Chester Alan Arthur: The Barack Obama of the 19th Century

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 9-2-2009 | David Kopel

[stan_sipple]

I found some interesting facts about Chester Alan Arthur, who served as President in 1881-85, succeeding to the office after the assassination of James Garfield.

Arthur's father was an Irishman who moved to Canada. There, he eloped with an American woman from Vermont. Canada and Ireland were, at the time, under the government of the United Kingdom. The couple had several children, including Chester. The father did not become a naturalized American citizen until long after Chester's birth.

During the 1880 presidential campaign, Democrats hired Wall Street lawyer Arthur P. Hinman to investigate Arthur's background. Hinman released his findings to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper during the campaign, and later wrote a book, How a British subject became president of the United States (1884).

Hinman contended that Arthur had been born in Canada, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to be Vice-President or President. (The Natural Born Citizen clause, however, applies only to who "shall be eligible to the Office of President." It does not, on its face, apply to the Vice Presidency. The clause of course reflects the original system of presidential elections, by which the electors cast two ballots, and whoever came in second became Vice President. The 12th Amendment changed that system, but did not revise the NBC clause accordingly.)

Arthur specifically denied the claim, and said that he had been born in Vermont. There was apparently no birth certificate, since such certificates were not used in many areas at the time that Arthur was born.

Later biographers have concluded that Arthur lied about his own age, and perhaps about various aspects of his father's life. The American people obviously made a political judgement, in electing Garfield-Arthur, that they either did not believe the charge of Canadian birth, or did not care about it.

Personally, I probably would have voted for the Democratic nominee, Winfield Scott Hancock, a man of impeccable integrity and great regard for constitutional rights. He lost the popular vote to Garfield by few than 10,000 votes. In 1881, Hancock became President of the National Rifle Association. (Following in the footsteps of Ulysses Grant, who served as NRA President after serving two terms as United States President.)

In any case, the existence of the Arthur controversy is an example of political opponents raising questions about whether a president was really a natural born citizen, and raising such questions for reasons other than racism.

[Spaulding]

OldDeckHand isn't such an old Free Republic blogger!

Don't bother reading Wong Kim. It only addresses citizenship. Even in dissension, Fuller agrees with the existing definition of NBC - born on U.S. soil of parents who are its citizens. A Constitutional president must be a “natural-born citizen”. Arthur lied repeatedly about his father and burned all his papers. Judge Gray, who may have done us a terrible injustice with allusions which led to the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment resulting in “Anchor babies”, was an Arthur appointee. If Arthur's ineligibility were to have been exposed, Gray would lose his job. Leo Donofrio has explored this in considerable depth.

I also vaguely recall - I haven't read his book - that the reporter was trying to prove that Arthur was actually born in Ireland. Sound familiar? I wonder if Arthurs colleagues were spreading those rumors just as Obama’s would love to see us keep focusing on Kenya or Stanley Ann's travels as a teenager. We'll wait for the Donofrio book on Arthur, but I believe when Arthur's father applied for naturalization his application was handled locally - by the state in which he was a minister. He too may have had friends who concealed his documents, just as Obama's security advisor, (Brennan?) had his agent clean out the Obama files in the U.S. State Department (the agent died with a bullet in his brain last spring).

I won't take the time to re-read the Donofrio research, but encourage anyone who has the interest. It is fascinating, but irrelevant, since Obama has told us all that he was born a 'dual citizen'. Obama did not tell us he was natural-born. He said he was "native born". He absolutely knows the difference. His law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, also defended John McCain from apprently correct assertions that McCain was not a natural-born citizen. Kirkland & Ellis wrote law review briefs arguing for "Changing the Natural Born Citizen Provision of Article II", Sarah Herlihy, 2006, Chicago-Kent Law Review. We, including Justice Roberts, made him president. We don't have the authority to do that. This is not a Democracy. We are a Constitution Republic.

But I'm delighted to see new FR members making these arguments because it means there is growing recognition that the working public is beginning to realize that this is a constitutional, and not a tin hat issue. I'm also delighted to see so many FR bloggers see this subterfuge, and understand the Constitution.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Again, the dissenting opinion cannot be applied as law. Find another talking point.

[Kenny Bunk]

Team Obama has seized upon a narrow opening in the Constitution. Presidential candidates must be "Natural Born Citizens."

