Posted on 01/12/2024 11:30:39 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”
Really? Where to start, where to start?
First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added) Alterian, Inc.
Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”
Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.
Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Exactly. Someone telling me that our idiot/corrupt court system has bungled consistently is not proof that I should change my mind because the idiot/corrupt court system says so.
These idiots think men can become women. Nobody should listen to them anymore, just stay out of the reach of these clowns.
We can't get competent people because the system is too much of a group-think herd mentality, which is all they know.
Something these guys don't seem to grasp is that their "English Law" interpretation is harmful to the nation.
The Vattel interpretation resolves all the problems that come from the English law version.
It is in the best interest of the nation for us to adhere to Vattel's definition of citizen, and it is contrary to the best interest of the nation to continue believing the popular myth that "Citizenship" is based on the rules for English Subjects.
She’s not eligible Jim.
Neither is Heels Up Harris. Neither parent was a US citizen at the time of her birth in Oakland.
As with that jackoff obama, everyone looked the other way when she laid down the race card. The George Floyd reaction from the “community” would have looked like a tailgate party if either had been called out by a honkey.
Haley is a goober, and not subject to the same level of protection.
The issue wasn't alien "born". The issue was alien loyalty.
Hamilton was Alien born, so was Thomas Paine, and so were many of the early Framers/Founders, but the issue they were concerned about was that of loyalty and allegiance.
None of that is solved with the British derived definition of "citizen", but it is all completely resolved with the Vattel definition of "citizen."
The fact that we use the word "citizen" (uncommon in the English of that era) is a good indication that the intent always was to follow Vattel.
Had they intended to follow English law, they would have kept "subject", which was the usual and common way of describing a member of a nation at the time.
"Citizen" was adopting the Swiss usage, not the English usage.
Yeah, the courts are full of idiots and liars. It's a serious problem for the nation.
You really must seek a seat on the Supreme Court so you can set them all right and clear up the errors they have been making for centuries.
I am so sad to see that Diogenes is still lying his ass off about that book, and Vattel. I think he is what the Canucks call an OPCA-type person. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2018CanLIIDocs90#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA
Not my primary interest. I just wish other people could do a better job in thinking for themselves.
Chester Arthur.
Nobody else understands the law the way you do. :-)
Went to great lengths to hide his father's Alien status.
Bringing him up hurts your argument. If it was no big deal, why hide it?
Well the courts certainly don't. They have that "Argumentum ad antiquitatum" problem that all herd mentalities have.
They could overcome it if they just stopped looking at their predecessor's opinions and start fresh from first principles.
But they are a group think entity.
Of course the other possibility is they are just lazy, and don't want to do any work, so they just lazily go along with what their predecessors decided.
Too willing to let other people think for them instead of thinking for themselves.
I cannot commend your legal scholarship too highly. Nobody else understands the law the way you do.
Chester Arthur.Went to great lengths to hide his father's Alien status.
Bringing him up hurts your argument. If it was no big deal, why hide it?
It appears Chester Arthur's fictional efforts to hide his father's citizenship were as poor as your effort at due diligence to separate fiction from fact.
A Russian correspondent wrote about Chester Arthur's (b. October 5, 1829) purported Irish citizenship in 1881. His citizenship was challenged by Arthur Hinson, Esq. before Chester Arthur was inaugurated as Vice President. The book fully explored the citizenship of Arthur and his father while Arthur was President.
At no time have two citizen parents been required. The words speak only of the status of the candidate, not his or her parents.
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
Chester Alan Arthur
Barack Hussein Obama II
Kamala Harris
There are fifteen terms as President or Vice President without two citizen parents.
That Chester Arthur's father was Irish was so well known that a St. Petersburg, Russia correspondent wrote about the alleged Irish citizenship of Chester Arthur in 1881.
(By cable to the Herald.)London, December 12, 1881
Our St. Petersburg correspondent telegraphs under the date of the 9th:—To-day's Novoe Vremya contains the following article, which I translate literally, without softening or accentuating the opprobrious language of the article:—"Arthur's Message to Congress is surprisingly strange if the telegraphic version before us be accurate. It congratulates Americans on their growing prosperity, as if this was anything new to the honorable Yankees. Arthur takes upon himself his views on foreign politics. France and Germany receive friendly patronage, but with regard to the the much talked of friendship with England not a word is said; and how could it be expected from an Irishman? Arthur even refrains from making comments on English home affairs—the Irish rebellion, for instance, which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are also born Irishmen like the President. ...
