Skip to comments.UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1 (Donofrio)
Posted on 09/08/2009 6:16:34 PM PDT by STARWISE
[The research team from UCONN - UNDEAD REVOLUTION - have published "Part 1" of their exhaustive research on the historical meaning of the "natural born citizen" POTUS eligibility requirement. I am republishing their report here as my first guest blog. Please click through to their blog for the full report.
I am simultaneously publishing my analysis of an incredible find by the UR team which firmly establishes that Chester Arthur's British birth was not known to the public while he was President and therefore sets no historical or legal precedent for Obama.
Now, for your historical education, the Natural Born Citizen blog is proud to present...]
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen
The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while. N.Y. Historical Societys Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873
There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:
1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.
2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.
3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.
We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it. George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30, 1785 INTRODUCTION
The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.
In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:
and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.
We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war
See below for the full report
I have the Honor to be with great respect Sir, Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant. George Washington
Not exaclty Obama-esque. George probably couldn't get elected today.
Can’t wait for the next installment. That was a great read. It really captures the time period and the patriots who founded and defended our country!
Thanks for the ping!
And the INTENT of our amazing Founders.
Can the court accept an amicae brief from a group of students from U Conn?
Good thought .. can civilians who aren’t
attorneys do that ?
Excellent post STARWISE!
Those kids did a great job, didn’t they ?
Anxious to see Part 2.
Let's ask these guys....HHH has turned in for the night. He's really excited about today's activities....and is trying to figure out how to get BO's footprint (He's betting that the FBI or CIA will get it before the court does)....
Thought you might want to see this from U Conn. The kids did a great job.
Thanks for the heads up on this, hoosiermama!
Ping to a few CT FReepers...
Obama should follow Spitzer’s example & keep his socks on.
I can understand why they haven't submitted all their research at this point in time, but I'd love to see all this history that suspiciously isn't even found on the internet and is still collecting dust in college libraries the American public is refused access to. That alone burns me up. You have to pay college fees now just to have access to our own true history! But if you notice, the internet is loaded with untrue history by the left. That, they have no problem with shoving down our throats.
Anyway, they posted another piece of historical evidence from the 1800's that seems to be a much different take on the roots of citizenship.
There are also some updated comments which show that they haven't left the blog. They seem to be taking instruction per their mentors and putting out only what they suggest right now. Considering the money Obama is investing in this, maybe there is something to their strategy.
UR's reply to it is in the comment section of UR's blog way down at the bottom by "Steve".
He makes a good point that throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water is not a wise thing to be doing.
He also doesn't seem to be enamored with the troopers out there right now, of either opinion, more or less due to the extreme of the approaches maybe? So far, I've only seen them praise the work of Donofrio and today, Mark Levin! That's odd because Donofrio seemed to be much more accomodating to Obama than Mark Levin did from the start. They would seem to be strange bedfellows, but UR seems to look deeper than anyone has so far historically, so it doesn't surprise me that they are obviously listening to other respected personalities. They quote Mark Levin and even Bill Clinton quite off the cuff, as if they have it memorized. Putting the two of them in one reply is as about as bi-partisan as it gets and shows they are gathering their research from everywhere.
Sounds that way .. God bless them for
their pursuit fo the truth. I’m so glad
they’re still engaged in the research:
~ ~ ~
On February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm undeadrevolution Said:
I was going to post this comment over at RedState after someone had sent me their latest article. But I cant be bothered with registering, so Im just going to post it here. I had a lot more research I wanted to add, but we agreed to save that for our own additions.
This is his article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/02/14/my-final-thought-on-the-birther-issue/
And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized:
There seems to be a lot of historical groundwork you havent taken into account here as to citizenship in this country.
In fact, by your logic, we have returned to the monarch structure of England whereby birth makes one a subject of the king, irregardless of parentage per International Law and the domicile clarification clause per Justice Joseph Storys Conflict of Laws so cited in these Supreme Court cases, albeit heavily discarded here and in many similar elementary interpretations across the internet.
