was, of course, that under WKA and Elg, as altered, a person born here, “even to alien parents,” would be considered to be a natural born citizen.

In the effort to undermine and marginalize § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, upon which the Founders relied in drafting the Constitution, the 2009 CRS memo alters, via ellipsis omission, the words of a quote from an old U.S. Attorney General “letter of advice” included by the Supreme Court in its Elg opinion.  The quote related to the status of one Steinkauler in order to make it appear that, contrary to the truth, his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born.  In fact, Steinkauler the younger was a “natural born citizen” when he was born, but the ellipsis omission facilitated and allowed the argument to be made that, purportedly despite the fact that his father was an “alien,” his son could be deemed to be a “natural born citizen.”  At minimum, this change is highly misleading; at worst, it is deceitful and likely mendacious.

The resulting 2009 CRS memo constituted an official representation to the 535 Members of Congress, nine Justices of the Supreme Court, one president of the nation and anyone else coming into possession of the CRS report that any person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction – even if born to alien parents as falsely suggested with regard to Marie Elg – were natural born citizens eligible to the presidency.  The term “bamboozle” comes to mind.

The details of the ellipsis omission are far too convoluted for detailed elaboration here, but interested readers – including Mr. Davis – may want to examine this and this and comment on why the CRS linguistic chicanery should not completely decimate the argument that the Founders intended to equate and conflate the terms “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

Oh, and while they are at it, readers – including Mr. Davis – may want to offer an opinion as to why, now that the SUC has completed his usurpation, the CRS found it necessary to go back and “undo” its prior “Elg ellipsis” omissions from the 2009 memorandum and its 2011 report in 2016.  Could it be that, once the SUC’s usurpation had been successfully executed, covering and erasing the tracks of how it was accomplished would be prudent?  Recall what Sherlock Holmes said: the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered.

Finally, readers need to remember that the “natural born citizen eligibility” question will continue to surface every four years or so as persons with doubtful eligibility bona fides vie for the presidency.  Those persons include, to name but a few, Senator Ted Cruz; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Kamala Harris; Senator Tammy Duckworth; Representative Tulsi Gabbard; Nikki Haley; Rick Santorum; Andrew Yang; Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; oh, wait…, he is already otherwise barred under the 22nd Amendment.  Or is he?  Hey, he should have been barred originally in 2008 under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, but everyone ignored that impediment.  So why should we believe that the 22nd Amendment must be observed?


Unless and until the Supreme Court discovers the courage to directly address the presidential eligibility question in a live “case or controversy” involving persons with “standing” – whatever that term means to the Justices at their whim on any particular conference day at the Court – instead of “evading” the question as in the past, the issue will continue to bubble to the surface to vex those who pay attention to these matters.

Moreover, lower federal court and state court decisions purporting to “correctly” interpret or apply the decisions in WKA, Elg or any of the other cases bearing upon the issue, while interesting, do not and cannot constitute binding precedent on what Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 means.  Nor can presidential “executive orders,” congressional “resolutions” or “legislation” define or alter the meaning of the original words of the Constitution.  Only the U.S. Supreme Court has that power.  McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

The only other avenue to resolve the question would be a constitutional amendment either (a) abolishing the eligibility clause altogether, or (2) clarifying that only a person born on U.S. soil to two parents who at the time of birth are already U.S. citizens can qualify as a “natural born citizen.”  At the present time, neither option seems likely.  So, as usual, it would appear that the tectonic pace of governmental progress and change, including at the Supreme Court, will continue.  Sad.


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “Nothing is dictum that is involved in the question to be adjudicated.” U.S. Government appellant brief for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    This quote from the appellant brief in Wong Kim Ark refers to Justice Miller’s statement in The Slaughter House cases. District Judge Morrow had called Miller’s comment dicta.

    Applying the government’s logic to most of Justice Gray’s dissertation on citizenship would also make it not dicta. He is responding to arguments put forth by the appellants. They contended that the 14th amendment was declaratory of existing US law and that law was based on the law of Nations not the common law.

    “Such was the law at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and the first section of that amendment defines citizenship in strict accord with what was then the law; soon that respect it is merely declaratory and not legislative in nature.”


    “In passing we take occasion to reassert our position that the fourteenth amendment in its definition of citizenship is declaratory of preexisting law”


    “The proposition that the provision “subject to the jurisdiction” must be given the construction demanded by international law is undoubtedly correct.”

    Justice Gray on three occasions refers directly to the appellant’s brief (“passage relied on by counsel for the United States”, “sentence relied on by the counsel for the United States”, and “contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States”) in each case he refutes their argument.

