Posted on 03/08/2011 9:56:04 AM PST by rxsid
"New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.
The issue of which I write on this blog – whether a person born with dual allegiance is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces – has been discussed at numerous times in our nation’s history. It’s not like it was just made up by people who do not support Obama.
HISTORY LESSONS
Back in 1896, the issue of whether a citizen – who was not born of US citizen parents – could be President of the United States was discussed in the Tribune (aka New York Tribune) during that Presidential campaign. Here is the full text of the story (see pg. 131 at link):
The question as to whether the Labor candidate for the Presidency would, if chosen by a majority of the electoral vote, be entitled under the Constitution to take his seat is one which since his nomination at Chicago has been frequently and freely discussed, but not satisfactorily disposed of. The facts which are fully admitted by both parties in regard to Mr. Schurmann are these—namely, that his parents, Johannes Schurmann and Barbara, his wife, reached Now York by the sailing ship Hamburg, of the Black Ball Line, on the 18th day of August, 1848, as German immigrants, and that on the following day, in a lodging-house at No. 5 Greenwich Street, the present Labor candidate for the Presidency of the United States was born. Is he, under these circumstances, “a natural-born citizen” in the sense implied by the fifth clause of Art. II. of the Constitution? Various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such, and the State Department has always acted on this presumption in deciding upon questions of this nature brought before it. There is, however, no United States statute containing any provision on the subject, nor have any judicial decisions ever been made in regard to it. It is at best an open question, and one which should have made Mr. Schurmann’s nomination under any circumstances an impossibility. Fortunately, the result of the campaign appears no longer doubtful, yet to the misguided voters of the Labor Party, even when led up to a forlorn hope at the polls, it would no doubt be some consolation to know that they were casting their votes for a candidate concerning whose eligibility no possible question could be afterward raised. [emphasis added]
he Tribune mentions that this issue had been “frequently and freely discussed”. So what does that tell you about President Chester Arthur? It tells you that while the issue was “frequently and freely discussed” as to Schurman, it was not discussed at all as to Chester Arthur.
This is because Arthur concealed the fact that he, like Scurmann, was not born of US citizen parents. Both Schurmann and Arthur were born with dual allegiance. Had the nation been aware of Arthur’s status as a British subject, there would have been no question about Schurmann’s eligibility. Arthur had recently been President in 1895.
Had it been known Arthur was a British subject, the Tribune certainly would have mentioned that fact in the article.
If Arthur’s dual allegiance had been known, there would have been no point in writing the article about Schurmann. (This blog first revealed Arthur’s deception to the nation in December 2008.) And since the Tribune stated that the issue had been frequently discussed – while not mentioning Chester Arthur – it gives credibility to the importance of the issue then and now.
Chester Arthur was responsible for appointing Justice Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court. Gray went on to write the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark. That decision appears, perhaps, to have been an attempt to protect Gray’s robe since Gray might have been removed from the bench had Arthur’s status as a British subject become known prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision. (Should this issue ever reach the Supreme Court as to Obama, both Sotomayor and Kagan would have an ethical responsibility to recuse themselves.)
Thank you, Chester Arthur. Good lookin’ out, bro – for yourself that is. Ditto to Gray? That’s an open question. The stench of ineligibility causes big ripples if left to rot the nation’s Constitutional core.
Chester was also responsible for forcing the US military to salute the British flag.
Furthermore, the Tribune article was republished in, “The Presidential Campaign of 1896: A scrap-book chronicle” by George Lynde Catlin, 1925. That book was copied into Google from the Harvard College Library (Obama attended Harvard law). And the reason for the book? The intro is telling (go to pg. 5 in the pg. counter):
“Descended as you are from an ancestry identified with the earliest traditions of our republic, and reared, as you have been, under influences and teachings purely American, every incentive is offered you to improve yourself, in your day and generation, a good and useful citizen of these United States. Assuming integrity of character, fairness of judgment, and unselfishness of purpose to be the prime requisites of good citizenship, I go one step farther to urge upon you the necessity of acquiring a thorough acquaintance with the political history of your country…In the study of these events you will note the invariable triumph of a living, active American patriotism over the dangers successively arising to confront it. Chief and foremost among these averted dangers I place that one with which we were menaced in 1896 by the combined alien forces of Socialism, Anarchy, and Atheism.”
