The Donofrio Challenge: Proving Obama's Ineligibility Based On Supreme Court Precedents

After Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency, the vetting of the candidate began in earnest, at least on the conservative and libertarian side of the aisle. In contrast, the left-wing, democrat-controlled media was in the tank for Obama from the get-go. His supporters put on their rose-colored glasses, gave up any semblance of journalistic curiosity, and elevated the man to God-like status. In their minds, criticizing or questioning anything about Obama was, and still is, the equivalent of criticizing or questioning Mohammad. At least for now, Obama's supporters aren't yet calling for the execution of his opponents.

To make sure that Obama won the presidency and maintained his redistributionist grip on the nation's economy, his supporters have employed Alinsky's ridicule tactics, and painted everyone a racist who criticizes Obama. They try to immediately shut down conversations rather than discuss the merits and demerits of Obama's past associations, his policies, and his eligibility.

They have taken great delight in attacking constitutionalists who doubt Obama's eligibility on grounds of his dual citizenship with the U.K., and they have reserved their special arrows of hate for those who doubt Obama's place of birth, even though it is they who have stoked the fires on the latter issue. They hope to distract attention away from the dual citizenship issue, which is Obama's Achilles' Heel.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Obama's acolytes know that the majority of Americans are conservative, so to maintain their power, and being without honor, integrity, or belief in a higher authority other than themselves, they have lied about the law, and they have ridiculed people who will not acquiesce to their belief system and bow at the feet of their master, Barack Obama.

One person who refuses to bow at the altar of Obama is New Jersey attorney, Leo Donofrio. Leo earned a J.D. from St. John's University. He passed the bar exam in New York, New Jersey, and the Multi-State bar. For the last twenty years, Donofrio has been licensed to practice law in New Jersey and the federal courts. Politically, Donofrio is a Libertarian.

Leading up to the 2008 election, Donofrio used his wordpress blog, NaturalBornCitizen, to educate the public as to the reasons why Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President. To synthesize, he argues that a natural born Citizen is a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both citizens. This argument excludes babies born in the U.S. of one or more foreign parents. Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. Donofrio further argues that this class of citizenship is the only type of citizen permitted by the Constitution to serve as President.  As we all know, naturalized citizens may not become President.  In contrast, a misinformed public has been led to believe that children born here of one or more foreign parents can become President.

In Donofrio's many articles, his arguments cite historical sources which informed the views of our founders. Most importantly, Donofrio primarily discusses Supreme Court precedents, especially Minor v. Happersett, which he claims prove his case.

Now Donofrio is taking his blog to a new level of debate. Rather than allowing comments from the general public, he is inviting only licensed attorneys to argue the case with him in the court of public opinion. Will any of Obama's attorney-support groups come to his defense in Donofrio's forum?

Up to this point, attorneys using pseudonyms have verbally abused people like Leo Donofrio and a host of other conservative bloggers. These legal hotheads littered the blogosphere with vulgarity and ridicule at the now-defunct Politijab blog. Then they moved over to The Fogbow. In addition, they've posted at ObamaConspiracy, and a number of other left-wing blogs. Now they have invaded Jonathan Turley's blog.

From this point onward, Donofrio will only allow eligibility arguments from licensed attorneys. He intends to use NaturalBornCitizen as a blogger's courtroom. These are his new rules of engagement.

NEW COMMENTING POLICY

I put my name and professional reputation on everything I post at this blog.  From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law.  State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst.  If you tried to argue on a bar examination – or law school final – that the US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Lockwood did not acknowledge Minor v. Happersett as a precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, you would fail.  Yet, all over the blogosphere anonymous propaganda pushing blatant falsehoods is rampant.  “NOT UP IN HERE!”

Feel free to use the comment box for submitting letters to the editor.  I am always happy to hear from you and will investigate tips and links alike, but only legal peers will see their commentary published.  And such commentary by fellow members of the bar will be printed in full.  My responses will follow in a separate comment.

Law school is hard.  Bar examinations are VERY difficult.  And attorneys are also required to take continuing legal education for years after admission to the bar.
While I appreciate the love and faith people have shown me in their comments, I cannot print them any longer.  The analysis must stand upon its own merit as filtered through the counter-analysis of other attorneys who are willing to stake their professional reputations upon such dialogue.

Attorneys may not intentionally mis-represent the law.  That is a violation of professional rules of conduct.  Anonymous commenters and bloggers do not have the weight of that responsibility over them, nor are they subject to the same penalties for breaking the rules.

Now we shall see whether these attorneys have the courage to come out of the woodwork and defend Obama's eligibility using their real names and J.D.s, just as they would be required to do if they were standing in a courtroom.