Posted on 10/28/2013 7:19:34 AM PDT by Paul46360
"For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?""
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I’m not sure what your point is. My only point is that Chester Arthur by the given definition wasn’t eligible to be President either.
He didn’t, that’s a “birther” fable. Chester A. Arthur’s father, William Arthur naturalized as a U.S, citizen when Chester was 14 years old. His father was a well-known Protestant Minister in Vermont. The fact that he was from Ireland was immediately apparent to anyone who heard him speak or preach.
The natural born citizen concerns about Chester A. Arthur (promoted by his Democrat opponents) were that he was really born in Canada. His hometown in Vermont is only 20 miles from the Canadian border and the Arthurs had lived in Canada prior to moving to the U.S. Arthur’s mother, Malvina was born in Vermont and she descended from patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War.
Chester Alan Arthur was, according to the official account, born in Fairfield, Vermont, Oct. 5, 1830, the son of Reverend William and Malvina (Stone) Arthur (his gravestone confirms this date). One biographer, Thomas C. Reeves, has concluded that he was born a year earlier—on Oct. 5, 1829— and that Arthur changed the date “no doubt out of simple vanity.”
Changing his year of birth is forgivable (Arthur was well beyond the age requirement for the presidency); but could he have changed his place of birth as well? Arthur P. Hinman thought so. Hinman, a New York lawyer, brought the issue to the attention of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in a letter early in August, 1880, while Arthur was yet a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Arthur evidently had flip-flopped on the issue in the past. One article, dated August 13, quotes a leading Republican in a way reminiscent of more recent campaigns: “Why in —— don’t the General come out and say where he was born, and put an end to all this mystery.”
Hinman first theorized that General Arthur was born “in Belfast or Aberdeen,” before his parents emigrated to America. Arthur could easily dismiss this theory, for he had always maintained that his father emigrated at eighteen years of age—before he married and had children.
Hinman pushed on. The following story appeared in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 1880:
MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIE
ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Arthur Hinman would publish a book, “How A British Subject Became President of the United States,” the substance of which was related in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Reeves dismisses Hinman’s theory, while admitting that President Arthur lied about his age. He cites the Arthur family Bible, held at the Library of Congress, which gives the President’s year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named “Chester Abell.”
You could be right - they could even have seen him in a crystal ball - that’s nothing to do with my point.
Just to bring out the info on him; I remember folks posting info about him. See Nero’s post ....
I suspect you and I are actually on the same page.
Yes, several times. If you had, you would know I'm absolutely correct.
It doesn’t conclude anything of the sort.
Yes, actually it does and this was affirmed by the quotes from Minor made in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
The affirmation of judgment in Minor v. Happersett merely states they agree that a one form of natural born citizen is by two parents of a child born in the US, but in no way do they exclude any other natural born citizenship, as stated, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They did not go into the other means of natural citizenship, so they did not exclude them.
The doubts were not about other ways to become natural-born citizens. The doubts were about other ways to become citizens. In context, they used one exclusive definition of natural-born citizen. And if you read the decision, the next paragraph goes into the only other known ways of becoming a citizen. Again, only one, birth in the country to citizen parents was characterized as natural-born.
Nobody says he wasn't, but the Supreme Court was clear that this is NOT natural-born citizenship. Minor v. Happersett said this type of citizenship falls under the naturalization authority of Congress. Second, any time another country's jurisdiction is involved, U.S. courts including the Supreme Court defer to international law or natural law, which is true with the Supreme Court in multiple cases involving citizenship questions. The precedent on natural-born citizenship was established in Minor with an exclusive definition. Cruz's politics have nothing to do with his citizenship. My posts are not trolling. Check my history. I've been very consistent on citing direct Supreme Court authority to back up what I'm saying. I can't make Cruz eligible based on a wishful invention of how I want to define natural-born citizen. Certainly Cruz has a better argument to citizenship than Obama because his father eventually became a U.S. citizen, but this is still not the same thing as natural-born citizenship.
Minor said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. Nothing has been “merged” as you are claiming.
Well, if that’s your final word... bye.
It has nothing to do with where you were born.
It has everything to do with where your parents were born.
Like the Constitution, it doesn’t really matter any more...
No, he isn’t! But, that didn’t stop Obama, so what the hell?
Yeah, well you missed the whole point.
get lost!!!@
Excellent points, and TRUE, Edge. I’m sorry that so many on our side are so desperate for a conservative “savior” that they will ignore the truth of our Founders intentions and the clear wording of the Constitution regarding the fact that the Founders did NOT WANT ANYONE WITH POTENTIAL DIVIDED LOYALTIES being president.
We are so enamored with Ted Cruz that we are willing to do EXACTLY the same thing the commie Obamatons did in ignoring his ineligibility. Cruz can be a great Senator forever—without term limits, of course, but he IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Oh, did you actually have a point, moron?
“if obama is, who isn’t”
Oh, That one is going, going, gone!
Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has just left the building.
lol
I agree and I’m totally shocked at the comments here. I’m sorry but I refuse to back somebody that’s not eligible. That makes us no better than the traitors in Congress that know BHO is not eligible and refuse to do anything about it or even acknowledge it or the Demos that helped put him there. Maybe this site isn’t for me after all. And before anybody starts, NO I’m not calling anyone here a traitor. Trying to make a point.
Go ahead and debate it. Debate gravity...debate the earth being round...you can debate anything to your heart’s content.
But most folks, on something that is obvious and settled, don’t feel the need to debate, other than to try and inform you of what the facts of the matter are.
That’s what you are experiencing here.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
At least if The Terminator wanted to run, he realizes a law would need to be changed and it ain't going to happen. Meanwhile, Obama just ignored the law. Much worse.
Ah. I was trying to figure who it is that keeps bringing up the issue of Cruz’ eligibility. The people who seem to be keeping the issue alive - to the end that all the conservatives insist that we already know Cruz is eligible and don’t need a SCOTUS ruling - are the people who ultimately will want Cruz disqualified.
It’s a trap. The courts have denied standing to anybody who challenged Obama’s eligibility. This leaves NBC undefined so that the issue can be taken up when Hillary challenges Cruz’ eligibility. And the compromised SCOTUS (Roberts, to be exact), when they can’t deny Hillary standing, will rule that Cruz is ineligible.
Denying standing was a double insurance policy. It allowed them to keep Obama in office because nobody with standing challenged his eligibility (Hillary was threatened and McCain may well have been as well) while reserving the ability to get rid of the up-and-coming GOP candidates if necessary when the dem candidate challenged eligibility (Cruz now, but at the time Jindal and Rubio were potential candidates).
To make sure that insurance policy would work, they have to convince us that NBC is already defined so we use up our nomination on somebody that they can always get SCOTUS to oust if that candidate wins the election. So there are 2 parts to that: keep us thinking that NBC is already legally defined, and make sure there is no court case to define NBC until our winning candidate is challenged.
This makes sense of why some of the people here who act and smell like trolls are heavily pushing the idea that we don’t need a court ruling on NBC because we already know Cruz is eligible. What you or I think NBC means is irrelevant. What matters is what a compromised court will rule when push comes to shove. And Hillary would absolutely go there, if Cruz was elected over her. The media is willing to set up the stage by repeatedly bringing up Cruz’ eligibility, just like they did with John McCain - but not Obama.
What we need is a ruling on the meaning of NBC BEFORE Obama leaves office. A ruling given BEFORE Cruz runs, so they can’t string everybody along thinking we already have a definition and then pull a fast one on us when Cruz is elected and Hillary takes it to a SCOTUS for compromised John Roberts to decide.
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.