Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
(Snip)
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
(Snip)
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
“An example of where common sense is faulty in deciding matters of history and law.”
Not really. If natural born at one time meant only children of two citizen parents I guarantee that at the same time children of the soil were not automatically citizens at birth. The original Framers probably intended the children of two citizens to be eligible, but not because the term “natural born” itself means “born of two citizen parents”. No, it means “citizen from birth”. Just so happens that all citizens from birth at the time were born of citizen parents. But if that ever were to change (and it did!), all new people would be natural born without the meaning of the phrase changing.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar...”
The original Framers are irrelevant. The 14th amendment currently controls who’s a citizen from birth.
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Sorta goes against how Birthers insist native and natural born are two different statuses.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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”
I’ve never understood this quote. The 14th amendment most emphatically DOES NOT say anything of the sort. He may have intended it to, but it does not in fact. Unless he thinks the “under the jurisdiction thereof” phrase excludes children born with dual citizenship. But in that case, not only would they not be eligible to be president, they’d also be ineligible for U.S. citizenship. SCOTUS has ruled, and I agree with them, that children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parentage are U.S. citizens. Sorta stands in the face of that quote.
OOps, hit the wrong button...
so finishing, do you really think Britian would have allowed a US citizen to the highest office of their land when they didn’t even afford the subject, the same rights & priviledges of the natural born subject.
I think not.
It is obvious you are unfamiliar with the cases. You cannot quote them, do not grasp their relevance, and do not have a grasp of semantics as well as why they are important in the Law.
I produced linked referenced material, and in more than one article. Have you?
You are completely correct and I agree with you.
It is still a deliberate choice, and has to be such.
And what behavior makes you think that? What did Arthur do that's so suspicious?
“James Kent, commentaries on the Constitution 1826-1824”
The 14th amendment passed long afterwards, and as such his commentaries are irrelevant for our purposes.
“BO’s father was an alien, not subject to the jusrisdiction of the United States”
Since when are aliens, or illegal aliens for that matter, not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law?
“BO was born in England, BO may have been a british subject, but he never would have been classified as a natural born british subject due to the fact his father was not of that country”
I am not familiar with British law. Perhaps they explicitly define the term. We, however, do not. Which leaves us to interpret the words according to their obvious meaning. Namely, people who are born rather than made citizens.
Then why didn't the 14th Amendment say that?
Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
But Chief Justice Waite does not go on to specifically define natural-born citizen, does he? He does not say that those born in the U.S. of foreign parents are natural born citzens. He also does not say that they are not. So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing. Other than a woman couldn't vote.
openning from Kent, it is important in understanding who the early law scholars & founders thought needed to be naturalized...
the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
so there you have it, natives & aliens were terms used for ‘artificial’ persons, not ‘natural’ persons for immigration & naturalization purposes and the children of such person were not classified a citizens at birth either.
Go figure, some honest commentary right from the period it was written, but more importantly from a law scholar who was no conservative either.
-PJ
Except that Obama's father was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was living here and had he broken the law then he could have been arrested, tried, and jailed.
And can only be done as an adult. Nobody can relinquish your citizenship for you.
I think the article badly exaggerates the sinister nature of Arthur's actions. For example, if he was so concerned about the circumstances of his birth and was convinced he was actually ineligible due to his father's citizenship status then why would his father's naturalization certificate be in his presidential papers in the Library of Congress? Shouldn't that have been the first to go?
That is true as well! :)
British common law is what all the liberal progressives use as claim to their argument that the founders used english common law when defining citizen for the people of the new country.
but as we have also noted in the past, founder & delegate to the Contitental Congress Charles Pickney stated:
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
BHO spent quite a bit of time living abroad during his formative years and that shows, without question, in his actions and symapthies to Islamic terrorists. He hid his muslim heritage & studies from the public with the help of the lame stream media and now we have a president who puts terrorists & enemies ahead of our soldiers and allies.