Clearly, as the son of a foreigner, our POTUS is not. Now, who's supposed to "police" this clause? The Constitution doesn't actually say. The Electoral College? The Congress? State legislatures? The SCOTUS cannot. It is not within its constitutional authority.

I am of the party that believes that this is a power belonging to the states. Yet no state has set a statutory process over it. Time to do that. A state has to pass a law on Presidential Candidate Eligibility.

Then if the potential POTUS wannabe, or his followers, object, they would have to bring suit, thereby giving the SCOTUS authority to rule on the constitutionality of that state's law, and along the way finally setting down in stone exactly what the heck a "Natural Born Citizen" is.

Obama ain't. But we have to prove it in court. If there is no law to go by, we have no standing to be in court. The Chicago crook has broken no law. We have been had.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’m of the opinion that we need the states to pass laws on this too. And I think Obama and his thugs know that it will be his undoing in 2012 if any state moves forward with it. So, they’re calling any legislator who suggests such a law a racist or a nut.

He’s know exactly what he’s doing.

[OldDeckHand]

"Again, the dissenting opinion cannot be applied as law."

Obiter Dicta. Stare decisis demands that dissents aren't binding, but it doesn't mean they can't be persuasive. And, in a case where the intent or contemporary application of a specific term or phrase hasn't been fully, or even partially litigated, a "persuasive" dissent can be a compelling argument.

[DaveTesla]

Center column 3rd paragraph down:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2

you have to turn to page 1291

According to the the principal framer (John Armor Bingham )of the 14th amendment, particularly
Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) and by Mr. Obama’s
own admission he is not a Natural Born citizen.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

[BuckeyeTexan]

From your precious Wiki:

Stare decisis et non quieta movere
"Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established"

Stare Decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. (i.e. Not dissenting opinions.)

You think Fuller's dissenting opinion is Obiter Dictum (said in passing)? Go back to law school.

[OldDeckHand]

"You think Fuller's dissenting opinion is Obiter Dictum (said in passing)? Go back to law school. "

Yep. Like some other tremendous dissents found in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson - both containing dicta that was used as either a basis for the 14th Amendment, for the former, or the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, in the later.

Maybe you should enroll in law school. I might recommend avoiding the one (which you still haven't cited) that's building a curriculum around Donofrio.

[Publius6961]

Being a lifelong serious reader, specially of History, philosophy and culture, I am always happiest going directly to the source.
Enjoy.

How a British Subject...

[BuckeyeTexan]

Please do give us your legal opinion of the specific comments said in passing by Justice Fuller that blow this wide open in Obama’s favor. No wait, please don’t. I don’t have all night to pick apart your arguments.

If you believe that Fuller’s dissenting opinion can be used to set aside Wong Kim Ark, then I’d encourage you to file suit. I doubt the SCOTUS will grant cert, but good luck with all that. At least it will keep you busy and off FR.

[OldDeckHand]

"If you believe that Fuller’s dissenting opinion can be used to set aside Wong Kim Ark, then I’d encourage you to file suit. "

Why would I want to that? But, I've cited above, very clearly, what Fuller's opinion of Ark was and what he believed the practical application of the majority's opinion would be.

When trying to understanding what the practical contemporary implications of a majority opinion in a prior decision may be, it's frequently useful to understand what the minority, in their opinion, were dissenting about and what they believed the practical implications of the majority opinion were at the time the original case was heard and decided.

If you can't understand that very simple and elementary position, I'm not sure their much need for further discussion.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There’s absolutely no need for further discussion because you haven’t established a legitimate basis for discussion.

[Josephat]

Notice, also, that it says “citizen of the United States, not “natural born” citizen of the United States. If Obama was born in the US, he is a citizen. If his father is who he claims, it doesn’t matter if he was born in the White House, he is not a natural born citizen.

[OldDeckHand]

"There’s absolutely no need for further discussion because you haven’t established a legitimate basis for discussion."

Just to be clear, I think you mean that you can't grasp such an elementary concept as the one I outlined, leaving you well, speechless.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[BuckeyeTexan]

What are you? Seven? Grow up.

[curiosity]

Chester Arthur was ineligible because his father was a foreigner and not an American citizen at the time of Chesters birth.

If that was the case, whey didn't the democrats use that argument? Why did they try to claim he was born in Canada?It was no secret that his Father was a foreigner at the time of his birth. Naturalization records are public, after all.

If it were really true that having a foreign father disqualifies a man from the presidency, no one at the time appears to have been aware of it. Don't you find that a bit strange?

