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Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.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 A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from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 This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.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
Agreed. But the key point in that is ‘proof was found that he was not born in Hawaii’ and to date you haven’t been very successful at that.
_____________________
There is no proof that he was born their either and he will always remain illegitimate to millions and that number is increasing. Sooner or later, he is going to have to show some or all of the documents hidden. I seriously doubt if he will be allowed to run for re-election without coughing them up.
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — “not available”
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Kindergarten records- Lost(others from that year are there, only his is lost...hmm)
What is the difference between “common law” (mentioned in the article as not present/recognized in the United States) and “natural law”?
Thanks
Nah, I can't bring myself to even looking at the cover let alone touching it. The excerpts I've read here and other places is quite enough for me!
I don't know if it was Ayers that wrote it but there is no way bammie did. Most writers write the way the speak, and we all know how brilliant bammie, ah, eh, um, er, speaks....no way he wrote that book.
Why? There is no legal, power on Earth that can "make" him do anything in this regard at the moment. So far, Electors have been sued, States Attorneys General have been sued. POTUS has been sued. Officers seeking to validate their orders have sued the SOD and the CIC. Their orders were rescinded. In every case, it's been "No case." "No standing." Until the documents you, I, and 47% of the electorate want to see (i.e., the losing side in 2008) are ordered into court as discovery,,, and the order is upheld on appeal ,,, POTUS is untouchable.
Many a mojito will be downed in sorrow before any Moral power will force him to release documents. Many more will be downed waiting for something to wend its way to SCOTUS for a ruling on "Natural Born Citizenship." (Which BTW, is something I feel the Electoral College already has the power to do, but is not required by law to exercise that power.)
I seriously doubt if he will be allowed to run for re-election without coughing them up.
"Allowed?" Who's supposed to stop him? The DNC? Precisely why state legislatures must pass "Proof of Eligibility Laws " for Presidential Candidates. No documentation: no electoral votes, no place on the state ballot. We need a state or two to have this in place by 2011. If Barack decides not to run, however, this vital question of eligibility by Natural Born Citizenship, must still be settled.
If the question of his eligibility goes unanswered just because he is may no longer be on the scene, a dangerous precedent will have been established. Now, this is about Obama, but more important, it's about national security .... and constitutional integrity. We need legitimate Presidents. Win, lose, or draw, this SOB has put us under a cloud of uncertainty.
Precisely why state legislatures must pass “Proof of Eligibility Laws “ for Presidential Candidates. No documentation: no electoral votes, no place on the state ballot. We need a state or two to have this in place by 2011. _________________
Exactly. That is my point. They will be in place and states won’t certify if he tries to keep hiding his past.
I bot it used, on Ebay. I would never buy a new one so that he gets his cut. I marked it all up, will send it to the DNC when done. :P
You listed 11 things, 10 of which have have absolutely no bearing on proving his Constitutional eligibility to be president.
BS! He refuses to release the long form that would be exactly like the Nordyke twins. He has spent a small fortune to hide it. Medical records will show when and where he received immunizations and date of birth. We have a right to see his medical records. We should know every single last detail of anyone that chooses to run for president, ESPECIALLY one that is a dual citizen and whose father had no loyalty to this country. Occidental records would show if he received assistance. He lied and said he never used any other names or aliases when we all now know it is a fact he used the names Barry Soetoro and Barry Obama.
You choose not to see these inconsistencies and if he isn’t kicked out prior to 2012, all hell is going to break loose if he is still fighting and hiding records.
He has spent with Perkins&Coie approximately 2.5 million since 2007 when he formed an exploratory to run and every aspect of his history began disappearing, like the kindergarten entry file, missing fromt he HI dept of Ed and the only file missing from that year!
Um, I think you’ll find that professional writers do not speak the way they write. One of the best arguments for Ayers as the ghost author of ‘Dreams’ is the strong similarities in his other written materials. He defintiely does not speak as well in person as testified by the tapes of him in Chavez’s little hell hole.
So now Axelgreasy is telling you little nettles to poo poo the basis for substantiating any data about Obammy’s history as ‘totally irrelevant’, which is over course precisely related to his birth and possible ineligibility. Nice to read the talking points from you at FR first. You obamanoids are so transparent, even when your entire mission is to disrupt and dissemble.
