Historical Breakthrough-Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth (Donofrio)

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Even if Ann were a cut-out, which I have no reason to believe (though I agree with the strangeness of it all), I don’t see how that would come to the Court’s attention or impact their review, should that come about, in any way.

I have every confidence that the SCOTUS will review the case according to the standards they always apply and that they will review the case if it appears to them that their standards require it or make it appropriate.

Also, I’m not sure what one would mean by saying “let the time run out.” I don’t see any deadline here, although, of course, the practicalities get more onerous the longer a problem has existed. That said, if a sitting “president” were discovered to be ineligible two weeks or two minutes before the end of his second term, he would still be ineligible and, therefore, legally “unavailable” to serve, and, therefore, our procedures for the peaceful transfer of power to an eligible person would kick in and be followed.

Sure, if there is a problem, everyone would like to have it all tied up with a bow before Inauguration Day, but it is what it is. The Court and the country have to play the hand that’s been dealt them and then let the chips lie.

Yes, it would be very dramatic for our country to replace a sitting “president” because he was found to be ineligible to serve. But the reality is that, from a governmental point of view, it would be a straightforward application of the rules, no different than the at once dramatic but completely orderly removal of a president upon conviction in impeachment.

Stuff happens. Occasionally stuff happens under the Constitution.

You’re kidding, right?
You see no room for argument in Article II, Section I, the rest of us see *no definition* of “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I.

I see no room for argument, except for those who have an agenda.

Arthur is dead. Obama is going to be our president. Let it go. No person and no court is going to be successful in challenging his citizenship.

And before I am accused of being, what have they called it?....an Obama-bot.....check out my past posts.

Natural born citizen is just what it says.....a citizen by birth born in one of the 50 or territories. If it were an issue, it would have been addressed and gaveled years ago.

When has this issue ever been presented to the Supreme Court?

BTW, in the law there is always room for argument. That said, I have no “agenda” except to advocate for the Constitution. If that should require Supreme Court action-—and it may or may not in this case-—then so be it.

If “natural born citizen” is defined as you say it is, then I’m assuming you claim John McCain is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is ineligible to serve as president?

Please don’t come back with “well, there’s an exception for . . .” Once you concede there are exceptions, your flat statement has already fallen flat.

While ultimately the definition you propose may be deemed the correct one, it’s quite naive to pontificate that this issue is cut and dry simply because the Court has had no occasion to address the issue to date.

Well since I’m not competing with you in a monitored debate, nor am I opposing you in a courtroom, I couldn’t care less with whether or not you think anything I say “falls flat.”

And I never claimed one way or the other that this issue has been presented to SCOTUS, so again, you are trotting down a path that is unnecessary in your dialogue with me.

And you yourself lack thoroughness, as you obviously have not read my previous posts on this topic, or else you would know what I think, my opinion of McCain’s citizenship (which is no opinion at all, but a fact supported by the Constitution), how I would respond to your over-blown jabs, and that I too support the Constitution, oh mighty one. Where we differ is how that section of the Constitution is interpreted. That would not have been so difficult for you to know. :)

As for pontification, I again couldn’t care less if I’m right or wrong, as my ego will not suffer one way or the other, while on the other hand it seems very important to you. And pursuing being right in a debate that exists only in your own head is that last desperate gasps of a true ponitificator. :)))

And I never claimed one way or the other that this issue has been presented to SCOTUS

That's a little important since you otherwise are claiming this is a settled issue. Nothing is truly settled until the SCOTUS says it is. You are correct that we are interpreting the Constitution differently. What I am reacting to is your statement that your interpretation is the law of the land. It may turn out to be the law of the land, but right now it's not. And if you think I am pursuing "being right" in this debate, you are wrong. I have strongly argued my views, but I have repeatedly stated that the law is unsettled and the SCOTUS could reach a variety of results. You have done the opposite and that's the problem and that's what constitutes pontification. It doesn't matter whether one "cares" if one is right or wrong, as you suppose. What matters is when one proclaims that one's interpretation is "the law" and, clearly, that matter is not yet sufficiently or finally settled. Again, your views or mine or neither may turn out to be what the SCOTUS says (if it ever rules directly on this issue). But, until this post, you consistently claimed that your views were "the law," not your "interpretation." Big difference and, yes, I think that's important to point out.

Whoops, sorry for the text brick. Let me try that again.

