Skip to comments.America’s Two Unconstitutional Presidents
Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
click here to read article
Was Chet Arthur sent here with foreign backing to destroy America? If not, I’ll give him a pass.
So lying about eligibility is ok with you?
“His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, ....”
With any luck, perhaps another fact will repeat itself: Arthur was a one-termer, actually a little less, since he only served a little over three years.
No, he was a product of Party Machine politics, and was a very unexpected candidate for Vice President. He never specifically went for the nomination. It was a political compromise between the “Half-Breeds” or civil service reformists, and the “Stalwarts” those who used the political Machine of which Chester Arthur was one. It was a compromise ticket, the “Half-Breed” Garfield would get the nod for President.
Oh, and Arthur did know about his fathers citizenship, and also knew that he himself was not a Natural Born Citizen.
William Arthur was the father of Chester Arthur. William did not become a Naturalized citizen of the United States until 14 years after Chester’s birth, Chester was not born as a Natural Born Citizen, he was also British.
I’ll bet Chet didn’t spend $1.7 million covering up his birth documents and the facts surrounding his [lack of] natural born citizenship.
I’m not on the birther list yet.
There is nothing unconstitutional about having a British father.
Maybe. I personally think there is some evidence to suggest that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s biological father. Davis was many things, but he was also, I believe, a US citizen.
Maybe it’s just my sense of the absurd. But it would indeed be noteworthy if, in covering this up Obama stepped into a deeper problem.
The only thing that can be said with certainty is that obama is covering up something. He may be eligible for office, or not. But he definitely seems to be lying.
Chester Arthurs lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
same info—more or less—has been online for sometime now...
more linx offa the below lik...
Ms Google has a lot more, too...
Not at all. It is unconstitutional to run for President or Vice President if you are the son of a British Citizen.
“Me Luv Obama”
“Me Lactate for Obama”
No. It is not okay with me. My comment had more to do about the circumstances of Obama’s election and his administration’s intentions than his or Chester Arthur’s eligibility for office. As Danae points out, Arthur was a compromise candidate for Vice President and ultimately an “accidental” President. Obama, on the other hand, was quite deliberate.
How would he know that since he didn't have you there to tell him?
He rose to prominence in New York Politics through his work on two African American Civil-rights cases in the 1850’s. The 14th Amendment was also passed just a few years before Arthur would get the Nomination. He was a lawyer, and was well versed in issues of citizenship.
Now consider that the day his father got Naturalized as an American, given the importance of citizenship, and of attaining it, it was then and still is today a BIG deal, at 14, Chet was sure to have known about it. Chester knew he wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen, but because his family was grounded in the states for a long time, no one would have though to look there, and Chester himself could bent the truth, something he was willing to do, and state truthfully that his dad was a Naturalized citizen, he just left out WHEN he became Naturalized. A half truth, and people bought it. It was believable. That being said, Chester was still of British and American Citizenship, and not a Natural Born citizen and he knew it.
The rub is that there's nothing particularly Constitutional about it either, which is at the heart of the debate. Imagine that the British Ambassador, Military Attache, etc. to the US has a child with his spouse that is born at a U.S. Hospital on U.S. soil. Certainly few would argue that the child should not have any issues returning to England someday as a British subject, with British Nationality conferred through his/her parents. Certainly the case could also be made for dual-citizenship, and arguably for "natural born" status here in the U.S. (i.e. "anchor baby").
This is something that our Founders did not specifically address in the Constitution, although a fair case can be made that they did address it elsewhere, or relied on generally accepted definitions of the day. The 14th Amendment muddied the waters as much as they clarified them, but with it remaining in some degree of ambiguity, there is some substance to the argument that Obama's dad, being a British subject, may have conferred British nationality on Obama simply by fathering him. Likewise, US law at the time did not automatically confer US citizenship due to his mother's age and other possible factors, depending on where he was actually born.
There are two types of citizenship. Natural born and Naturalized. Both Obama and Arther were citizens without being naturalized, therefore both are natural born.
Again, how did Arthur know that since he didn't have the advantage of you being there with your opinion of who is a natural-born citizen and who is not? And what if, God forbid, he disagreed with you?
“It is unconstitutional to run for President or Vice President if you are the son of a British Citizen.”
No it’s not. Even if children born of British citizens are not natural born citizens, it is unconstitutional to BE president, not run for president.
Excellent .. by our own FReeper, Danae.
I’ve been waiting for this ... kudos!
History repeats itself, indeed.
Take it far and wide.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. Apparently, having a foreign nation declare you as a citizen bars you from the Presidency? Doesn't that open us up to every two-bit dictator in the world deciding who can be President? After all, what if Hugo Chavez declares Sarah Palin as a citizen of Venezuela - according to this logic, she would be barred from running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency.
How another nation considers a person should be irrelevant; the only thing that should matter is how WE consider that person. From what I can tell, if you're born on US soil (or the equivalent, like a military base or possession) to at least one US citizen (naturalized parent or not) you're a natural born citizen.
Another nation's "claim" on your citizenship is irrelevant.
Here is what the Supreme Court said on this subject:
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“there is some substance to the argument that Obama’s dad, being a British subject, may have conferred British nationality on Obama simply by fathering him”
But there is no substance, or ver, very little, to the idea that dual citizenship bars one from the office of the presidency. It in no way bars you from being a citizen at birth, after all, since whether other countries can claim you is of no concern to the U.S. government. For it does not recognize dual citizenship.
The point you make can’t be emphasized enough:
what citizenship status one is at the *instant*
of their birth is what they are ... period.
It is what it is.
LOL! I agree. You can have a father from just about any country. Not prohibited by the constitution.
No it could not, since the people you mentioned enjoy diplomatic immunity and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Per U.S. law and the 14th Amendment they are not citizens at all.
“Apparently, having a foreign nation declare you as a citizen bars you from the Presidency? Doesn’t that open us up to every two-bit dictator in the world deciding who can be President? After all, what if Hugo Chavez declares Sarah Palin as a citizen of Venezuela - according to this logic, she would be barred from running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency.”
Although I agree with your overrall argument, I don’t think this line of reasoning is fruitful. We’re not talking here about arbitrary acts of dictators, which can easily be ignored as extra-legal by our authorities. We’re talking about a process that’s been in place for a long time; i.e. being able to claim citizenship through your parents regardless of where you’re born.
It is unconstitutional to run for President if you are not a Natural Born Citizen.
“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. “
The phrase “shall be Eligible” requires that one actually BE eligible in order to run for the office. Just as much as one has to be 35 and have live in the States for the 14 years previous, you have to be a Natural Born Citizen.
“How another nation considers a person should be irrelevant; the only thing that should matter is how WE consider that person.”
Exactly, but to be fair to the Birthers, they’re not interested in what other nations can claim, either. They’re concerned about split loyalites. The idea is that if you are not born to two citizen parents, your love of country is questionable.
That’s stupid, but at least it’s logical. Problem is, the Constitution doesn’t speak to the issue, so bad luck for them.
“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.
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.