No dispute there. But he says he's released the COLB.
Medical records will show when and where he received immunizations and date of birth.
But does nothing to prove his natural-born citizenship status. So they are irrelevant.
We have a right to see his medical records.
No you don't.
We should know every single last detail of anyone that chooses to run for president...
What we should know and what any candidate is legally obligated to produce are two different things. Regardless, the only question with any relevance is if Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be president. With the exception of the birth certificate none of the items on your list have any bearing on that.
Occidental records would show if he received assistance.
So what if he did?
He lied and said he never used any other names or aliases when we all now know it is a fact he used the names Barry Soetoro and Barry Obama.
Is it? And if he was called Barry then so what? I have an older sister named Margaret and my whole family has called her Peg all her life. She calls herself Peg, signs her checks as Peg, and doesn't use her first name at all. There is nothing illegal or sinister in that. So Obama called himself 'Barry' instead of Barack. If that's the worst you have on him then you're not trying very hard.
You choose not to see these inconsistencies and if he isn’t kicked out prior to 2012, all hell is going to break loose if he is still fighting and hiding records.
Yes, well we'll see won't we?
The only one with any legal bearing on his status as a natural-born citizen is his birth certificate. None of the others have anything to do with it. I mean, really. Kindergarten records? Client list?
As I stated, obamanoid, the verifications are found in simple files like the kindergarten enrollment and Occidental college records with the necessary documents for admission. You and your little god want those factors to be dismissed as irrelevant precisely because they are of extreme significance. You do make your effort to earn your obamanoid kneepads. Truth means nothing to your ilk. Spinning and deception are your stock and trade. Are you having fun now little demon?
I guess this University isn’t impressed with the Supreme Court since they are proving more and more that the framers were not copying the common law of England.
That’s what this University has been studying if you read their posts.
They also found the case Barry v. Mercein which suddenly just popped up in Apuzzo’s writings. Obviously he’s reading it too, he copied it.
Has anyone else been doing this type of American Historical research? How does anyone know there aren’t legal scholars helping them? You don’t dig up stuff like that and not know what you’re doing.
So how to you explain all the previous court decisions? That University group found Barry v. Mercein where that judge explictly states that foreign born children follow the nationality of the father. Just because another justice decided we followed English common law doesn’t make it true. The other justice closest to the framer’s time says we did not follow English common law. That’s the point of the article, dummy. They are historical documents which show exactly where the break was done. They are saying it’s unconstitutional what was done and proving it better than you are. Where’s your proof the framers adopted the jus soli plan? Justice Story says we didn’t. The earliest historians that University dug up says we didn’t. Where is your proof?
Donofrio is not a birther. He doesn’t care what Obama’s record say, but he admits Obama shouldn’t be able to hide personal records. No president should be able to do that. Even Mark Levin agrees with that.
Donofrio has said all along that the bc is a smokescreen to a larger issue. He’s not a birther. I’ve seen him slam many a posts in there when someone tries to bring up a conspiracy theory. He doesn’t want to hear it. He’s interested in the law and now it seems he’s following the trail right back to the founders, not Kenya.
You have to look to the law of nations at the time of the Constitution. Vattel isn’t the only one who wrote a treatise on it, he’s right. Justice Story did for American International Law and that followed Vattel, not Locke.
What do you mean you’d have to see today’s law on it? Didn’t you read the British Nationality Act of 1948 and see also that Obama already admitted being governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of his birth?
Doesn’t matter anyway. A natural born citizen couldn’t have included Obama since the law at the time was jus sanguinis, not jus soli. If all you had to do was be born here to run for potus, then explain why children weren’t considered citizens until their parents were naturalized? That happened right after the Constitution was signed and while the framers were still alive. If that’s not what they meant, that would have never been the case. Even the Constitution calls for Congress to make a uniform rule for aliens, which included their families. There was no such thing as dual-allegiances aka dual-citizenship. The framers ruled against that talk upfront.
BTW, I'm a dyed in the wool Birther because it is a defense of the Constitution, to prevent usurping the Constitutional contract by fiat. When someone tells me to drop the useless noise, I'll never see any results from demanding this lying bastard provide his documentation, well, I just smile, knowing how much this 'noise' has already gained listeners.
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.