You wrote:

And I never claimed one way or the other that this issue has been presented to SCOTUS

That's a little important since you otherwise are claiming this is a settled issue. Nothing is truly settled until the SCOTUS says it is.

You are correct that we are interpreting the Constitution differently. What I am reacting to is your statement that your interpretation is the law of the land. It may turn out to be the law of the land, but right now it's not.

And if you think I am pursuing "being right" in this debate, you are wrong. I have strongly argued my views, but I have repeatedly stated that the law is unsettled and the SCOTUS could reach a variety of results. You have done the opposite and that's the problem and that's what constitutes pontification.

It doesn't matter whether one "cares" if one is right or wrong, as you suppose. What matters is when one proclaims that one's interpretation is "the law" and, clearly, that matter is not yet sufficiently or finally settled.

Again, your views or mine or neither may turn out to be what the SCOTUS says (if it ever rules directly on this issue). But, until this post, you consistently claimed that your views were "the law," not your "interpretation."

Big difference and, yes, I think that's important to point out.

Do you deny that you repeatedly stated by implication, and finally explicitly, that there was “no room for argument” with your conclusion as to what the Constitution means?

Do you deny that when presented with a probable exception to your conclusion as to what the Constitution means-—an exception that proves that your flat conclusion cannot be so-—you did not address that?

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to offend you. But surely you can see how repeatedly stating that “there’s no room for argument” about your views is, as I felt compelled to state, naive and wrong. And not helpful to what should be an educational debate.

I respect that your interpretation of the Constitution differs from mine. I don’t respect, nor do I find it helpful to this debate, that you repeatedly state that “there is no room for argument” with your views.

For example:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144293/posts?page=39#39

Again, your views or mine or neither may be correct. But since the SCOTUS has not said so one way or the other, manifestly there is “room for argument.”

That is all.

I believe I said “I see no room for argument.” Big difference. Again, it would be helpful if you would go back and read my posts and not misquote me.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, since I’m not in a competitive debate with you, nor opposing you in a court of law, I couldn’t care less if you agree or disagree with my interpretation of anything, nor if you believe my views are naive or wrong.

And I am never offended by someone I don’t know.

Honestly, I think you are a little too invested in this issue, to the point that its so important to you for me to admit that I am wrong and that I should agree with you. I do feel as though I’m being beat over the head by someone who will not be satisfied until I bend to his opinions. Notice the word I keep using......OPINION. These are my opinions, and I still have the opinion I have after reading all of your posts and links and rants from external bloviators. In the end, its just my opinion......why do you care?

I don’t.

No one, much less me, is asking you to bend to my opinions. I did ask you if you deny that you repeatedly stated “there was no room for argument” on this issue; that is quite different from pressuring you to agree with any point and you have not responded to that.

That’s fine. It was just a suggestion for a way you might evaluate your analysis.

All I suggested was that it was uninformed to declare that your opinion was conclusive, indeed, that there was “no room for argument.” And, even then, the only reason I commented was because such posts only add to the huge mountain of constitutional ignorance out there.

I simply wanted to point out that use of a term in a constitutional provision is NOT the same as that term being defined, and it’s not helpful to proceed as if it is.

That is all.

Ok, I see your point........but please.......get over yourself. We’re not contributing to the body of academic literature or base of research.........I don’t want my posts to be peer-reviewed........they’re just posts, for Snoopy’s sake........if I want to be analyzed and critiqued, I’ll send my opinions to my superiors in DC or Baltimore.

Now, my suggestion to you is to join me in this lovely bottle of merlot and forget for an evening that we will soon have a historical and genetic embarassment as a president.

“You seem to have a problem with it because of your views on nature and theology. Sorry.”

I don’t even know what my views on nature an theology are. Could you fill me in? I certainly know what I feel about confusing what is so by nature and what is so by law. Your repeated assertion that “No law has ever been required to deem the child of two Americans an American citizen, regardless of place of birth,” is one such consfusion. Citizenship status IS legal status. There’s no getting around that.

“It’s appropriate to use the word ‘nature’ because that’s what the framers used (’natural’).”

What was it that the “framers” framed? Oh yeah, a document of LAW. That being the case, they would be using the word “natural” to establish a legal definition of citizenship status. Therefore, your assertion that “No law has ever been required to deem the child of two Americans an American citizen, regardless of place of birth,” has been rendered dubious by your own citation of the Constitution as posessing authority on the issue.

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.