    Clearly Justice Gray was replying to arguments made at both the district court and before the Supreme Court.


  2. Sharon Rondeau said:
    “Seems as if he’s hit a sore spot with you.”

    Seems to me as though Joseph DeMaio scored a direct hit on Jeff F. Davis! :)

  3. The treatise on the Principles of Natural Law by Vattel, which was widely read and used by the founders and framers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington, and other influential men of the times such as John Jay, clearly and succinctly defines a “natural born Citizen”: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

    Vattel and the American Dream: An Inquiry into the Reception of the Legal Treatise ‘Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ in the United States: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/vattel-and-the-american-dream-an-inquiry-into-the-reception-of-the-law-of-nations-in-the-united-states/

  4. Joseph DeMaio does not have a monopoly on making inferences.

    In the 11 years since the CRS published its first memo on eligibility, DeMaio in his many, many articles about an ellipsis has never said that he attempted to informally contact the CRS (by phone, mail, email, etc.). When asked if anyone had contacted the CRS, he conspicuously avoided responding to that query. All the while not being too busy to dwell on minutiae, like an ellipsis, or the colloquial yet easy to understand “natural-born citizenship.”

    To paraphrase DeMaio, the silence speaks for itself.

  5. Joseph DeMaio uses many words when few will do: He has not attempted to contact the CSR about the ellipsis; his silence on that topic speaks for itself. A memo was published 11 years ago, and DeMaio has yet to make a phone call or send an e-mail to the CRS.

    Despite having no actual information about the memo author’s intent, DeMaio invents a motive that makes no sense, as Elg played only a minor role in the CRS memos, and anyone who wanted to read Elg’s text could easily do so. DeMaio seems to not understand that the ellipsis was intentionally inserted to alert the reader that words were omitted; someone trying to deceive would have just omitted the words.

    That a mistake was made in 2009, went undetected in 2011, but then was caught by 2016 (as there was renewed interest in the topic then) is unsurprising. Errors happen in the real world, and the CRS has better uses of its time than to obsess over an ellipsis. Especially one that didn’t alter the memo’s analysis.

    The Ankeny case noted that Wong Kim Ark’s discussion about eligibility was dicta. Dicta isn’t binding authority, but can be persuasive. In this case, it persuaded the Ankeny court, as well as every court in an eligibility challenge that cited Ankeny. (Gordon’s article focused on those born outside of the United States, by the way.)

    Nothing in the 2016 interview with Vieira shows that he has written any peer-reviewed scholarship on eligibility, or participated in any eligibility litigation.

  6. There are basically only two types of citizens:
    1. Statutory citizens (by positive [man-made] laws) with modifiers.
    2. Natural born Citizens (by natural law – born in the country to citizen parents).

    Number 1 (above) can never be number 2 (above).
    Number 2 (above) can never be number 1 (above).

    Bottom line: Congress, who makes statutory citizens via Constituionally-authorized laws, does not have the authority to make anyone a natural born Citizen.

    Some commenters on this website try to complicate how citizenship is derived.

    If I am off-base on this explanation, please correct me.

  7. Mr. DeMaio points to Charles Gordon’s Maryland Law Review article as an authoritative source. The first paragraph of his article reads;

    “The approach of our 45th presidential election once evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only “natural born” citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they be regarded as “natural born” within the contemplation of the Constitution?”

    “[N]ative-born citizens are eligible” to the Presidency.


  8. “”Native” and “Natural Born” are not tantamount terms of art.”

    Tantamount; equivalent in seriousness to; virtually the same as. Synonym; equal, equivalent, identical.

    If I’m following this correctly – Mr. Laity and Mr. DeMaio are saying there are four types of citizens.

    Citizens of the United States is the main category with four subcategories.


    1) Natural Born Citizens,
    2) Native Citizens,
    3) Native Born Citizens,
    4) Naturalized Citizens.

    Is that correct?

  9. Bud White, ONLY “Natural Born Citizens” can become President or VP. “Native” and “Natural Born” are not tantamount terms of art.

  10. Why the CRS used an ellipsis in the first place is a question for memo’s author; has anyone tried asking?

    Joseph DeMaio speculates the author intended to deceive the readers, but there’s no evidence of that motive, especially considering later articles property quoted Elg.

    Regardless, the CRS ellipsis is a tempest in a teacup because Elg said very little about natural-born citizenship (as it is an expatriation case), and the CRS said little about the Elg case. Like the courts, the CRS focused on Wong Kim Ark.