Our founding fathers were wise and knew of the inherent harm to the country should the executive have foreign influences and today we are seeing it happen 1st hand.
As far as Chester Arthur, he was a decorated soldier who fought under Lincoln as McCain did his service during Vietnam, but did that excuse them, absolutely not. Arthur got away with it and had McCain been elected, we would still be going through the same process, trying to remove an ineligible president according to the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
This is not about party politics, this is about the LAW.
BO’s father was a temporary resident alien and subject to laws, but he was completely subject the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. politically & militarily. Had a war broke out, he would have had to report back to the Brits, thus he was not a citizen and he had no intentions of becoming one. he was here to study so that he could serve inthe Kenyan government, which he subsequently did, so one could classify him as a sort of diplomat also, and in that case, it changes everything entirely aka being that Obama’s mother had not reached the age of majority, Obama would not have held anything other than british citizenship and thus to this day he could be an illegal alien resident.
Yeah, if someone wants to twist the defintion of 'diplomat' out of all recognition. The plain legal fact is that while he was here he was subject to our jurisdiction.
“It is obvious you are unfamiliar with the cases”
I wonder if we were to poll everyone in the U.S. who knows of the case to see if they agree with my characterization of it being about citizenship and explicitly not about presidential eligibility how large would be the majority that came down on my side. Because I know it would be a majority, just not sure how much Birthers have poisoned the well.
“You cannot quote them”
Actually, I can. But I don’t see the efficacy. What I’m arguing is that they didn’t address the issue of whether native born citizens are natural born citizens. Everyone knows they didn’t, even you. Presidential eligibility was not at issue. Birthers cling to the fact that they used another word, which in and of itself they think is proof that the native born are “different” and therefore irrelevant.
The difference between you and I is that I’m asserting what is a completely non-controversial claim, i.e. that Wong Kim Ark wasn’t about natural born status. Since in this case, as in many others, it’s hard to “prove a negative,” my quoting various parts that don’t address presidential eligibility would be no proof at all. I could quote a portion which demonstrates that they weren’t interested in the question, and for that I can do no better than excerpting from the quote from the previous decision you sought fit to quote in turn:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
There it is, right there. For the purposes of the Wong Kim Ark case, whether or not native born citizens were also natural born citizens was irrelevant. Presidency wasn’t at issue, and as such, they steered clear of deciding whether Ark could be president. I hereby provide a link to a site which is at least respectful of Birther, if not an actual Birther site, which admits as much (as all of the honest ones must):
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref14
Here I find the author saying, “The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility...The Supreme Court did not rule that Mr. Ark was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen.”
He says so in response to the question, “Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a ‘natural born citizen’?” implying in the least that the Wong Kim Ark case tends to bolster the anti-Birther side, which is indeed the case.
You, with all your research acumen and knowledge of legalese have yet to quote or link to one part of the Wong Kim Ark case which does say that native born citizens don’t fit the natural born requirement. The excerpt from the previous case you quoted says only that whether the native born are natural born is in doubt, and further that such doubt will not be answered. Please, would you quote the part of the case that proves me wrong!
“So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing.”
Exactly. But for some reason we’re the ones who don’t know what we’re talking about. Yet they throw irrelevant citations and quotes into their posts as if it was appropos to anything.
“BHO spent quite a bit of time living abroad during his formative years and that shows, without question, in his actions and symapthies to Islamic terrorists...This is not about party politics, this is about the LAW.”
Everything you say about Obama’s muslim sympathies isn’t about the law. It’s about politics. He didn’t go overseas with his foreign-born father, did he? No, it was with his American-born mother. Your concern is really not about the law. It’s about not liking Obama.
“completely subject the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. politically & militarily. Had a war broke out, he would have had to report back to the Brits, thus he was not a citizen and he had no intentions of becoming one.”
This is silly. You’re making up meanings to being subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.
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.