A book by Arthur P. Hinman was published during the Arthur presidency which resulted in no action being taken. Hinman was hired by the Democrat party and Senator Bayard was a democrat. Arthur became Vice President on March 4, 1881 and he became President on September 20, 1881. In January 1881, the author of the book was already flinging that citizenship crap.
New York, January 7th, 1881.Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator
Dear Sir:—What is the construction of Article II, § 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States—that "No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc, shall be eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully
A. P. HINMAN
- - - - -
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York
Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natuiral born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be as native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD
[...]
A citizen of New York State has ascertained all of the facts and here relates them:
Almost a century ago there lived in Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland, a Scotchman named Gavin MacArthur. He had a wife and several children, and had emigrated from Scotland, on account of a family difficulty, arising from. his having embraced the Protestant religion while his friends and relatives were of the Roman Catholic faith. Shortly after his arrival in Ireland his religious zeal caused him to change his family name from MacArthur to Arthur. It is understood that he made this change to distinguish his branch of the family from that of the Roman Catholic branch.
In the year 1796, a son was born to this Gavin Arthur, and he was named William Arthur, in honor of William of Orange. This boy was educated at what was then known as the Blue School, in Belfast. He simply acquired a common school education. On leaving school, in the year 1818, he emigrated in a sailing vessel from Derry, Ireland, to Three Rivers, in Canada. It may here be remarked that, like a great many of the young men of his age, he was very fond of the three great evils of this life, viz: R. W. T.
"Billy" Arthur, as he was familiarly called by his associates in Canada, came direct from Three Rivers to a place called Upper Mills, now known as Stanbridge, Canada, looking for employment as a teacher. He offered to give lessons in writing, being a fine penman, at a very small salary. He was engaged for one term in the year 1819. Two of his scholars at that time, Erastus Chandler and Luther Burley, are still living.
On leaving Stanbridge, he obtained a government school at Dunham Flats, Canada, a place about seven miles east of Stanbridge. Here he remained for several years, and one of his scholars, Joseph Baker, is still living there. He says that he remembers William Arthur very well, and that he attended his school from about 1819 to 1821. He remembers his marriage to the daughter of George Washington Stone, a Methodist priest, at Dunham, and that they ran away across the line to East Berkshire, Vermont, to get married. When they returned to Dunham they lived in the upper part of a house owned by one of Baker's relatives. Mr. Baker claimed to have been the favorite pupil of his teacher, and when his first child, Regina Melvina Maria Arthur was born, he took Baker to see the baby. "It was a girl," and in honor of the event Mr. Arthur tr.eated Baker to a glass of whisky. Baker further stated that William Arthur, after his marriage in the State of Vermont and return, was remarried at the Episcopal Church at Dunham, Canada, by the then pastor, the Rev. Mr. Cotton. This remarriage was performed to satisfy certain members of his wife's family, who were a little inclined to doubt everything which they did not see and in which they did not participate. This runaway marriage is corroborated by Leonard D. Geer, Erastus Chandler and others. Baker said that Arthur was lame, or clubfooted, and liked his whiskey. While at Dunham he acted for at least two years as clerk to Priest Cotton. Arthur once went to the States to attend a religious meeting on a lake, supposed to be Burlington, Lake Champlain, and was converted. He learned that he afterwards became a Baptist preacher in the States.
[...]
Erastus Chandler, of Stanbridge East formerly Upper Mills, Canada, remembers William Arthur when he first came to Stanbridge: went to school to him. He was a lame Irishman, and inclined to drink, but was a splendid penman. He landed in this country at Three Rivers, and his first school was at Stanbridge. I think it was about 1819. I was about fifteen years of age the first time he was here, and about twenty-five years of age the second time.
[...]
Sycamore, DeKalb Co., III , May 9, 1882
DEAR SIR: - Yours of the 4th instant was duly received. I would say that I am not able to give dates definitely; but can state from recollection what I have known of Rev. William Arthur. My first acquaintance with him was about the year 1826 or 1827. I do not recollect being one of the Council that ordained Mr. Arthur. I met him at the annual meeting of the Fairfield Association. I learned from him that he emigrated from the north of Ireland, and that his ancestors were of Scotch descent, and were Protestants in belief.
[...]
(From the New York Times, Saturday, October 10th, 1875.)
REV. DR. WILLIAM ARTHUR.
