Posted on 08/25/2009 11:56:37 AM PDT by rxsid
The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles:
Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins
Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.
...
as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.
...
The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.
ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.
OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS
MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.
This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.
Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.
It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.
The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.
If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.
But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion.
MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.
Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.
MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.
Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.
MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.
Attorney Collins discusses Vattell in great detail. And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens. Collins quotes Vattell.
But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattell’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattell’s definition.
This is very important.
The definition of “natural born citizen” was not created by Vattell in his treatise, “Law of Nations.” That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”. [Ed. Right. If I'm not mistaken, "law of nations" goes back to the days of the Roman's.] The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattell’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.
Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below. Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;
The capital letters are not in reference to Vattell’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattell wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law - according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.
DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION
This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief. Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil. In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship. This discriminates against no race at all.
To be an American has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.
...
If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
I think that's right. You might add, the current person was never subject to the sovereignty of the grandfather's county and thus even though he was a citizen there at birth (a common situation under Euro law), that's irrelevant. Although if he goes there and subjects himself to the sovereignty, maybe the answer is different?
In your view, can a person ever lose his status as "natural born"? If so how? Under what theory if he was born in the USA?
I’m curious. What makes you think Kenya and not Canada, based on the time line and facts? I’m fine with either, I just want the truth and I know it isn’t Hawaii and I know he’s covering up and hiding his past.
Excellent!!!! All of your posts are incredibly informative. Thank you, pinging to the doubters. How bout them apples doubting Thomas’s Read 43 and 50 too.
TY for the ping Lucy, excellent information isn’t it?
Come on, David. Evene you would agree that if a person obtained dual citizenship after being natural born, and subsequently exercised the citizenship of the other nationality, that would be a prima facia rejection of natural born status under the apparent definition held in common by the writers of the Constitution.
bump
“Arthur himself lied about his birth, his fathers naturalization and he burned his records.”
*******************
Arthur never lied about his father’s naturalization.
Apparently, it was known to Mr. Hinman, the political “hit man” who wrote the book attacking him. (Hinman tried to argue Arthur was born in Canada, not that Arthur’s father hadn’t been naturalized at Arthur’s birth.) If Arthur tried to conceal his father’s naturalization, he didn’t try very hard, since the naturalization papers were found in the archives, which would be a funny place to hide it.
Why Arthur burned his papers is speculation, but an informed guess would be that Arthur didn’t want his reputation sullied by his associations with the corrupt NY GOP machine of the 1870’s. Probably, no POTUS ever gained more in reputation during his term in office than Arthur. Going in, he was regarded as just another corrupt product of the NY GOP machine. Going out, he had gained a reputation for honesty and integrity.
“Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.”
I have written to **all** my representatives on every level ( Including all the members of the Supreme Court. Phoned a few of them more than once, and written to all the talk show host ( TV and radio) that I listen to.
What else can I do?
Personally, I find it very frustrating that citizens do not have “standing”.
Well sir with all due respect, I don't know that I would agree with that--I have to think about it. Maybe. In the current political environment, I think if Barack was born in Hawaii and later obtained Indonesian citizenship which instead of repudiating when he got to 18 or 21 affirmed it as a basis for getting a US College education for free, I still think the Supreme Court probably doesn't let you kick him out.
Since I know he was born in Kenya (proof in court may not be exactly easy) I haven't really considered the collateral issues--I don't think the Court will likely kick him out over those although it probably should as you suggest.
But what I am doing is thinking about the kind of questions you would get from the bench if you ever got to argue the legal proposition to a Court.
No.
thanks
Was Obama’s Mother a US Citizen At The Time of Obama’s Birth?
We know for a fact that Obama’s father was a UKC citizen and never became a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. As to Obama’s mother, everyone has always assumed she was a US citizen at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth.
But it’s very possible Stanley Ann Obama was not a US citizen by the time Obama was born.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 established Barack Obama Sr. as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But as to the relevance of the BNA 1948 to Obama’s mother, please take a look at Section “6(2)”:
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a woman who has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the First Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether or not she is of full age and capacity.
How do we know Stanley Ann Obama didn’t avail herself - after she was married, but before Obama Jr. was born - of the BNA 1948 by registering to be a UKC citizen? ... But back in 1961, registering as a UKC citizen and taking the oath listed above would have provided ample evidence of an intent to renounce US citizenship. Therefore, at the time of his birth, Obama Jr. would have been born of two British citizen parents.
I do not make any claim to know whether Obama’s mother did become a registered UKC citizen after marrying Obama Sr. But it’s certainly fair to point out that, like so many other things about him we are not allowed to know, we also do not know whether Obama was born of two British parents. And I see no reason why we should assume his mother didn’t register as a UKC citizen considering her noted preference for living abroad.
...
Pure distraction, IMHO. Where is the documentation that she made application: “... shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the First Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether or not she is of full age and capacity.”
Leo's latest...
Was Obama’s Mother a US Citizen At The Time of Obama’s Birth?
Where is the documentation that she made application:
oh that application should be on the internet in 5 4 3 2 1...days..lol..
set/spike/point
Leo always comes up with things that no one has considered. It would be nice if SCOTUS or some court would actually allow AMERICAN citizens to have standing in a case against a possible illegal alien or non-naturalized citizen.
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.