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Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.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 thats 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 A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from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. Its 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 Arthurs 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.
Chesters 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 Arthurs 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: Vattells 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 Vattells definition of natural born citizen was not actually Vattells 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 Vattells 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 Vattells 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
Ping!
PING AND BOOKMARK!
PING WHY EYE!
How will this actually change anything?
bttt
“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.”
The DNC is looking into drafting procedures even as we speak.
As long as MOST of us fail to stand for the rule of law ... nothing.
What will YOU (plural) do?
I wonder what laws were signed by President Arthur. Were any states admitted to the Union during his term? Maybe they will try to invalidate that admission . . .
(I’m in my own little world, I know.)
ping
bookmark
Bookmark
Indeed, only...they are attempting to get away with setting the precedent with Barry!
As we know, Arthur didn't set precedent, because the public didn't know he was a British subject at birth, quite unlike Barry of today. Although, both lied to conceal their past in some way.
Most definitely bookmarked.
If I knew what could be done, then I would decide.
BTTT
Doesn’t this also mean that all those “anchor” babies are not anchored at all?
THAT would be a nice outcome of this study and report.
Has someone notified Dr. Orly Taitz about this?
Decided to join you in your world... ;o)
You made me curious so I had to check.
No states entered into the Union from 1881 to 1885.
Colorado (#38) was in 1876.
North Dakota (#39) was in 1889.
As for laws, wiki has a decent summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur
Down with Greenwich Mean Time!
:o)
The principle asserted by Collins, which essentially considers citizenship at birth to be solely patrilineal (except in the case of an illegitimate child), is archaic, having been superseded several times by successive US statutes. The same holds for Collins' outright dismissal of any notion of dual (or multiple) citizenship at birth; the fact is that American law has since recognized that some persons are categorized as such. 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.
The specific subject of POTUS eligibility is not even addressed in Collins' article, as it did not seem to be a concern of his, despite the fact that Arthur - the president, coincidentally, at the time the article was written - would seemingly not qualify for the presidency under Collins' doctrine, given what we now know about Arthur's father's British citizenship status at the time of Arthur's birth.
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.