Replies

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles --->> HERE

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States.

In other words, Mommy and Daddy had to be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth in the United States.

There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British “natural born subjects.” All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death.

Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien.

Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.

Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ . Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ .

Please comment on the legalities - thank you for taking the time to read this - I urge you to read and comment.

Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.

Interesting, since it appears that the question of applicability of precedent would become the focus when the Natural-born issue is finally acknowledged for a week in the media, and I believe at some point it will be. From a practical standpoint, if this issue makes reelection probabilities dire enough, centrist Dems would attempt to primary nobama out, which would perhaps be the smartest thing for them to do, as the D party could move to the center and the R would have to move more solidly to the right. Except who would the D's select (besides the thoroughly worn-out clintonistas) ? Well, whatever, my real points for comment follow.

Well, I found a reference to a SCOTUS case from 1874 that referred to "natural-born". The link to Justia.com follows the relevant snippet from this women's suffrage case, "MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)",

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

The text I cite above appears to be quite telling in the logic of the actors of today.

If this ruling were the latest precedential ruling, it would make sense then, that the man elected in 2008 and his true backers, whoever they may be, are exerting such tremendous effort to establish the newly-minted State of Hawaii as his birthplace. That birthplace enables him to claim "natural-born" based on being in the second classification of children in the cited reference, those born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Absent that birthplace fact, he would fail the meaning of "natural-born" cited within this opinion on both counts, as the father he claims is acknowledged to not be a U.S. citizen.

Please comment; I very much look forward to more case research and opinions regarding the precedents of this case. Please keep them research-oriented; are there any legal scholars or "lay" people out there who can do some digging ?

If this holds water, then perhaps this is the case that needs to be presented, "Occam" style.

I am not sure of Mr. Trump's true aims, so I try to write in an unbiased tone regarding his efforts which, so far, appear to have certain commonality with most Americans, however I caution that his overall vision may be less than ideal, as indicated by some simplistic protectionist bandages that he has advocated. In his defense, I would like to remind that the amount of his assets affected by slumping Real Estate may be motivating his desire to see the nation restored.