Skip to comments.America’s Two Unconstitutional Presidents
Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chesters birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthurs father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future Presidents birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his sons birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obamas public admission of his fathers status:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
“The phrase ‘shall be Eligible’ requires that one actually BE eligible in order to run for the office.”
No it doesn’t. One need not even be on ballot to “run”. I believe the socialist candidate last time around was explicitly not eligible to hold office.
And therein lies the rub! As far as I can tell, neither Arthur or Obama claimed British citizenship; wouldn’t that be evidence with your concern that they are NOT citizens? The British may extend citizenship to them, but if it is not accepted, does that citizenship still hold sway?
Otherwise simply being declared a “natural born citizen” of another nation - remember, citizenship rules are not universal, each nation treats them differently - would rule you out from the highest office of the land. Chavez could pick our President, simply by virtue of granting citizenship to each and every person save the individual he wanted elected.
So for those born to a foreign parent, it’s not about what claims their parent’s nation might have on them, but what fealty they volunteer to such a nation. Do you bend knee to another nation, so to speak. And in light of this, I cannot see how either Arthur or Obama cannot be considered a natural born citizen (barring some other reason they should be disqualified).
OK...disregard the diplomatic credentials. Suppose two Chinese exchange students on student visa have a child in the U.S.. They return home when the child is one. At 21, the child returns to the U.S. on a Chinese passport and asserts his U.S. Citizenship based on the 14th Amendment, and obtains a U.S. Passport. 14 years later, is that person eligible to run for president?
I'm guessing you'd argue that he/she is...and I think you'd have a reasonable case; however, I think there are also arguments that could be made against it...
The founders considered it an issue of National Security. See the Federalist Papers number 68. They put the distinction in because the best way to assure the loyalty of a person is to know that they are solely a native of the nation and of no other. The founders did not wan a Commander in Chief of the armed forces who could be potentially compromised.
And yes, if we fail to uphold that distinction then the son of Osama Bin Laden and an American woman could potentially be President of the United States.
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark decided that very issue. The child is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. The decision states that very clearly.
Thats stupid, but at least its logical. Problem is, the Constitution doesnt speak to the issue, so bad luck for them.
I would argue it's not even logical! Your loyalty is not dependent upon another person's statements or loyalties! Essentially what those folks pressing the point would be saying that a man has no control over his loyalty; it is set for him before he is even born, by the acts of the parents.
In which case if I could get Sarah Palin's parents to state that she was to be a citizen of Canada on birth, she is disqualified. Her actual desires are immaterial, it is what her parents desired before she was actually born!
It's not logical or intelligent. But I guess it keeps many up late at night working on websites...
“”If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene.
Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.”
And I'm not disputing that. Perhaps a question is the best way to explain:
If Hugo Chavez declared Sarah Palin as a natural born citizen of Venezuela, with all the rights and responsibilities of that same citizenship, would she be barred from seeking the Presidency?
Answer that question, and you have answered the issue with Arthur and Obama in terms of their legal status regarding election to the Presidency.
It does not matter what they claim. What matters is what they had at the instant of their births. Obama had British, Kenyan and American claims on him, he is not a natural born citizen. Citizen yes, and it is different.
You cannot be a natural born citizen if at the moment of your birth, you had any citizenship along with your American Citizenship. You can only ever be of America, and with no other. We are talking about the most powerful office in the world. If nothing else, only a pure 100% unadulterated American should ever hold that office.
Another FReeper who can’t seem to grasp that this discussion isn’t about citizenship.
It’s about “natural born” status.
It is entirely possible to be a citizen of the United States, while not being a “natural born” citizen.
Example A: Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen. He became a citizen as a result of a process — naturalization — he is not a “natural born” citizen.
Example B: An anchor baby — becomes a citizen by virtue of being born in the United States of America — that baby is a “native born” citizen.
To be a “natural born” citizen, the citizen must have been born in the United States of America, the child of TWO US citizen parents.
Here is the law, its evolution and applicable caselaw:
Barack Obama, himself, signed a Senate resolution that affirms that “if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.” Parents — two — more than one:
On Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website, Obama’s campaign correctly identifies Obama as a “native born” citizen:
And if you cursor down to the bottom of the page, it explains why.
Wong Kim Ark was not a candidate for
the US presidency, and that issue
was never under consideration in the
ruling of his case.
What mattered was what she had in the instant of her Birth. It is hereditary, or its not. Now if she VOLUNTARILY gave up U.S. citizenship to take Venezuelan, which she would have to do because the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship with that Nation, then she would lose that natural born status. But she would have to choose to give it up. Chavez just offering up citizenship in and of itself is irrelevant.
The Constitution and the applicable Supreme Court decisions would seem to indicate that they are. But let's take a more likely scenario. Two foreign nationals move to the U.S. legally and have a child. That child is born in the U.S., raised and educated in the U.S., attends university in the U.S., never spends one minute living in the land of his birth parents but instead spends his entire adult life in the U.S. Why should that person's loyalty be questioned and he be denied the chance to run for president? What clause in the Constitution or U.S. law or Supreme Court decision supports their inability to be president?
He is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen and could not run for POTUS.
You didn’t read the decision; it discusses what it means to be a citizen and the history of how that is determined, specifically issues of parents who owe allegiance to foreign powers.
Where? Please quote where the decision very clearly states the difference between citizen by birth and natural-born citizen.
And what clause in the Constitution states that?
That's my point...you have a perfectly sound case...but, let's suppose in this day and age of multi-culturalism, the child picks up English as a second language with the foreign tongue being spoken at home. The child's parent's indoctrinate him as a foreigner living abroad in the U.S. (this happens regualrly in both Hispanic and Muslim Communities in the U.S.) with allegiances elsewhere. It may be in compliance with the letter of the Constitution as presently interpreted, but I would contend it's inconsistent with the spirit of it, and the NBC clause in particular. It's a dicey argument and I don't pretend to know the answer...I just think the case of our current President begs for clarification as much for the future as it does for the present.
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.