You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ tag.

Today is the beginning of the final week of the US Supreme Court’s session, and Court Watch is in full swing.

Among the major cases, two pertain to same-sex marriage. One pertains to affirmative action. And one challenges the continuation of the Voting Act of the Civil Rights movement.



from the FreeRepublic:

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) SCOTUS defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman…” 3/27/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:37:31 PM by Laissez-faire capitalist

In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as “The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.”

In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Remember, liberals, Stari Decisis….right? Chuck E. Cheese Schumer seems to like to invoke those words whenever it suits him.

Marriage should be redefined, and those that are against redefining it are bigots? Then why are liberals bigotted against consenting ADULT Polygamists? Marriage is about love and equality? Then why don’t liberals love consenting adult polygamists/polygamy and desire equality for them, too? We’re talking about adults here.

Why do liberals act as if they only want to redefine something so far and no further — but it never seems to end up that way?????

Liberals are NEVER done when it comes to changing/redefining things…..


In the 2400 pages of this obamanation piece of legislation, does it not state that if one fails to have health insurance, they will be penalized! If it is stated therein, how then can the Court deem this a TAX? Just wondering!?

And of course, how do all the Dems who voted for this now justify this TAX INCREASE??

SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare in the morning!!

Contempt vote against AG Eric Holder in the afternoon!!


With just over two weeks left in the Supreme Court’s session, the anticipation is growing for the Court’s decision on the constitutionality of OBAMACARE.

The President is already gearing for a defeat, telling donors he needs another term to correct it. Can we afford that?

“The President crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold. The fact that this President does not appear to feel similarly constrained to respect their independence doesn’t change that one bit.”

So respectfully, I would suggest the President back off. “

“Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended. The stability of our system and our laws and our very government depends on it. And the duties of the Presidency demand it.”

The US Supreme Court Center at is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.


This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.

Natural Born Citizen ^

IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.

Last week, a reader of this blog tipped me off to an incredible misquote of Representative John Bingham which appears in an amicus brief [a PDF] filed with the US Supreme Court by the Immigration Reform Law Institute – aka IRLI – for the Flores-Villar case. Here is that tip in full:

“Sallyven Says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM e

In the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?

The comment was in response to articles I wrote – one which argued that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” requires a person to be born in the US to “parents” who are citizens – and the other highlighting the scrubbing of a Michigan Law Review article by a well known law professor which stated the same, but then was changed after the dual citizen issue began to haunt Obama.

My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives. One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

But the amicus brief filed by IRLI misquotes Bingham as follows:

The words “of parents” are mysteriously missing from the quote. I held back on posting Sallyven’s comment until today because I wanted to contact IRLI and question them about the error.

I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless). The staff attorney and I had a long conversation. The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:

1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles. Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog. Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney. But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.

3. IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context.

I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog. I directed him to my blog. At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified. Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on. But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago. I was then informed that…


Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308? That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent.

Well hey now. What have we here? The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility.

The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions. To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1. I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility. Obviously, that would take an amendment. But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.

Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference. Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.

I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.

He continued to assure me that the words “natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”. I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”. I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”. He told me that it wasn’t up to them. It was up to each state.

He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it. He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.

The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue. At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.

The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t. Yesterday marked a week with no response. I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back.

Something is very shady about this situation. The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation. This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease. The country is dying. It is being killed from within. If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.

If we accept that a person born with dual allegiance can be President, we are opening the White House to the potential children of despots who hate this nation. Preventing this kind of foreign influence was the “strong check” John Jay warned George Washington of all those years ago when he introduced the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.