Rev. Dr. William Arthur, the notice of whose death appeared in the Journal of· yesterday, was born in the County of Antrim, Ireland, in the year 1796. He sprang from that Scotch-Irish stock which is excelled by none other in all those qualities which go to make strong, true, independent men. After a thorough preliminary training he entered Belfast College, and was graduated from that institution at the early age of eighteen. Not long after he determined to make the New World his home, and accordingly, sailed from Liverpool for New York. Proceeding from the metropolis to Bennington, Vermont, he began his labors in this country as principal of the Bennington Academy. While maintaining this connection, he commenced the study of law, which he subequently continued in the office of Governor Van Ness, of Vermont. His future, however, was destined to run along a different path, and he had not been long at the law before he became convinced, first in his heart. and then in his mind, that he was called to the ministry. He at once prepared himself with characteristic energy and assiduity for the sacred calling, and in due course of time was installed as minister of a Baptist church at Bennington. He was subsequently settled in Hinesburgh, Fairfield and Williston, in Vermont, and in 1835 removed to western New York. After laboring awhile at York, Livingston County, and Perry, Wyoming County, he accepted a call from the Baptist church at Greenwich, Washington County, and in that field remained five years. Later he removed to Schenectady, and before settling down permanently at Newtonville, had charges successively at Schenectady, Lansingburgh, Hoosick and West Troy. From 1855 to 1863, Dr. Arthur was pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church of Albany. He will long be remembered by those the to whom he then ministered for the earnestness and power with which he delivered his sacred message.
It looks like the Irish citizenship of William Arthur was hidden by putting it in an obit in the New York Times in 1875, and by having it published in Russian in Russia, and having that translated to English and published in the Herald in 1881 in an early example of Russian meddling in American politics, and then published all about the citizenship of William Arthur in a book published while Arthur was in office. The research for the book was performed by A.P. Hinman, a democrat who was hired by the Democrat party to do a hit job before Arthur was inaugurated in 1881. Is that what is called keeping it on the down low?
What is your evidence that this information was hidden? The Democrat party knew. Congress knew. People who read the New York Times knew. In 1881, the Russians knew.
Sauces please. Name the birther moron you got that from.
The Framers must damn well have been “youthful” to be issuing rulings in 1866, IDJIT !
The Court in 1866 interpreted and ruled upon the words that were ratified. As the judicial branch did not exist at the time of the Framers, you seem to think the courts have never ruled on anything they wrote that got ratifed.
You must be a natural born idiot.
I like "Magic is the best analogue for Otherlaw. Otherlaw has no
reasoned foundation. In fact, certain examples have no foundation at all!"
In the Ted Cruz case, in Pennsylvania the court stated:
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as
well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common
law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen"
includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.
It includes Ted Cruz, born in Canada.
In his 1916 book “Fear God and take your own part” Theodore Roosevelt wrote that if Arthur were to go to England, he could have been pressed into military service. Clearly Roosevelt knew Arthur had dual citizenship.
Roosevelt goes on to describe the case of a Mr. LeLong who was born in New Orleans to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien (French citizen) father. In describing Mr. LeLong, Roosevelt wrote “He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States.”
People who have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way, cannot help but think that way.
But i'm glad you are here. I want to ask you a legal question.
Suppose someone takes guardianship of a child, and because the child misbehaves, the guardian puts the child in a room to punish them. Also in the room is a pit bull that attacks and gravely injures the child.
Should the guardian be held responsible for what happened to the child?
Should the guardian receive some sort of punishment?
I remember that. I think i've actually read that book.
Doesn't really address the point.
That Chester Arthur's father was Irish was so well known that a St. Petersburg, Russia correspondent wrote about the alleged Irish citizenship of Chester Arthur in 1881.
You are trying to pull a bait and switch here. The issue is *NOT* that Chester Arthur had an Irish father, it's that his father didn't become a citizen until *AFTER* Chester Arthur was born.
*THAT* is the part that has been attempted to be hidden.
At no time have two citizen parents been required. The words speak only of the status of the candidate, not his or her parents.
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
I would say you were showing your ignorance here, but you've already had this particular point explained to you before. I'm not sure why you are trying to sneak that past us again. Perhaps you've forgotten what you were told previously?
All of those men were born as "subjects." There is a special exemption for them in the eligibility requirements.
Senate of the United States City of Washington, January 10th, 1881
A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York
Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natuiral born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be as native of the U. S.
It's after 1868, and therefore invalid in understanding natural born citizen. Also, after 1825, William Rawle had polluted people's accurate understanding of the matter.
If you want to prove something, don't use circular logic that depends on it's own presumptions.
You have to use evidence from the Framing era. Crap from the time period *AFTER* Rawle misled everyone is useless.
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.