Posted on 12/06/2008 7:17:21 PM PST by STARWISE
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk.
It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867.
In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
CHESTER’S LIES
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference.
Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.
Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
~~~
Rest at link
You can bet that this dilemma is going to be the fodder for many law review articles.
If you read the information from the framers and from the people who implemented the 14th amendment..I don’t believe John Mccain would have been eligible either...which is what Donofrio is saying in his case.
I don’t think Obama was born in Hawaii..but even if he was..his father was a British citizen..and there is information out there that would indicate that the framers did not want that type of person running as President.
John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The 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.”
[snip]
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) correctly determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull affirm this.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
** end excerpt **
All of that is to say that the Slaughterhouse cases recognized that a "natural born citizen" was one, at birth, was not subject to a foreign allegiance. Since no man is born without a country, who is, alone, that is born not subject to a foreign allegiance?
Only those born to American citizens.
Hence, a "natural born citizen" is one who attained his citizenship by descent, not by operation of law based on the place of his birth.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five (5) years physical presence in the U.S., and two (2) after the age of fourteen (14) is required by the citizen parent. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten (10) years, five (5) after the age of fourteen (14) are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Very good explanation, as I understand Donofrio’s position on the constitutional requirements.
That said, it's imporant to have this discussion and to militate for the SCOTUS to settle this for the future, if nothing else. I am sure when the Constitution was adopted, everyone knew what a "natural born citizen" was. As time went on, it's meaning has become less clear and more blurred with legal and sometimes popular notions of what it means to be a "citizen."
Sort of like the Second Amendment. Anyway.
I have a couple of other "summary" posts I've been using. It does get wearing to go over the same ground again and again. ;)
If you're interested:
More here at [ # 24 ].
As I understand it, not if either of your parents were subjects/legal citizens of another country when you
were born.
I’m sure someone will correct me.
*******************
This is my understanding as well and I have spent many weeks reading up on the Natural Born Citizen clauses. I have posted two links below with some of the information I had found as I had questions regarding my own citizenship be it Natural Born or not as my Mother was a Canadian Citizan per by BC at birth.
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
If ever there was a time to say that the oft used cliche “he must be rolling over in his grave”...the time is now.
“The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”
~St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina
Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution
Thanks! I saw the title link of yours, never clicked it, then lost it, then forgot about it (must be the 10K new topics a day that got me). :’)
I didn't state an opinion above as to Obama's citizenship.
Actually, I'm quite sure he was born in Honolulu, and therefore is in fact a natural born citizen. But, if he was actually born in Kenya, then he wouldn't be a citizen at all, his mother not having lived in the US for five years after the age of 14. There's no third option, unless someone turns up a record of his having been naturalized.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Kevmo. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
This guy still is trying to rehabiiitate Obama I see. He is full of bull. Arthur was born here and was a natural born citizen.
Yes but this nutcase doesn’t understand that.
Who is Allen? Arthur was a natural born citizen.
Is there a third category of citizenship? I.e.,
Obama is natural born, unless it is shown he was born outside the US, and the law about his mother having to have lived five years past the age of 14 in the US is upheld.
McCain is also natural born, having been born to two US citizens. The stuff about whether he was born on the naval base and whether the base was US soil is irrelevant. They could have had him on the moon, and he'd still be a natural born citizen.
There are only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Arthour was a citizen by birth not naturalization.
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.