    The CRS did note the Elg case approvingly cited the Attorney General’s opinion about Steinkauler, in which the Attorney General said Steinkauler was eligible to be the president even though he was a dual citizen.

    Robert Laity may consider Edward Vieira a constitutional scholar, but Vieira hasn’t written any peer-reviewed scholarship about eligibility, and he filed no eligibility lawsuits.

    1. From Joseph DeMaio:

        P&E reader Jeff Davis’s post of 7/22/20 @ 8:04 PM raises several questions meriting responses.

        First, Mr. Davis posits that the question of why the CRS 2009 memo’s author – Jack Maskell – used an ellipsis in the first place “is a question for [the] memo’s author; has anyone tried asking?” The better question is: does anyone outside of the Congress – the only entity served by the CRS – really expect to get an answer to such a question from anyone within the CRS hierarchy? Your faithful servant does not possess subpoena power. Answer: slim to none.

        There is a legal maxim which has relevance here: res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” In the April 3, 2009 CRS memo (https://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions), specific language from the Supreme Court’s Elg decision was intentionally – not accidentally or inadvertently – excised and deleted from language the Court had specifically quoted from a U.S. Attorney General’s letter of advice – In re Steinkauler’s Case – in the process substantively altering the meaning of the remaining language. See p. 13, April 3, 2009 memo.

        And, BTW, a “letter of advice” – the source of the subject quote – is not, as the CRS memo and Mr. Davis characterize it, an official “decision” or “opinion” of the Attorney General. Instead, it was just that: a letter of attorney-client advice from Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish.

        Moreover, confirming that the deletion in the CRS 2009 memo was intentional, the author (or whomever in the CRS supervisory hierarchy reviewed, edited and/or approved the final CRS “product” for release to the Congress) pro-actively inserted an ellipsis reader’s signal – you know, those dots … appearing where text once existed – signifying the deletion of text from quoted materials. While the “inadvertent” or “accidental” excising or “dropping” of material text from a quote used by the U.S. Supreme Court by itself might be seen as possible – albeit unlikely from the repository of the “nation’s best thinking” (https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/) – the affirmative act of thereafter inserting an ellipsis signal to readers that text has been omitted forecloses any conclusion that the act was “inadvertent” or done in “error.” Again, res ipsa loquitur.

        Second, Mr. Davis asserts that your faithful servant “speculates the author intended to deceive the readers, but there’s no evidence of that motive, especially considering later articles [sic] property [sic] quoted Elg.” To begin with, the immediately subsequent eligibility “article,” presumably meaning a CRS “Report,” was that of November 14, 2011 (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf). That Report repeats verbatim – two and one-half years after the 2009 memo – the ellipsis omission of the substantive text of the Elg opinion. If you doubt it, see p. 45 of the 2011 Report.

        The only time thereafter that the CRS “undid” the ellipsis omission – re-inserting the previously-deleted language and, again proactively, removing the ellipsis reader’s signal – was in the January 11, 2016 CRS Report, Report No. R42097-2016 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/295707413/New-CRS-Memo-re-Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016). If you doubt it, see p. 43 of the 2016 Report, and compare it to p. 13 of the 2009 memo and p. 45 of the 2011 Report.

        Third, Mr. Davis characterizes the ellipsis omission as a “tempest in a teacup because Elg said very little about natural-born citizenship [sic] … and the CRS said little about the Elg case. Like the courts, the CRS focused on Wong Kim Ark.”

        To begin with, the issue here is the definition of the term “natural born citizen.” It is not about the neologism “natural born citizenship,” which appears nowhere in the Constitution or in any U.S. Supreme Court decision. This issue is addressed here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/09/of-neologisms-end-around-runs-and-gorillas-the-congressional-research-service-2016-report-on-presidential-eligibility-final-chapter/.

        Moreover, the fact that the CRS discussions of Elg – as altered in 2009 and 2011 – presented to 535 members of Congress, nine Supreme Court Justices and one president an inaccurate and misleading image of what the U.S. Supreme Court has purportedly said about who can, and who cannot, be a natural born citizen is not exactly inconsequential. A “tempest in a teacup” it is not.

        In addition, Mr. Davis notes that the CRS “focused on Wong Kim Ark.” (“WKA”). Of course it did: and foolishly so. The decision in Wong Kim Ark addressed solely the question of who could be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and not who could or could not be a “natural born citizen” otherwise eligible to the presidency under Art. 2, § 1 Cl. 5 of the Constitution. To repeat, all of the discussion in WKA about a “natural born citizen” constitutes “dicta, pure and simple.” See C. Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. Law Rev. 1, 19 (1968). At the time he wrote his article, Charles Gordon was the General Counsel, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.

