UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1 (Donofrio)

[The research team from UCONN - UNDEAD REVOLUTION - have published "Part 1" of their exhaustive research on the historical meaning of the "natural born citizen" POTUS eligibility requirement. I am republishing their report here as my first guest blog. Please click through to their blog for the full report.

I am simultaneously publishing my analysis of an incredible find by the UR team which firmly establishes that Chester Arthur's British birth was not known to the public while he was President and therefore sets no historical or legal precedent for Obama.

Now, for your historical education, the Natural Born Citizen blog is proud to present...]

The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while. N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873

There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.

2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.

3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.

We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it. George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30, 1785 INTRODUCTION

The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.

In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:

“… and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.

We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war…

Sounds that way .. God bless them for
their pursuit fo the truth. I’m so glad
they’re still engaged in the research:

~ ~ ~

On February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm undeadrevolution Said:

I was going to post this comment over at RedState after someone had sent me their latest article. But I can’t be bothered with registering, so I’m just going to post it here. I had a lot more research I wanted to add, but we agreed to save that for our own additions.

This is his article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/02/14/my-final-thought-on-the-birther-issue/

And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized:

—————————–

There seems to be a lot of historical groundwork you haven’t taken into account here as to citizenship in this country.

In fact, by your logic, we have returned to the monarch structure of England whereby birth makes one a subject of the king, irregardless of parentage per International Law and the domicile clarification clause per Justice Joseph Story’s Conflict of Laws – so cited in these Supreme Court cases, albeit heavily discarded here and in many similar elementary interpretations across the internet.

My question to you would be how do you justify this interpretation against scholared jurisprudence of the day? They do not coincide with your interpretation at all, so how did you arrive there?

If the Founding Fathers disavowed birth allegiance alone, and they did, how do you justify your interpretation of Article II with Wong Kim Ark as it relates to ascending to the presidency?

It is one thing to call a think-tank crazy, but it is quite another to dismiss the background of the law which upon its face, would question Obama’s legitimacy and has a place to be answered, regardless if he thinks he shouldn’t be questioned as his recent comments reveal. However, that place is not here and is not to be adjudged in your article and certainly not because Obama said so.

With all due respect, that place of judgment belongs to the United States Supreme Court under a republic form of government this site alludes to protect. I’m afraid this is a matter of law, not your opinion. We are not a banana republic. You also seem to be lacking in historical knowledge of that law and at odds with the republic’s history you purport to celebrate.

But allow me to educate you in a snippet of that review in law, regarding Wong Kim Ark, which seems to escape the superficial interpretations out there and apparently now, embraced in your own article.

“At some stage the Fourteenth Amendment not only permits them to become citizens, but declares them to be so, in such sense that no act of legislature or Congress can deprive them of that right. When does that time arrive? Upon principle and authority, it should arrive when national domicile and intent on the part of the father concur with the place of birth of the child to fix its status. That the facts may in some cases be difficult of determination, is unimportant. That is often true in any question of domicile.” Ide, 1896, summarizing International Law and Justice Story’s conclusions in conjunction with the Founding Fathers’ intent.

So as with the above testament to the Founder’s ideals, so it is with Obama when one is asked a simple question of birth allegiance. When one answers that his birth allegiance is one of dual-nationality, the public does not have a right to inquire as to the legality of that notion? I’m afraid George Washington himself would accuse that messenger of being no patriot at all.

Notwithstanding, this argument is a constitutional one and if the Tea Party does not embrace questions against the Constitution, then it is a political party unto themselves, which I don’t believe they intended to be.

With that said, a mere showing of a birth certificate does not suffice when answering the question behind the intention of Article II, which proclaims that none but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, may ascend to the presidency. That determination of facts belongs to the Supreme Court, but the right to ask it, is so stated in the Constitution. For even Bill Clinton stated:

“The Constitution decides who is eligible to be President. And THEN the people decide among which candidate they prefer.”

In other words, the Constitution declares who is eligible, not the people by way of opinion, and certainly not in articles such as yours. And there is a history to that Constitution, whereby subsequent laws have been made and enforced, that has largely been ignored here and elsewhere.

Do you label Mark Levin a birther too when he said, “Obama should not be able to hide it”, when speaking about documents that would prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible? I submit you wouldn’t smear him, a constitutional lawyer with a profound regard for the Founding Fathers and yet, not a birther. Levin is smart enough to separate the media’s label of those who emphatically believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii with the eligibility requirements under the Constitution. It’s not one and the same.

I dare say on both sides of this modern-day argument, lie some pretty obsessed people, lawyers included, with pitchforks in hand, and most of them are embarrassing our Constitution, including you. I have no doubt that they probably make guys like Mark Levin cringe and rightly so.

However, just because you disagree with the motives of some of the insane lawyers we’ve seen take up the cross of this subject, doesn’t mean that some of us intend to be intimidated by the fallout of their actions. YOU seem to be very much intimidated by the antics that have gone on and therefore, instead of clarifying the problem, you elect to distance yourself from the Constitution completely and embrace the left in their living-Constitution a/k/a “anything goes” interpretations.

Congratulations on taking that bait. I think I’ll think for myself and do the required study of the Founders before I reach one of the many elementary school opinions out there, like yours, who didn’t do much studying at all.

Steve
UCONN – UR
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/

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.