Posted on 12/21/2009 7:23:39 AM PST by captjanaway
Students of history know that history repeats itself. Today we are reliving the past of 1880s. The similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter , Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
It’s clear that we have been barking up the wrong tree. Where Obama was born doesn’t actually matter. His father was a UK citizen, never an American citizen, so no matter where his birthplace was, Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
The SCOTUS should take steps to have him removed and incarcerated immediately. ANY laws, bills, acts, treaties, proclamations, etc. should be null and void.
Liars can not possibly serve honorably. He knew, just as the current usurper knows, he wasn't eligible and did everything he could to keep it quiet.
“The SCOTUS should take steps to have him removed and incarcerated immediately. ANY laws, bills, acts, treaties, proclamations, etc. should be null and void.”
That might be the only way out of this disaster the treasonous pigs are willingly leading us into.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is populated by leftists - lying, corrupt, anti-American scum.
But we’ll never know about that, because our media is ALSO populated by leftists (a.k.a. lying, corrupt, anti-American scum).
And most people don’t have the mental ability to distinguish fact from propaganda anymore because they’ve been “educated” by the public school system... populated by, well, guess who.
Somehow, we need to overcome this, and we need to find a way to win against them. A good leader or two might be the place to start (sigh) - unfortunately, our party has been infiltrated by the enemy TOO. (double sigh).
I think I need come cheering up this morning.
[make that SOME cheering up this morning]
>>>During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s 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 son’s birth. <<<
Wouldn’t this suggest that those investigating Arthur’s background did not think the immigration status of Arthur’s father relevant to Arthur’s natural born citizen status, and that only Arthur’s birthplace was relevant?
This, of course, does not prove that one born on American soil to one American citizen and one foreign national is a NBC, but, if anything, the Chester A. Arthur story, seems to hurt that particular birther argument, not help it.
If you will all notice, the exception is for illegitimate children born to US citizens on US soil.
That is what he is hiding by keeping his BC secret.
Is there any evidence that anyone at the time (i.e., when Arthur became a VP candidate) knew that Arthur’s father wasn’t a US citizen at the time his son was born?
You are correct on ALL points.
I'm just dreaming of a Country where The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and adhered to. I grew up in that Country, but I'm sad to say it doesn't exist anymore.
If they weren’t married they couldn’t have been divorced.
This is pretty much pure bunk! Though Arthur’s father wasn’t naturalized until 1843, his mother was a Vermonter and, unlike BHO, there is no dispute about the place of Arthur’s birth. Besides, making the argument about a father who was an alien is a legal stretch. What about George Washington’s, John Adams’, Thomas Jefferson’s, James Madison’s, James Monroe’s fathers—THEY WERE ALL TECHNICALLY BRITISH SUBJECTS TOO!
But Washington, Adams, etc., were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. Look closely at the wording. Natural born applies to those born afterward. The parents have to be citizens for a child to be natural born.
Be quiet dammit! You're interfering with some good rants.
Then inform me, pray tell, how would you characterize BOTH of Andrew Jackson's parents? (He was born approximately one year after they both immigrated from Ireland and apparently never bothered to get naturalized).
BUMP for later read
But I don't expect you to know that, given your demonstrated feeble knowledge of matters relating to the Constitution.
Andrew Jackson was born in the Waxhaws area, near the border between North and South Carolina, on March 15, 1767 ... i.e. within the Colonies and BEFORE the establishment of the current US Constitution. He qualifies on THAT basis.
so if i understand this correctly
we have never enforced the constitutional test for qualification for POTUS...forgetting any arguments about how to interpret the clause....we (this nation) have never mounted a challenge to any POTUS based on this clause...
and we never will.
therefore this ventilating about BHO birth is a waste of time....except if he was not actually born in Hawaii...then it would be a unique situation and pehaps be subject to challenge.
is that approximately your view on this subject?
