Posted on 08/25/2009 11:56:37 AM PDT by rxsid
The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles:
Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins
Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.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 A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from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.
...
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.
...
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.
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”. [Ed. Right. If I'm not mistaken, "law of nations" goes back to the days of the Roman's.] 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.
...
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."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
Here they are (pgs. 823-828):
Tort Law - Prenatal Injuries - Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries - Stallman v. Younquist Ill 2d 267, 531 N.E. 2d 355 (1988)
My judgment on this topic is somewhat clouded by the fact that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.
The "natural born" requirement has its roots in ancient Common Law and Continental and Roman Law doctrines. There is in fact, significant Common Law authority on the issue which in my view is likely to be viewed as controlling.
As a theoretical proposition, there is significant support for the Father citizen rule and perhaps even for a Two Parent rule. And I don't think subsequent US Citizenship statutes would necessarily overrule these doctrines.
However I am also convinced that in Obama's case, even though you ought to be able to find him ineligible, if the Court concludes he was born in the US, he is almost certainly likely to win. And, on the other hand, if the Court concludes he was born in Mombasa, he is almost certainly likely to lose.
There are in fact also reasons to examine the outcome on the born in the USA facts.
Consider this hypothetical. A current citizen of the US was born in the US. Both parents are US Citizens. The paternal Grandfather was an immigrant and naturalized US Citizen. However under the law of the country of his origin, the current person is also a citizen of that country. Is there an argument the current person is not eligible to serve as President? If so, having reached a signficant age of seniority, is such an argument enhanced by the fact that the current person also holds a Passport from the country of his grandfather's origin?
Ping.
Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations.
If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC.
I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.
If Barry is eligible with his foreign national father (& his foreign citizenship at birth), then Kim Jong Il, et' al, would be able to have their son/daughter born in this country, be eligible to the POTUS and thus Commander in Chief.
I think there is zero percent chance that was the intention of the framers...and good for our national security in these modern times.
and NOT good for our national security
Yup.
He is not a “natural born citizen”. His father WAS NOT an American Citizen.
All the argument about where he was born is kind of fluff and irrelevant. If it could be proved he was born in Kenya, that solidifies the case.
But he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a “Natural born Citizen”.
bump to mark the thread
Thank you very much for posting this. Despite the charges of nuts and conspiracy theorists, this topic has been very well covered on the FR. This being only the most recent example. If they had 1/10th the discussion in the media a year ago, this would have been settled before the election.
Pinging The List.
“...he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a “Natural born Citizen”.”
Exactly.
The birth certificate is actually a red herring, just as Presdient Arthur’s accuser charged him with being born in Canada, a charge that was false. It doesn’t really matter where he was born, he would still not be a natural born citizen.
Rather, Arthur’s father simply hadn’t yet naturalized as a U.S. citizen when his son was born in Vermont. He didn’t naturalize until 14 years after Chester A. Arthur’s birth.
Good ping, Lucy.
And there’s more to come and not “just from” Leo D.
I only wish that your dream comes true!
Arthur's administration (surprisingly, considering his somewhat shady reputation upon entering office) was considered by historians to be well run - no big scandals, no wars of consequence, no major economic crises.
Bookmarked for when I fix my computer... :(
Somebody else said that about the Law of Nations--that just isn't so. The Law of Nations is an 18th Century Document (1758); the Common Law dates to the 12th Century; and concepts about subjects and citizens date back to the Roman Empire.
Further, the Common Law is the Law in the US; Law of Nations is not.
Reason Law of Nations is significant is that the principal drafters of the Constitution were aware of it and had read it and used it as a resource for their work. But the actual legal impact of the terms stands for itself--the concept of a common law subject which was lifted to the Constitution as a citizen is a pure Common Law topic (maybe the founders thought as described in Law of Nations--but the law is the Common Law).
Further, there is another body of law that is also significant and that is Roman law about citizens.
Law of Nations is just another treatise on legal topics of the day--it isn't law; it just purports to be a summary of the author's view of what the law is; real lawyers don't cite that stuff unless they can't come up with real authority to support their argument.
I doubt that Common Law would be viewed as "extending past" but the point of my hypothetical is that there are people out there in the US who have presumably Citizen Parents whose citizen parents are also citizens of another country; and who themselves are citizens of that other country who can still get second country Passports based on their citizenship.
I don't think anything like that would have happened at Common Law although you look at the successors to Edward the III after the death of the Black Prince and see that they were really all French first and wonder.
On the other hand, they clearly did deal with issues about children born outside the country; and children born as subjects to parents who were clearly agents of another sovereign when born and there is commentary in the common law about how those people were addressed.
This is from Leo Donofrio’s web site? Looks like Leo is still in the game.
And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.
And who was on that Supreme Court? Justice Gray who was appointed by the later found to be ineligible Arthur.
Wong Kim Arc
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/WROTNOWSKI-APPLICATION-REFERRED-TO-FULL-COURT-BY-JUSTICE-SCALIA-—DISTRIBUTED-FOR-CONFEREN.html
Remember the old german saying:
“They came for the jews, but I was not a jew so I did nothing ... they came for the intellectuals, but I was not an intellectual, so I did nothing ...”
Eventually, they get to you and you have no one else to stand with.
We believe in truth and justice in maintaining the rule of law - they believe the ends justifies the means, and their goal is the destruction of America on the way to establishing a worldwide fascist oligarchy.
I believe this blatant disregard of the Constitution needs to be our ‘line in the sand’. It’s a clear illustration of their complete disregard for what America is built upon. If we continue to raise the issue, the vast majority of mature, adult, reasoning (non-ideologue) Americans (I hope they exist) will become educated about the founding principles, see the transgressions and insist on correction and compliance.
If we don’t, they will continue their piecemeal destruction until they have sufficient power.
Then it’s done, just like it was in Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia ...
If their offspring were born in the United States, then they are Natural Born Citizens and eligible for the Presidency no matter how loathsome their fathers might have been.
Most importantly, however, they have to receive more votes than their opponents.
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.