My question to you would be how do you justify this interpretation against scholared jurisprudence of the day? They do not coincide with your interpretation at all, so how did you arrive there?
If the Founding Fathers disavowed birth allegiance alone, and they did, how do you justify your interpretation of Article II with Wong Kim Ark as it relates to ascending to the presidency?
It is one thing to call a think-tank crazy, but it is quite another to dismiss the background of the law which upon its face, would question Obamas legitimacy and has a place to be answered, regardless if he thinks he shouldnt be questioned as his recent comments reveal. However, that place is not here and is not to be adjudged in your article and certainly not because Obama said so.
With all due respect, that place of judgment belongs to the United States Supreme Court under a republic form of government this site alludes to protect. Im afraid this is a matter of law, not your opinion. We are not a banana republic. You also seem to be lacking in historical knowledge of that law and at odds with the republics history you purport to celebrate.
But allow me to educate you in a snippet of that review in law, regarding Wong Kim Ark, which seems to escape the superficial interpretations out there and apparently now, embraced in your own article.
At some stage the Fourteenth Amendment not only permits them to become citizens, but declares them to be so, in such sense that no act of legislature or Congress can deprive them of that right. When does that time arrive? Upon principle and authority, it should arrive when national domicile and intent on the part of the father concur with the place of birth of the child to fix its status. That the facts may in some cases be difficult of determination, is unimportant. That is often true in any question of domicile. Ide, 1896, summarizing International Law and Justice Storys conclusions in conjunction with the Founding Fathers intent.
So as with the above testament to the Founders ideals, so it is with Obama when one is asked a simple question of birth allegiance. When one answers that his birth allegiance is one of dual-nationality, the public does not have a right to inquire as to the legality of that notion? Im afraid George Washington himself would accuse that messenger of being no patriot at all.
Notwithstanding, this argument is a constitutional one and if the Tea Party does not embrace questions against the Constitution, then it is a political party unto themselves, which I dont believe they intended to be.
With that said, a mere showing of a birth certificate does not suffice when answering the question behind the intention of Article II, which proclaims that none but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, may ascend to the presidency. That determination of facts belongs to the Supreme Court, but the right to ask it, is so stated in the Constitution. For even Bill Clinton stated:
The Constitution decides who is eligible to be President. And THEN the people decide among which candidate they prefer.
In other words, the Constitution declares who is eligible, not the people by way of opinion, and certainly not in articles such as yours. And there is a history to that Constitution, whereby subsequent laws have been made and enforced, that has largely been ignored here and elsewhere.
Do you label Mark Levin a birther too when he said, Obama should not be able to hide it, when speaking about documents that would prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible? I submit you wouldnt smear him, a constitutional lawyer with a profound regard for the Founding Fathers and yet, not a birther. Levin is smart enough to separate the medias label of those who emphatically believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii with the eligibility requirements under the Constitution. Its not one and the same.
I dare say on both sides of this modern-day argument, lie some pretty obsessed people, lawyers included, with pitchforks in hand, and most of them are embarrassing our Constitution, including you. I have no doubt that they probably make guys like Mark Levin cringe and rightly so.
However, just because you disagree with the motives of some of the insane lawyers weve seen take up the cross of this subject, doesnt mean that some of us intend to be intimidated by the fallout of their actions. YOU seem to be very much intimidated by the antics that have gone on and therefore, instead of clarifying the problem, you elect to distance yourself from the Constitution completely and embrace the left in their living-Constitution a/k/a anything goes interpretations.
Congratulations on taking that bait. I think Ill think for myself and do the required study of the Founders before I reach one of the many elementary school opinions out there, like yours, who didnt do much studying at all.
Well, now what?
Concerned folks just keep plugging
away ... and we keep praying .. ;)
"And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized"
He's calling out those who are running scared from the Chicago-thug labels that Obama used to defend himself in this entire affair. He's making the clear distinction between the historical facts and the rumor of the day that "has no basis in fact".
