Skip to comments.PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH (interesting read)
Posted on 12/06/2008 7:12:59 PM PST by Deepest End
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
Ive been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents heritage. President Arthurs father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasnt a natural born citizen and he knew it.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
~~Historical fraud PING!
“Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldnt have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And its no precedent to follow.”
Born in US, US mother.
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
anchor babies are natural born citizens.
Does this mean that any and all legislation or laws enacted by President Authur is null and void? If so, what are the repercussions?
I know .. how will we ever know?
“What a web we weave when first
we practice to deceive.”
Dang hornet’s nest... if true,
what a travesty .. a treason.
Authur was born in Vermont to an American mother who herself was a natural born American. That’s all it takes to be a natural born US citizen. This story is bunk.
Yeahbut yeahbut...did he have a COLB?
Per Donofrio's case before SCOTUS -
No, they are citizens, but not "natural born" and not qualified to be POTUS per Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
No. They are citizens, but arguably not natural born citizens.
Man, all the lawyers out there researching and reading precedents and the folks on this thread had all the answers from the start!
The Child naturalization Act from the 1980’s states that citizenship is based in the father’s nationality. Obama asserts that he held dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S. if he was in fact physically born in Hawai’i), then he asserts that his British citizenship expired making him a naturalized citizen by his own assertion at his website. Do you know whether a naturalized citizen can become president under Constitutional restrictions? ... [HINT: the answer is they cannot.]
Correction: the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the father’s nationality.
Sez the Constitution: 14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The C.A. Arthur article is moot.
It is amazing how few people actually understand Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Sad really.
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
Well IF Arthur wasn’t a “natural-born” citizen under the law is pretty ridiculous he wasn’t, being born in the USA with an American mom.
If this birth certificate deal could really sink Obama (doubt it very much) though that’s terrific.
At the time, citizenship was passed from one’s father. Just the way it was.
I just want to see the Constitution followed, let the chips lie.
This is a fascinating discussion in which all of us can learn or learn more about the Constitution. It’s sad to see people who approach it as if they can figure it all out with a quick glance over Article II.
I know I don’t have all the answers. But I am doing my best to learn more and use my mind to evaluate more than my preconceived notions.
"All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States."
That is a natural born citizen. Confirmed by United States v Won Kim Ark, 1898 and US Code, Title 8.
Agreed. There are self proclaimed constitutional scholars with all of the answers (just ask them) coming out of the wood work on all of these threads.
I’m sure you’ve read:
lol beat me to it
I was wondering why Obama’s site was so open about his father being a British subject since this would disqualify him (it should). Now, with this new revealing information from Leo about Chester Arthur, is it possible that Obama will use Arthur as a reason why he can be president? Perhaps this is what his legal team has been standing on?
I'm not sure, just my opinion, but I think they were banking on the ignorance of people to overlook the us citizen and natural born citizen, as evidenced by so many here at FR.
I know this quote was added long after the site was launched, but Im not sure when. A correlation to Donofrio's case perhaps? Part of their planned legal defense?
It is bizarre. Thoughts anyone?
December 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, published a follow up posting to his original essay on Presidents who had parents born abroad. He suggests that Arthurs presidency does not set precendent for Obama, as nobody knew, at the time, to look and confirm whether or not Arthur was actually a British subject.
Leo also answered in his comment section:
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
[Ed. Note - No such thing as precedent from fraud. It could only be a precedent if it had been part of the public story of Chester Arthur, meaning everybody knew about it and accepted it as being cool. Not the case. During his time, he lied to obfuscate his family history. And he was a lawyer. Not cool. Not precedent. If it comes down to this, and Obama has to rely on Chester's Arthur to argue precedent, I think he'll be in trouble.]
Excuse me, but that is the precise question that the Supreme Court has never answered: whether “born in the U.S.” = “natural born citizen.”
The Ark case proves nothing.
See the discussion of that case on this thread and at the links.
The major legislative achievement of President Arthur’s administration was the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which replaced the “spoils system” with a merit-based system and established the U.S. Civil Service Commission. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to declare the Pendleton Act null and void on the basis that Arthur was not a natural born citizen, it would render every appointment under the act null and void as well as the actions of every federal bureaucrat since the date of the Pendleton Acts’ enactment. The obvious implications of this would be potentially enormous.
A natural born citizen or natural citizen is someone who is considered a United States citizen from birth. Unlike naturalized citizens, natural born citizens do not need to apply for any of the rights of citizenship. They are granted the right to vote at 18, along with all of the other rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in the United States. In addition, natural born citizens are permitted to run for the positions of President and Vice-President, while naturalized citizens are excluded from these roles in American government by law.
There are two different ways in which a natural born citizen can be created. By American law, all people born on American soil are considered natural born citizens. In addition, people who are born overseas to American parents are also classified as natural born citizens.
People who are born on American soil are said to have the right of jus soli, and this right is protected in the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution, which specifically states that all persons born in the United States...are citizens of the United States. Jus soli has become a topic of hot discussion in some areas of the United States, because this right is also extended to children born of foreign parents, whether or not they are in the country legally. In the case of children born to illegal immigrants, some people use the derogatory term anchor baby to describe a child who is a natural born citizen, under the mistaken belief that illegal immigrants will not be deported if their children are considered American citizens.
For children born abroad, the principle which applies is jus sanguinis, or rule of the blood, and the rules can get a bit tricky. If a child is born to two parents who are both American citizens, the case is usually clear, and the parents need only apply for a United States passport on the child’s behalf to ensure that his or her citizenship is formally recognized. If only one parent is an American citizen, however, jus sanguinis may or may not apply, and the case must be considered before the child is classified as a natural born citizen.
In situations where only one parent is a United States citizen, he or she must have lived in the United States for at least five years at some point before the child’s birth as a full American citizen, and at least two of these five years must have occurred after the parent’s 14th birthday. In the case of a child born to an American mother, the child is usually considered a natural born citizen, whether or not the mother is married. However, if an American father is involved in a relationship with a foreign woman and the couple is not married, the father may need to fight for the child’s right to citizenship.
What you post is accurate, but not dispositive.
There is no argument that, under our laws and jurisprudence, a person born in the U.S. is a citizen.
That, however, does not necessarily answer the question of whether they are a "natural born citizen."
The "naturally" here does not go to how the person was born, but to how the person attained citizenship. When citizenship is attained "naturally,"---as opposed to by operation of law--- it is attained by descent (by blood), regardless of place of birth (as your discussion of the "natural born" status of children born to Americans overseas demonstrates).
While it is settled that those born in the U.S. are citizens, it is not settled that all born in the U.S. have the same eligibility to serve as president as those born to two American citizens. Think about it and consider the framers' intent in limiting the presidency to natural born citizens: would they have considered the son of a Englishman as putatively loyal to America as the son of an American? Which has the kind of ties to the country they thought were minimally necessary to preclude rank usurpers?
Listening to Rush’s show today & I heard his fill-in (Mark Steyn) say Obama was going to go down in history like Chester Arthur.
Thank you for all of your hard work!
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.