I think it was muttonchopism.
I want to see Barry grow a set like that.
Posted on 09/02/2009 2:01:20 PM PDT by stan_sipple
Chester Arthur was ineligible because his father was a foreigner and not an American citizen at the time of Chesters birth.
The Obama question in this matter will not be settled until someone has ehe guts to actually do the hard work and prove one way or another his actual status as a citizen
The sole criterion on which Chester Arthur's citizenship and eligibility rests on where he was born, not where his father was born or whether his father was a citizen at the time.
From Wikipedia:
"In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who:
* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution."
Notice that it doesn't say that the domicile and residence must be legal.
Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com has THE ONLY definitive research on Chestur Arthur. Leo has confirmed beyond all doubt that Arthur lied about his citizenship and burned his records. (He was not a natural-born citizen.) Read Leo’s work. It’s fascinating. He has a great legal mind.
Yeah. You keep reading Wikipedia. They’re so honest.
It is a very good piece.
Btw, that does not define NBC.
You have absolutely, positively, no freaking idea, what you’re talking about. Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with natural-born citizenship.
Go read up and come back for some discussion. Start here with Leo Donofrio’s ground-breaking research on Chester Arthur.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/index.php?s=chester+arthur
“For the purposes of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court didn’t need to reach the ‘natural born citizen’ issue as neither person was running for President, so they rightfully punted by limiting their holdings to the issue of whether each person was a ‘citizen’.”
was it racism to question Arthur’s citizenship?
Did you know that there are law students discussing Donofrio’s work and doing assignments on it? That’s amazing to me.
I think it was muttonchopism.
I want to see Barry grow a set like that.
Well, I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia isn't making it up. There really was a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark No. 18, that was argued: March 5, 8, 1897 and Decided: on March 28, 1898. In that case, the majority held...
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
And, in the dissent, authored in part by Justice Fuller, Fuller disagrees with the majority opinion when he says...
In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government. If not, and if the correct view is that they were aliens but collectively naturalized under the act of Congress which recognized them as natural-born, then those born since the Fourteenth Amendment are not citizens at all, [p715] unless they have become such by individual compliance with the general laws for the naturalization of aliens, because they are not naturalized "in the United States."
He goes onto to lament the practical implications of the majority opinion we he adds...
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Fuller ferociously disagrees with the majority's opinion, but he recognize and fears it's practical application with respect to Presidential eligibility.
Hey, but don't take my word for it, or Wiki's for that matter, here's the link to the Cornell Law School repository.
Fuller, in his dissenting opinion disagrees. You should read the case - all of it.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESISTOR
Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for, someday, sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.
Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK)
Arthur was behind the Garfield assanation, and the father of Bea Arthur!
Arthur was behind the Garfield assanation, and the father of Bea Arthur!
That's amazing to me as well. May I ask where these law school matriculants are enrolled?
Then again, back in the day I remember spending a little time on a case called Dred Scott v Sandford. I don't remember any professor describing that as a case well-grounded in legal intent or outcome. Perhaps the same applies here.
I have read Wong Kim Ark, thoroughly.
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.