        Fourth, Mr. Davis asserts that Attorney General Pierrepont stated in In re Steinkauler’s Case that Steinkauler the Younger was, purportedly, “eligible to be president even though he was a dual citizen.” Wrong. Pierrepont’s “letter of advice” to Secretary of State Fish merely stated that “[y]oung Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen” (emphasis added) and that when he attained the age of majority, “he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth [i.e., a “native born” United States citizen], with its duties and privileges, or retain the [German] nationality acquired by the act of his father.”

        When Pierrepont stated that, if the son returned to the United States after attaining majority age, he could “in due time, if the people elect, … become President of the United States,” plainly, that conclusion was contingent upon Steinkauler the Younger making an election between the mutually-exclusive options of (a) reclaiming his “native-born” U.S. citizenship, or (b) retaining his German citizenship bestowed upon him by his father’s relocation to Germany during his minority. There was no issue of him being purportedly eligible to the presidency as a “dual citizen.” Any suggestion to the contrary is erroneous.

        In addition, any inference that Attorney General Pierrepont’s statement that Steinkauler the Younger, as merely a “native-born” citizen, could become president – as advocated by the CRS 2009 and 2011 products – is ill-reasoned. First, it is clear that Pierrepont knew that only if he made the election to abjure and renounce his German derivative citizenship could he then reclaim his native born U.S. citizenship. Second, apart from that issue, Pierrepont may have used some careless language in the letter of advice, not unlike the careless language used by Justice Clark in his dissenting opinion in Schneider v. Rusk when mischaracterizing and potentially equating a “native born” citizen with a “natural born” citizen. Again, while all natural born citizens are also native born citizens, not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.

        Finally, Mr. Davis’s observations about “Edward [sic: “Edwin”] Vieira are beyond the scope of this comment.

  11. “Schneider v Rusk”


    “Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. ” Schneider v Rusk

    1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “P&E reader Bud White comments (7/22/20 at 4:21 PM) by quoting language from ¶ 41 of the dissenting opinion of Justice Clark (joined in by Justices Harlan and White) in Schneider v. Rusk (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/377/163).

      “Quite apart from the dissent’s casual use of the term “native-born,” ¶ 8 of the controlling and precedential majority opinion states: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.” (Emphasis added).

      “Recall that while all natural born citizens are also native born citizens, not all native born citizens are natural born citizens. Think Euler and Venn diagrams. This fact is perhaps why Justice Clark’s dissent in Schneider v. Rusk causes some confusion.

      “Any remaining doubt is resolved by Knauer v. United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/654) (“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency,’ [citing] Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22, 34 S.Ct. 10, 13, 58 L.Ed. 101.”) and Luria v. United States (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/9/) (“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. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627).”

      The citation to Minor v. Happersett by the Court in Luria is significant, as it underscores the Luria Court’s understanding that the “no doubt” definition of a “natural born citizen” included in Minor – i.e., a person born on U.S. soil to two parents who were already U.S. citizens – informed the principle of differentiating between, on the one hand, “naturalized citizens” and “native citizens,” and on the other hand “natural born citizens,” only the latter category being constitutionally eligible to the presidency.

  12. Thank you Robert Laity. I had heard Obama could not be impeached years ago and I believe what you are saying. What I meant to say was Congress would never impeach Obama for anything, apart from his ineligibility, because they had failed to do their job of vetting him and stopping him from being sworn-in back in 2009. They would never admit their failure by trying to impeach Obama for not being eligible; even if it was legally possible……it was too late for that the moment Obama was sworn-in. After that, Obama was protected by his ineligibility and identity fraud from being impeached for any reason because a worldwide discussion of the impeachment of, “America’s historic first black president”, could lead to the question of his ineligibility and identity fraud being brought up again and openly discussed…. throughout the world. That is something Congress and the others complicit in The Obama Fraud, including the Obama media talking heads of course, never wanted to happen then…..or now. Obama’s criminal action of allowing himself to be sworn-in and Congress criminal inaction of not preventing it protected Barack Hussein Obama in many ways and being impeached for any reason was not going to happen…no matter what he did. Part of the perfect crime of Obama becoming America’s putative president for 8 years was him being black and not eligible to be president. That has held up until today. It was however, put in danger by the election of the “birther” Donald Trump and the failure of the planned in 2008 after Obama cover of Hillary Clinton…..and that is reason number one why the panicked efforts to remove President Trump from office never stop…………….

