UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1 (Donofrio)

[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 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 Society’s 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…

I think it's in what Starwise reposted?

"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! :/

Out of curiosity, I went and read not the RedState website, but the actual posts made on Twitter by Erick Erickson who wrote this article.

This is a professional of any kind? Who the hell talks like this and can be expected to be taken seriously?

http://twitter.com/ewerickson

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:

http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/

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.

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.