(Obama) Born in the U.S.A. (says National Review)

National Review ^ | July 28, 2009 | The Editors

[Plummz]

- There is nothing n the letter on page 51 concerning the date of naturalization of Arthur’s father.

- There is nothing in the NYTimes obit concerning the date of naturalization of Arthur’s father.

- Part of the context concerning the Senator’s letter on page 89 is missing because the letter *to* the Senator seems abridged. It may be worth noting, however, that the Senator seems to have an incorrect reading of “natural-born citizen.” Maybe he wasn’t up on his French.

I’m glad to discuss this with you; I’m interested to see if you have cites for any of your claims that would have a bearing on the matter at hand. Let me know if you think you find any more.

[rudman]

Plummz - please - on page 51 it does indeed discuss the controversy over Chester Arthur’s “place of birth and parentage”.

No - it doesn’t say “Fathers Naturalization Date - but really - what on earth do you think they are referring to with the word Parentage? In the context of a book that is claiming that Arthur is not a natural born citizen and thus not able to serve to be president? Published contemporary to Arthur? With people discussing whether or not he was actually born in america?

Have you read the Bates opinion? My understanding of AG’s opinions is that they form the basis for how the executive branch follows the law. Bates pretty clearly spells out that soil controls, and not blood. Has a subseqeunt interpretation by the courts countered this? Or by any subsequent AG?

And, again, I ask you, has there been any recognition of Arthur being a illegitimate president, as you claim? Any justices from the supreme court he appointed forced out? Any laws disregarded because they bear his signature? Anything like that at all? Anything? Any act by any agency - legislative, executive, or judicial - whatsoever? After spending the last hour scouring the internet, my old set of encyclopedias, and my “Definitive Guide To American History” I can’t find any such instance whatsoever.

Maybe I am wrong. Show me. Don’t just tell me Arthur’s illegitimate - back it up.

[Plummz]

So, now you’re saying there *was* a contemporary controversy over when Arthur’s father was naturalized? I thought you said that wasn’t a controversy? Can you cite any contemporary source from 1880-81 which says Arthur was born in Vermont to an un-naturalized father at his birth? Back it up.

Bates’ opinion is just that, an opinion — and you know what they say about opinions. This same Bates also signed off on Lincoln’s depredations against the Constitution such as suspension of habeas corpus; which gives Bates a very anti-Constitution pedigree. Bates’ opinion provides no direct cites for his claims. He provides for instance, Kent, as an indirect cite, but “natural born citizen” appears nowhere in Kent. As much as he or Eric Holder would like it to be so, one AG’s baseless unilateral bloviations don’t override the Constitution.

Again, Arthur’s Presidency was illegitimate because his father wasn’t naturalized at birth, and he was not a natural-born citizen.

[steve0]

You know the name of another great usurper that led to the decline and fall of his country? Romulus Augustus. At least he may have been born in the empire.