[curiosity]

Arthur lied repeatedly about his father and burned all his papers.

Arthur lied about his age. I am not aware of any instance in which he lied about his father. If you know of such an instance, please let me know.

Furthermore, he could not have burned his father's naturalization records, since they are held by the court archives and are publicly accessable.

[Spaulding]

For a detailed analysis I suggest you wait for Leo Donofrio’s book. Leo was the first to note the disparity in the naturalization date of Arthur's father, in 2009. So naturalization records, which were not Arthur's personal records, have survived. But natural-born citizenship was not an obscure concept in the 19th century. I have read a dozen articles from that time on the topic.

According to Donofrio, Arthur publicly asserted that his father was a naturalized citizen because Chester had been publicly accused of not being a citizen. Did Arthur use legal subtrafuge - "it depends upon what is is"? No one has found a public statement from Obama that he is a natural-born citizen - he stated that he was "native-born". Lawyers are presumably careful about the words they use.

Chester's father's presence, a minister in Vermont, wouldn't be hard to verify. It may be that the hoopla about Irish birth was a cover for his father's delayed naturalization. We didn't have The Internet then (and may not have it in the future if the Rockefeller bill passes), or someone might have checked. It does seem likely that deflecting eligibility questions to easily verified birth in the U.S. (though birth certificates were not ubiquitous) was a clever ploy.

Obama would rather we stay concerned with birth certificates than with the doubt planted by Gray, appointed by Arthur, in Wong Kim Ark about some uncertainty around the native-born child of one U.S. citizen. I'll wait for Donofrio’s analysis to guess at Gray's motives. Gray did clarify one issue, the clear distintion between natural-born citizens and citizens of the U.S. Without evidence a case about Obama’s birth would be unlikely to get a court hearing. With trillions of dollars at stake, international security issues all over, the careers of hundreds of legislators who didn't ask questions, it is no surprise that we will find no evidence. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of govt. employees whose jobs are at risk, like those who violated Joe-the-plumber's IRS and state records. who will insure that Obama’s past remains a mystery. But he told us he was a “dual-citizen at birth”! Dual citizens cannot be president.

I fear that the illigitmacy of this president is the most important case our supreme court has ever faced, because it is getting more and more clear that it is the intent of this group of Marxists to replace our government, and its Constitution. For them, it is all or nothing. With no one to enforce the Constitution, it is an historic curiosity.

[Spaulding]

For a detailed analysis I suggest you wait for Leo Donofrio’s book. Leo was the first to note the disparity in the naturalization date of Arthur's father, in 2009. So naturalization records, which were not Arthur's personal records, have survived. But natural-born citizenship was not an obscure concept in the 19th century. I have read a dozen articles from that time on the topic.

According to Donofrio, Arthur publicly asserted that his father was a naturalized citizen because Chester had been publicly accused of not being a citizen. Did Arthur use legal subtrafuge - "it depends upon what is is"? No one has found a public statement from Obama that he is a natural-born citizen - he stated that he was "native-born". Lawyers are presumably careful about the words they use.

Chester's father's presence, a minister in Vermont, wouldn't be hard to verify. It may be that the hoopla about Irish birth was a cover for his father's delayed naturalization. We didn't have The Internet then (and may not have it in the future if the Rockefeller bill passes), or someone might have checked. It does seem likely that deflecting eligibility questions to easily verified birth in the U.S. (though birth certificates were not ubiquitous) was a clever ploy.

Obama would rather we stay concerned with birth certificates than with the doubt planted by Gray, appointed by Arthur, in Wong Kim Ark about some uncertainty around the native-born child of one U.S. citizen. I'll wait for Donofrio’s analysis to guess at Gray's motives. Gray did clarify one issue, the clear distintion between natural-born citizens and citizens of the U.S. Without evidence a case about Obama’s birth would be unlikely to get a court hearing. With trillions of dollars at stake, international security issues all over, the careers of hundreds of legislators who didn't ask questions, it is no surprise that we will find no evidence. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of govt. employees whose jobs are at risk, like those who violated Joe-the-plumber's IRS and state records. who will insure that Obama’s past remains a mystery. But he told us he was a “dual-citizen at birth”! Dual citizens cannot be president.

I fear that the illigitmacy of this president is the most important case our supreme court has ever faced, because it is getting more and more clear that it is the intent of this group of Marxists to replace our government, and its Constitution. For them, it is all or nothing. With no one to enforce the Constitution, it is an historic curiosity.