Posted on 03/18/2022 7:58:10 AM PDT by SJackson
This article should be very interesting to you since you believe POTUS Trump is not outlining plans for combatting America’s deep seated problems with Government but is only looking backwards.
Let all be uncovered. This is a sad story.
Do like the Dems and change the definition of them and reassign them out of the US ,LOL
That won’t work. Eventually, the Kansas town will become Washington DC.
What is needed instead, is to move EVERY single agency to a different state.
Move the Department of Agriculture to Nebraska.
Move the Department of Energy to Texas.
Move the Health and Human Services to Maine.
Move the Department of Labor to North Dakota.
Move the Department of Education to Florida.
etc. etc. We need to break apart, root and branch, the centralized administrative state.
McConnell and Grahamnesty were just re-elected for 6 more years with Trump’s endorsement.
We will never Make America Great Again by re-electing Assistant Democrats.
Trump MUST STOP endorsing them.
Aaahh, yes. Chet Arthur.
We all finally learned something important about Chet almost 15 years ago.
In fact, it was almost instantaneously posted on FR.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144292/posts
See comment #32: A clever Freeper mentioning Chester Arthur’s having done away with the Spoils System:
__________
PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH (interesting read)
Natural Born Citizen ^ | December 6, 2008 | Leo Donofrio
Posted on 12/6/2008, 10:12:59 PM by Deepest End
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: bc; birthcertificate; britishsubject; certifigate; chesterarthur; donofrio; fraud; obamatruthfile; preschesterarthur; presidents; uk; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Interesting historical read.
1 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:13:00 PM by Deepest End
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
2 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:17:51 PM by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F/8 Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: SE Mom; Bahbah; penelopesire; Miss Didi; rodguy911; gpapa; RonDog; RaginApache; FlingWingFlyer; ...
~~Historical fraud PING!
~~~~
“Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.”
3 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:22:12 PM by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush’s war, not America’s war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Born in US, US mother.
4 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:23:25 PM by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
anchor babies are natural born citizens.
5 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:24:28 PM by Ancient Drive (will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: STARWISE
Does this mean that any and all legislation or laws enacted by President Authur is null and void? If so, what are the repercussions?
6 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:25:20 PM by FortWorthPatriot (No better friend, no worse enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: FortWorthPatriot
I know .. how will we ever know?
“What a web we weave when first
we practice to deceive.”
Dang hornet’s nest... if true,
what a travesty .. a treason.
7 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:29:04 PM by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush’s war, not America’s war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Authur was born in Vermont to an American mother who herself was a natural born American. That’s all it takes to be a natural born US citizen. This story is bunk.
8 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:29:15 PM by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
Yeahbut yeahbut...did he have a COLB?
9 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:37:21 PM by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
Per Donofrio’s case before SCOTUS -
No, they are citizens, but not “natural born” and not qualified to be POTUS per Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
10 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:42:18 PM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
No. They are citizens, but arguably not natural born citizens.
11 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:42:26 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ancient Drive
Sez who?
12 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:43:09 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
Man, all the lawyers out there researching and reading precedents and the folks on this thread had all the answers from the start!
13 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:44:27 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
The Child naturalization Act from the 1980’s states that citizenship is based in the father’s nationality. Obama asserts that he held dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S. if he was in fact physically born in Hawai’i), then he asserts that his British citizenship expired making him a naturalized citizen by his own assertion at his website. Do you know whether a naturalized citizen can become president under Constitutional restrictions? ... [HINT: the answer is they cannot.]
14 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:56:01 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Correction: the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the father’s nationality.
15 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:57:42 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Born in the USA, right? Therefore, whatever else he may have been, he was ipso facto a natural-born citizen.
16 posted on 12/6/2008, 11:56:16 PM by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Sez who?
Sez the Constitution: 14th Amendment
Section 1. 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.
The C.A. Arthur article is moot.
17 posted on 12/6/2008, 11:57:32 PM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
It is amazing how few people actually understand Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Sad really.
18 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:03:10 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
19 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:05:50 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Well IF Arthur wasn’t a “natural-born” citizen under the law is pretty ridiculous he wasn’t, being born in the USA with an American mom.
If this birth certificate deal could really sink Obama (doubt it very much) though that’s terrific.
20 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:14:43 AM by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Impy
At the time, citizenship was passed from one’s father. Just the way it was.
I just want to see the Constitution followed, let the chips lie.
21 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:16:34 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Yep.
This is a fascinating discussion in which all of us can learn or learn more about the Constitution. It’s sad to see people who approach it as if they can figure it all out with a quick glance over Article II.
I know I don’t have all the answers. But I am doing my best to learn more and use my mind to evaluate more than my preconceived notions.
22 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:19:52 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
“All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States.”
That is a natural born citizen. Confirmed by United States v Won Kim Ark, 1898 and US Code, Title 8.
23 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:26:02 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Agreed. There are self proclaimed constitutional scholars with all of the answers (just ask them) coming out of the wood work on all of these threads.
I’m sure you’ve read:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
and
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Interesting articles
24 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:32:07 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
Interesting article on the term of natural born citizen from the founders to today http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
25 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:35:56 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
lol beat me to it
26 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:36:51 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
I was wondering why Obama’s site was so open about his father being a British subject since this would disqualify him (it should). Now, with this new revealing information from Leo about Chester Arthur, is it possible that Obama will use Arthur as a reason why he can be president? Perhaps this is what his legal team has been standing on?