  13. Bob68, On any talk of “Impeachment” of Obama. The prominent constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira said that an Imposter in the Oval Office would not be entitled to any protection or process provided for in the Impeachment protocol, since said imposter would not actually BE a President. I agree with Mr. Vieira. I’ve said it before, ALL that had to be done to remove Obama from the oval office was to indict him in the DC Grand Jury for impersonating a public official under the DC Code. He could not be impeached but he did not have to be. He wasn’t President.

    1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “At the suggestion of Robert Laity, a review of the Apuzzo post (https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html) proves that, on the eligibility topic, one can learn something new every day. If all of his research is correct, Mr. Apuzzo is likely correct that Rick Santorum can plausibly claim to be a natural born citizen as contemplated by the Founders.

      “Accordingly, the partial list of persons ineligible to the presidency is modified to reflect the removal of Mr. Santorum and the addition of former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a naturalized citizen, and not a natural born citizen, so he is eliminated as a potential presidential candidate under Schneider v. Rusk (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/377/163). Senator John McCain was also almost certainly not a natural born citizen, but the issue as to him is now academic and moot.”

  14. This defines the Congressional Research Service:
    “The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.”

    IMO the chances of the CRS determining Obama ineligible after he was sworn-in, which is when they were asked by leadership Pelosi and Reid to write their first report, were exactly zero. A report was asked to be done so each member of Congress could make the story they told their constituents match the others, and have the ability to claim the issue was over because the “authority” with the impressive sounding name and a room full of lawyers working for Congress said it was. When Obama was sworn-in back in 2009 the issue of his ineligibility and identity fraud was over as far as Congress was concerned. He was eligible because the consequences of Obama being found ineligible would reveal Congress failure to uphold their sworn oath to protect the Constitution and could end their political career, just for starters.
    Obama was protected from impeachment or any real investigation by Congress because they all knew he was ineligible and the truth about Barry could never be openly revealed and acted on, which impeachment, no matter the stated reason, could do. Republican leadership even told Obama he would not be impeached. That brings us to the election of Donald Trump the “birther” and the panicked and repeated attempts to remove President Trump from office. All complicit in The Obama Fraud do not hate Trump, but they all fear his knowledge and evidence of the biggest criminal act against America citizens and her Constitution in history, which effectively gave America’s government and her military to the enemy via their CIA created puppet, Barack Hussein Obama. Hillary just had to win, as planned and promised and expected all the way back to 2008, when she agreed to drop out of the Democrat primary after being given an offer she had better not refuse……..The complete truth about Obama, fully revealed and acted on may be the only way to stop the attempts to remove President Trump from office………..the future of our Nation depends on this truth and it needs to happen soon……..time is running out……

  15. ” It sounds like the CRS caught its error and then corrected it. What’s nefarious about correcting errors?”

    There is nothing nefarious about correcting errors but although the CRS corrected its error the effect of its error has yet to be corrected. We now need to correct the error of Barack Hussein Obama having been allowed to serve as President of the United States of America for eight years by first declaring everything he did null and void and then indicting him pursuant to the Sedition & Treason Act.

  16. The Ankeny court in Indiana never said that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen; footnote 14 acknowledges this. Ankeny said the “guidance” supplied by Wong Kim Ark led to the conclusion that anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen. No court has said Ankeny’s analysis was wrong, and some have expressly adopted it.

    Joseph DeMaio says a CRS publication discussing Elg used an ellipsis incorrectly, but later used it correctly in later discussions about Elg. It sounds like the CRS caught its error and then corrected it. What’s nefarious about correcting errors? Has anyone tried asking the CRS for an explanation about this change?

    1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “The original ellipsis in the 2009 CRS memo was intentional, not an ‘accidental error,’ executed on the purported ground that the omitted words (i.e., “was naturalized in 1854…”) constituted, purportedly, ‘irrelevant dictum’ unrelated to the “dual citizenship” issue addressed in that section of the memo. That spurious claim is addressed and dismantled here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/08/26/the-elg-ellipsis-the-maskell-myth-and-pi/.

      Against this backdrop, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why those words – intentionally erased by the CRS in the 2009 memo, with the same erasure repeated in its 2011 Report were, without notice of an ‘erratum,’ restored in the 2016 Report, as addressed here: (https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/07/like-it-never-happened/).

      Absent a rational explanation for the 2016 restoration of the previous intentionally-omitted language occurring in both the 2009 memo and the 2011 Report, a conclusion that an attempt to erase the chicanery is not exactly far-fetched. Recall that the perfect crime is the one never discovered.

      Side out.”