Wrong (demonstrating your feeble knowledge of the Constitution)...the wording goes: "No person except a natural born citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." Nothing is stated about parentage!
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Only a truly depraved person attempts to edit the Constitution on FR and expects to get away with it.
The gist of this argument goes to the citizenry of the parent, not where the child was born. (from the article: Collins thesis reverberates through history: “… are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens there of?” Collins relies on two sources in particular for his answer.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” –14th Amendment
He draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich Vattel written in 1758, on which the U.S. Constitution was largely based. Collins states in his article, the term “jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to any foreign power”, citing Section 1992 in Section 1 of the new 14th Amendment. He quotes Vattel:
The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as a matter of course that each citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. -Vattel
Collins concludes:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – Collins
I believe the provision made allowances for those folks born in the USA before ratification, but born to “British” subjects.
Only a hard-core moron attempt to edit the Constitution on FR and think that no one will notice such.
The difference is that, regarding Andrew Jackson, we’re talking about someone who was born 20 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. The minimal standard for such a person was CITIZENSHIP, not Natural Born Citizenship. Jackson was born in, and therefore a citizen of, the Colonies; he served in Revolutionary War as a Message Currier for the Colonies, was captured and held as a POW by the British.
The parentage of the child (both parents) determines natural-born status, which has relevance with regard to those born AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. It was ratified June 21, 1788.
The point, fool, is that Chester A. Arthur was native born to Vermont—there is no dispute about that! The dispute is about the citizenry of his old man.
Meandog, the point is that someone has to have been born in the US of two parents who are both citizens to be a natural-born citizen. Arthur wasn’t and neither was Obama.
I am not disputing that - I was countering your claim about Washington and Adams. And countering your depraved attempt to re-write the Constitution, which you still have not owned up to despite two posters providing the actual text in question. So I'd be careful who you call a 'fool', given that the egg is all over your face.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Nothing that wasn't already done to death here.
Let's tell them that you said that. I'm sure the court will get right on it.
Who's trying to "rewrite the Constitution"? I used the illustrations of the first five presidents (I could have gone to the first 14) to point out that they didn't technically have "citizens" as parents either. Now, admittedly, I believe this whole birther nonsense is just that: Nonsense, as it will never go anywhere but make Obama opponents look like kooks (as the left would have also looked like if John McCain would have won in pointing out that he was born in the Panama Canal region.) Arthur was born in Vermont and Obama (real or fake) has a birth certificate verified by the state of Hawaii making both citizens of the U.S. Therefore, IMHO, it would benefit us all more if we would rather concentrate on beating Barry with political facts we can prove in 2012 than with ones we cannot.
And here is the actual text:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
Yet you have the gall to lecture me about reading comprehension? What a maroon.
As much ‘fun’ was this thread has been I think the adults need to step in.
Wrong.
This "two citizen parent" requirement of natural born citizen is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet.
What law would that be, and if it be a mere statute, how can it change the meaning of a Constitutional term of art?
Even if he is a Bastard, he knows who his father was, and so do we. Unless the real Long form BC shows someone different of course, or no one at all. However we have seen the divorce papers, showing BHO Jr as the child of the marriage. Even if the marriage was not valid, he's still his father's child.
I think I need come cheering up this morning.
++++++++++++
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2412296/posts
You’re welcome.
You’re right, but you are a know it all jerk. Bite Me!
Yes they were, and the Constitution specifically exempts their sons with the phrase "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"
Nice try, but read the Constitution before trying again.
Nope, not his citizenship, his status as a Natural Born citizen. He was born in the US, and had one US citizen parent, but his father was a British Subject at the time, just like BHO Jr's father was a British Subject at the time of his birth. At least CAA's father became a citizen before he became de facto President. BHO Jr's father never did.
And who around here would expect anything other than a 6th grade-level insult from someone like you? To go along with the sixth grade-level logic present in all your posts.
Crawl back in your hole.
It's much more fun out here in the sunshine, watching the antics of people like you.
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.