I know who A.L. Hinnman was. I know that he was right, but send off looking in the wrong direction. I did a fair bit of research myself, and have a digital copy of hinnmans book. My article can be found here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5065/pub_detail.asp
I have a great deal more than what is in that article. I have a 28 page paper that includes 3 pages of notations and 4 pages of Biblography. I can post it to scribd if you like, it was a college paper originally.
Hinnman was right, he was jsut looking in the wrong direction because NO ONE KNEW that Atrhur’s father wasn’t naturalized until olde Chet was 14. If Hinnman had found THAT document, Arthur would have been off the ticket with Garfield so fast it would have made supersonic seem slow
We all know what a Naturalized citizen is, one who has renounced their previous Nation and sworn sole allegiance to the U.S.. A 14th Amendment citizen is one who received citizenship through the passage of the 14th Amendment - that group includes the slaves.
Quite literally a 14th Amendment citizen is equal to that of a Naturalized Citizen because Natural Born Citizenship can ONLY be determined at the instant of birth, and at no other time. This is why I believe that McCain's SR 511 is irrelevant. You cannot be declared a Natural Born Citizen. Either you were born under the sole jurisdiction of the United States or you weren't. I believe he was also born under the jurisdiction of Panama, because he wasn't born on a U.S. Military base. If he WAS born on the base, then that would be a different ball of wax.
So a 14th Amendment Citizen was equal to a naturalized citizen which is NOT equal to a Natural Born Citizen. No one alive today has that particular problem. After two generations it was irrelevant.
Ultimately every debate on the 14th Amendment accepted this definition of Natural Born Citizen: A person who was born under the sole jurisdiction of the United States. In order to acheive that state, one had to have parents who were citizens, and be born in their nation. If either of those conditions did not fully apply, one foreign Parnet, or born in another country, then that child had doubts as to their nationality, it could be either or, or it could be both. The founders were striving to make that uncertainty a 100% barrier to leading the armies of the United States, to prevent such a person from ever becoming POTUS.
For good reason. Because otherwise, we would get a “citizen of the world” as a potus who might not have the singular interests of the United States at heart. Golly, and lookie at what we got with Obama. EXACTLY.
Now Arthur by all accounts was a truly loyal American. He didn't have any divided allegiances or ties to other nations in the same way Obama does. But, they are still two birds of the same plumage's. America got lucky in that Arthur didn't betray our nation or her interests. We have NOT gotten so lucky with Obama. The founders were not into trusting to luck or some mythical belief in the inherent goodness of mankind. Hence they sought to prevent an Obama, knowing that in many cases, a man such as Arthur would lead honorably, they were not going to take the chance.
It is a bleeding shame we as Americans have forgotten these lessons. Well, we are remembering now, and for all the worst reasons.
Obama must be removed from office. My preference is in chains. He is a traitor, and an Usurper. If he had led honorably and not repeatedly violated the constitution like his predecessor did, Arthur, I might be inclined to let him resign. But in reality, that really isn't an option, because just as with OholyO, every bill Arthur signed is Void in Constitutional law. Most of those are long gone now. But Obama’s abominations are very much still with us and strangling this nation, and deliberately robbing her wealth to distribute to whom he sees fit.
Chains works well for me. Obama is no Nixon, he is FAR FAR FAR worse. No honorable resignation for him. He should be put on trial for his crimes, a pardon should be forever off the table.