Posted on 08/25/2009 12:06:13 PM PDT by jzlouis
Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.
They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team. This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries. It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.
But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.
This was not a law school publication. It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.
The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.
The article I am excited to bring you is titled:
ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.
OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS
MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.
This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.
Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.
It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.
The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.
If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.
But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion.
MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.
Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.
MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.
Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.
MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.
Attorney Collins discusses Vattell in great detail. And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens. Collins quotes Vattell.
But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattell’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattell’s definition.
This is very important.
The definition of “natural born citizen” was not created by Vattell in his treatise, “Law of Nations.” That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”. The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattell’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.
Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below. Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;
The capital letters are not in reference to Vattell’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattell wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law - according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.
DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION
This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief. Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil. In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship. This discriminates against no race at all.
To be an American has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.
The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship. It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.
It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.
If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.
That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.
You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country. If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.
This is the main issue and main reason why I have dedicated so much of my time to this situation. I am no more worried about Obama than I was about Bush or Clinton. I see all of them as having struck horrific blows against US sovereignty. But I am seriously worried about who comes next. Who is being groomed as a Manchurian candidate as we speak?
If Obama is eligible to be President, then the sons of every despicable despot are also eligible.
It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon. Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation? The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist. With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario. We must protect the protection.
A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.
The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President, but we are losing the PR war.
I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below. But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court. Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.
I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question. There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.
And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
The reference law review article:
Who’s pinging today?!?
The drumbeat is getting louder but will it “sell”?
Makes absolute perfect sense to me.
The facts and the legal theory seem to be in hand but the nut of standing still must be cracked successfully.
bookmark.
0 does act like a guy who is running as fast as he can to get things done before he’s caught in the web he and his minions have woven.
The only way to know whether Donofrio is right or not is to either a) take it to the Supreme Court with an actual case with properly filled-out paperwork, or b) get a whole series of (actual, not pretend) legal scholars to weigh in.
That’s where it gets a bit cloudy: those who push the N.B.C. line have no plan to get either of those. In fact, some of those on the N.B.C. side of things actually work against their own interests by saying that the cert issue is a red herring.
What they don’t realize is that the cert issue is what the MSM has concentrated on and has continually lied about. If the N.B.C. folks ever decided to help me point out just how the MSM has lied, that could be used to force the MSM into actually looking into the N.B.C. claims with an open mind. Unfortunately, the N.B.C. folks just want to shout in an echo chamber without realizing the impact the MSM has and without realizing that they aren’t going to get anywhere unless they get smarter about how they do things.
Once the armed revolution happens, we can finally get access to all the hidden documents. Until then, we are essentially powerless. We are witnessing what a liberal judiciary can do to a nation.
Still won’t matter.
I mean, get real. The rule of law is a phrase that 0bumble, the dems, and the government-run media are wholly unfamiliar with.
And, though it would have substantial legal merit should standing be resolved, it’s still going to be sold as “oh well”.
The only potential good that would come out of an adverse finding for Obumble would be that any legislation or treaty that he signed would (I believe) a) be considered null and void and b) would be punishable as fraud.
BTTT
birther bump
The Supreme Court ruled that they were in several cases handed down after this article was written. I guess that they weren't as impressed with Mr. Collins' arguement as Donofrio is.
Later read
This is not about Obama’s citizenship. Donofrio grants the probability of Obama’s citizenship claim. Donfrio is claiming that Obama is a citizen but not a natural born citizen. The SC has skirted around this issue but never addressed it directly.
If you read the article that Donofrio is referencing the author makes the claim that nobody born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen of any type unless their father was a citizen. That is a position that the Supreme Court has ruled against on several occasions.
In keeping with the modern world, women now (rightfully) have more rights than they did two centuries ago.
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.