You think Obama wasn’t aware of the Presidential campaign of 1896? Anyone who answers that question in the affirmative has no respect for Obama’s intelligence.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq. (…with another big hat tip to the research team)
"New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS."
Don’t confuse the issue with FACTS!
They are INSIDIOUS!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
« The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.
New York Tribune 1896:
Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS. »The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark.
(Screencap of site data BEFORE the scrubbing in August 2009)
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fam-scrub-chart1.jpg?w=862&h=319
By now, readers of this blog should be more than familiar with the tainted holding of the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Supreme Court held:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States. The “holding”, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the “dicta“, which is not considered legal precedent.
While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to “the single question” of whether the children of aliens who have a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States” are 14th Amendment citizens.
The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students). Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle – as well as in a multitude of States – to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka “anchor babies”).
Up until August 20, 2009, the US State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual stated – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – in 7 FAM 1116.2-1(c):
c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:
(1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;
This was the language used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1995 through August 20, 2009 in the Foreign Affairs Manual. Please note that the words “considered” and “generally” are in italics placed by the State Department.
Such italics emphasize that the practice stated above has never been clarified as law, so it is simply “considered” to be the law.
On this point, the Foreign Affairs Manual had been a rational document in that it reflected the true state of affairs. It stated the common “interpretation”, but it refrained from listing what was “considered” as if it was actually “the law”.
Such rationality was good enough for both the Clinton and Bush administrations… but not for the Obama administration. This disrespect for prior administrations and law must be part of the CHANGE promised in his campaign.
The link provided above (attached to the Date of August 17, 2009), refers to a snapshot taken of this section of the manual by the Way Back Machine for 2009 (at the wonderful Internet Archive) on August 17, 2009.
If you look into the actual URL link, it shows the date it was taken which corresponds with the calendar of snapshots. At the top of that page, you will see - “(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)” – which informs you that the page had read this way since 1995.
The next date listing a snapshot on the calendar of snapshots is August 30, 2009 . And this is the first snapshot which contains the current – scrubbed – edition of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – states:
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
That is a vastly different statement. The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009.
While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were “considered” to be US citizens, Obama’s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.
This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur.
This reeks of self-serving propaganda since Gray’s limited “holding” only applied to those “permanently domiciled” here (like President Arthur’s father, a British subject alien at the time of Arthur’s birth).
The holding in Wong Kim Ark did not cover children born in the US of persons who were only here temporarily such as Obama’s father. Hence, the need for scrub a dub dub dub.
Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute. But there was no official change in the law. The manual was simply scrubbed… along with the Constitution.
by Leo Donofrio
.. Ping!
Leo has a new post up as of this Am.
“had recently been President in 1895.”
That should be 1885. Arthur died 18 months after leaving office, he was dead by 1896.
Terribly misleading headline.
Leo should formally and publicly address this to Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor to get them on the record...
“and reared, as you have been, under influences and teachings purely American”
Not a claim that Obama can make, especially since his 1st book is about the dreams of his Kenyan father, rather than those of his American mother. That in itself as “all telling” as to his influences.
This and many other facts about Obama should be plastered on billboards across this Nation.
This and many other facts about Obama should be plastered on billboards across this Nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim Ark
then .. continue with #5 above.
Shocking! I didn't know that. It must be a lie to besmirch 0h0m0llah! /s
.
“Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute. But there was no official change in the law. The manual was simply scrubbed… along with the Constitution.”
The FAM is for guidance on how the State Department is to conduct the President’s policy as it pertains to Foreign Affairs. For continuity, guidance from previous administrations remains in effect until changed by the current administration.
See 1 FAM 011, “... the President exercises primary authority and responsibility for the formulation and execution of foreign policy.”
1 FAM 011(b),Scope, “[The FAM] also cites the more important legislation and executive orders, accompanied by charts, where appropriate, relating to the responsibilities of the Department of State.”
Obama is solely responsible for the policy a native born child is a natural born citizen regardless of parental birthplace and should be held accountable if he is wrong.
How so?
terrifying conspiracy to defraud the public. Our constitution, apparently, doesn’t mean much anymore. Powerful interests don’t play by peasant rules...
This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur. ~~~~~ TREASONOUS ???
The Trib’s article states the contrary, i.e., numerous US Attorneys General concluded that being born in the country was sufficient to be considered an NBC. The article cites no authority for the contrary position.
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.
