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)
"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."
Therefore, the title being "New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS." is perfectly suited. It's the very reason there was an issue then, just as there is today. The particular issue hasn't been adjudicated by SCOTUS. That is, can someone born owing allegiance to a foreign country, meet the NBC requirement set forth in AIIS1C5 of the Constitution.
Yes
Maybe you should email this to SCOTUS. Considering the fact that they’re so interested in the constitution they might find it interesting. (mild sarc applied)
Based upon the contents of the Trib’s article, the headline would have been more appropriately, “New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents most likely are eligible for POTUS.” Of course, it’s interesting that we are able to get a glimpse of the discussion that they had on the issue 120 years ago.
I’m not following you.
Wong Kim Ark is mentioned in the present FAM just below the green dot as justification for Obama’s policy children born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, even if their parent are in the US temporarily and illegally.
Furthermore, I noticed Obama has declared McCain ineligible for POTUS ...
7 FAM 1113 c.(1)
“Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.”
There are, however, other ways to contact the court:
Helpful Telephone Numbers* General Inquiry: 202-479-3000
* Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, Reporters press 1
* Clerk's Office: 202-479-3011
* Visitor Information Line: 202-479-3030
* Opinion Announcements: 202-479-3360For other questions or comments, contact the Public Information Office
By U.S. Mail:
Public Information Officer Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Back in 2008, I sent a letter to each of the justices containing historical information publicly know at that time and asked a question similar to that in my tagline...although not as succinct. I'm as close to 100% certain as I could be...absent 100% proof, that some low level clerk...perhaps even in the mail room, simply "filed" my 9 letters in the circular file.
"U.S. Supreme Court AddressesThe Justices of the Court do not have email addresses or web sites. However, the Court staff and Justices does read letters from citizens.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Bldg.
Washington, DC 20543
(202) 479-3000Court Officials
Clerk: William K. Suter (202)479-3014
Marshal: Dale E. Bosley (202)479-3200
Reporter of Decisions: Frank D. Wagner (202)479-3390
Librarian: Shelley L. Dowling (202)479-3037
Attorney Admissions:(202)479-3018
Public Information Officer: Toni House (202)479-3211"
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No Congressman, during the debates on Citizenship, offered up a counter argument as to who is a "natural born Citizen." They, the authors of the 14th Amendment, ALL knew what it meant - born in the sovereign territory to (two) citizen parentS.
Thank you so much for all the phone numbers and addresses! Will print it out to keep for future reference. I’m going to print this article and mail it to them. At some point, the term “natural born Citizen” HAS to be defined by SCOTUS. My rep. and senators refuse to answer.
And isn't that interesting...especially in light of the fact that ole' Barry himself was a co-author of non binding Senate Resolution 511 which DID declare McCain as being a "natural born Citizen" and therefore POTUS eligible.
Remember, Watergate didn't "happen" for 2 years..and that was WITH a "major" media that was willing to report on it rather than ridicule it.
Good point. We survived that AND we'll survive the usurper being booted out of office. In fact, I'd consider that a blessing.
MR. SAUNDERS'S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION
First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.
provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States
Therefore, children of aliens born in the US fall under the statutes of naturalization, not natural law.
An excellent affirmation of the point. Thanks!
“Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of
birth.”
~~~~~~~~~
Convenient, that this scrubbing occurred in Aug. 2009, after the farcical McCain congressional resolution, weak campaign, and, of course, ‘08 election loss to the demon puppet.
The 14th amendment does not operate on the principle of natural born citizenship, so this passage is technically irrelevant to McCain. If one believes Vattel's Law of Nation's is the basis for what our founders recognized as natural born citizenship, then McCain was a natural born citizen as defined in Vattel's principles on the children born to those in the Armies of the State.
Good find!
so this conclusion is by referencing ancient greek works?
or is this related to that misreading of the criminal jurisdiction treaty?
I believe the point to be that the term “natural born citizen” existed at common law well into ancient times. It was not a new concept that just appeared in the 1797 US copy of Vattel as the obamabots claim.
English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems...You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2621793/posts?page=44#44
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.