Basically, he's saying that Eric Erickson is a dumbass who didn't do his homework and is intimidated by the Chicago-thug labels because he doesn't want to be labeled as a "birther" who assumes that if Obama just proves he was born in Hawaii, that's good enough for the framers of A2.
He makes the distinction between a "birther" as defined by MSNBC, those who don't believe Obama was born here, with the history of the Constitution itself. He says it's not "one and the same".
Then he picks out a distinct quote from a writing made by Ide in response to Collins who was the attorney in the Wong Kim Ark case that appeared on Leo Donofrio's blog back when UR was feeding him the hidden proof we can't find on the internet because that proof is mysteriously missing.
I know Donofrio put up a few pieces by Collins but does anyone remember if he put up the entire one by Ide? I don't think I copied that one and Donofrio took down the stuff they gave him right after Undead Revolution stopped talking.
One thing is clear. Erickson is playing politics and doesn't know enough about history to stand up to a "birther" label and call out the truth for what it is. One (birthers) is a hypothetical and the other (the constitutional history) is fact. UR finds the documentation of the actual history behind Wong Kim Ark and throws a piece of it in his face.
I doubt Erickson would respond. None of them ever respond to the constitutional side of this. They don't know how! How this guy Erickson ever confused Wong Kim Ark with those that think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii is anyone's guess. But he seems to have declared war on all of them by banning anyone who doesn't see it his way. Go 1st Amendment! :/
This is a professional of any kind? Who the hell talks like this and can be expected to be taken seriously?
He tweets, "In Washington, when people call you a "fiscal conservative" they simply mean you are for abortion and gay marriage."
Huh??? What does either have to do with fiscal conservatism?
Then there's, "I am so totally gonna have to take a real suitcase and check a bag for CPAC. A full week away from home."
Please stay home, Mr. Valley Man
And the clueless among the equally clueless, "It's not that birfers are racist. It's that they just don't think Hawaiians should be eligible for the Presidency."
And now we know why this guy couldn't argue Wong Kim Ark on the best day of his life. Just one, ONE quote from Henry C. Ide in the 1800's was more informative to explaining that case than anything that comes close to the so-called intellectuals of today.
It's a sad, ignorant and shameful comparison, not to mention a true reflection on today's poor education system.
In my opinion, the RINOs in Congress were also guilty of pushing legislation to change Article II. We saw it again in 2008 with S. 2678 and S.R. 511 when this came out:
And it's because of that guilt they stay mum about Obama's legitimacy and continue to say nothing. But all the proof shows that Congress started this problem. The people pick up on it and question what's going on and immediately they are attacked with hardly any true Republican or even a constitution-loving Democrat to defend them. And why? Because they'd have to admit their own guilt and hand in this thing and they won't.
That's what is really going on here and the reason why MOST of them need to be voted out in November and in 2012. Because they're mostly all corrupt.
These jokers like Erickson are having a field day at the people's expense for a problem that originated in Congress and now they have the audacity to tell these people that if they dare question anything, they aren't welcome in their little cliques.
Then there’s, “I am so totally gonna have to take a real suitcase and check a bag for CPAC. A full week away from home.”
Please stay home, Mr. Valley Man
- - - - - -
LOL. And he’s a DEACON!
You should know that I am very late to the so-called “bither” question, and my attention was garnered only when I learned about “natural born” citizenship, through STARWISE’S unrelenting persistence.I have since tried to pay close attention and I have found your comments enlightening and reasonable, so thank you again. I agree with you, that MOST of them need to be voted out in November and in 2012, because tey’re corrupt and weaklings as well. There’s too much at stake to not take the issue seriously.
Jeeeze ... those comments by Erickson are
SO very weird. All this time, I had thought
it was a fairly up and up website.
The things you learn ....
I’m SO thrilled that the UCONN Undead Revolution
are continuing to pursue their research. God
bless these young patriots.
Fascinating! Who would have known? Not me.
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.