His Father was naturalized in the 1880’s, but he wasn’t when Arthur was born.
That was known even in that day. But Arthur being born on American soil was good enough to be a Natural Born Citizen even back then.
Sorry, this argument was lost then, it will be lost now, and it is a complete waste of time. If the founders had wanted it defined the way Vattel translated Wolfe, then they clearly had the means, opportunity, and intelligence to do so.
But they left it in the parlance of English Common Law, not in the language of Vattel.
That’s the reality you have to deal with.
More troll/obot spin because they just can not accept the facts that have been out there for over 2 years now:
Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old:
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
Excerpts:
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.
On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .
It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.
William Arthur naturalization PDF http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=176
In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
William Arthur was naturalized on August 31, 1843. He died in 1875. Because Chester lied about practically everything surrounding his father's emmigration to the U.S. and William was already dead when Chester's NBC status was questioned, the public did not know when William naturalized. Modern biographers on Chester have not uncovered a single 1880's news item referencing the fact that William naturalized some 14 years after Chester's birth.
May be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the facts
So what your saying, then, is that:
1. Arnold Schwarzenegger is POTUS eligible?
and
2. John Bingham, and the rest of his colleagues were wrong?