27 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:45:30 AM by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: 1_Rain_Drop
Excellent question. I’ve wondered that myself.
I’m not sure, just my opinion, but I think they were banking on the ignorance of people to overlook the us citizen and natural born citizen, as evidenced by so many here at FR.
I know this quote was added long after the site was launched, but Im not sure when. A correlation to Donofrio’s case perhaps? Part of their planned legal defense?
It is bizarre. Thoughts anyone?
28 posted on 12/7/2008, 1:03:53 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Found the following, which is a relief:
December 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, published a follow up posting to his original essay on Presidents who had parents born abroad. He suggests that Arthur’s presidency does not set precendent for Obama, as nobody knew, at the time, to look and confirm whether or not Arthur was actually a British subject.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1673
Leo also answered in his comment section:
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
[Ed. Note - No such thing as precedent from fraud. It could only be a precedent if it had been part of the public story of Chester Arthur, meaning everybody knew about it and accepted it as being cool. Not the case. During his time, he lied to obfuscate his family history. And he was a lawyer. Not cool. Not precedent. If it comes down to this, and Obama has to rely on Chester’s Arthur to argue precedent, I think he’ll be in trouble.]
29 posted on 12/7/2008, 2:00:23 AM by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
BUMP!
30 posted on 12/7/2008, 8:13:24 AM by joeu01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
Excuse me, but that is the precise question that the Supreme Court has never answered: whether “born in the U.S.” = “natural born citizen.”
The Ark case proves nothing.
See the discussion of that case on this thread and at the links.
31 posted on 12/7/2008, 9:22:26 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: FortWorthPatriot
The major legislative achievement of President Arthur’s administration was the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which replaced the “spoils system” with a merit-based system and established the U.S. Civil Service Commission. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to declare the Pendleton Act null and void on the basis that Arthur was not a natural born citizen, it would render every appointment under the act null and void as well as the actions of every federal bureaucrat since the date of the Pendleton Acts’ enactment. The obvious implications of this would be potentially enormous.
32 posted on 12/7/2008, 1:14:19 PM by Freedom Under Law (Legal Implications Of Chester A. Arthur Not Being A Natural Born Citizen)
Before that we need to repeal RCV wherever it’s in use and go back to dumb voting machines.
Energy should go to Alaska.
Education to Montana
Other than that, more or less agree
Maybe Trump's not the best one to destroy the deep state. There is the issue that while in office he trusted too many to stay in the executive branch, and appointed too many to positions of power who at the time we all thought would be good at rooting out the deep state but didn't (Exhibit A: Jeff Sessions). Then there's the part about the vaxxes: will Trump stop the government from forcing onto us something he played a part in creating?
But then, an argument could be made that Trump is best for the job because he was spurned heavily by the bureaucracy and, therefore, he'd be more enthused than anybody else to flush the deep state down the toilet. He still has the asset of being too rich to be bought and he's already shown that the media talking bad about him doesn't deter him (like it does others) -- in fact it spurs him on.
“What If the next president is a Democrat. Then what? Will they be able to fire any opponent at will? I’m not saying I disagree. I think it’s a good idea but we need to think it out.”
Getting rid of the deep state is imperative. Your point is well taken. We need a LOYAL oppostion to avoid a dictatorship. Trump, although correct, often relies on over simplification.
Whoa, he’s gonna drain the swamp!
Exactly. And “Official Washington” was afraid Trump would do just that.
“Official Washington” is antiquated, corrupt, and has absolutely nothing to restrain its excesses. If it were a corporation, it would have been broken up long ago.
Similarly, there is no need for our senators and representatives to trot off to Washington like it’s 1789 or something. For the vast majority of their work, they can stay in their home districts and do their work and voting remotely. Maybe they could all get together personally once a year for the State of the Union.
Of course, spending their time amongst the people they’re supposed to be representing, rather than running off to hide in Washington, probably wouldn’t appeal to them, nor would it be popular amongst the lobbyists, bartenders, and hookers of DC.
And here is some opinion/commentary published just before it was learned that Chet Arthur was born to an alien father.
__________
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?
In reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one cannot help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous court decisions, a United States Attorney General Opinion over the meaning of the Fourteenth’s citizenship clause, and law previously made over alien citizenship via birth, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?
Deeper into the decision, Justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found under the Fourteenth Amendment, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their prior adjudication to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:
The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”
Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leaving little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes.
An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”
However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.
Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“
Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause in the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power. The United States Attorney General (who was a Republican Senator involved in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866) in 1873 ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Here we have the framers, the Attorney General and the Elk court all agreeing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means political attachment. The question begs, what happened to the adopted meaning?
In Wong Kim Ark the court made a weak attempt to marginalize its holding in Elk on the grounds that decision “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”
In truth the adjudicated meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in Elk did in fact have the “tendency to deny citizenship to children” because it applied to all persons born whether Indian, Asian or any other race. The real question is which court was the question of “subject to the jurisdiction” part of the court’s holding?
The answer is, Elk. In Wong Kim Ark the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” was not part of the holding but only passing dicta.
The definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they fall within the political jurisdiction. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” using dicta:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…
Unfortunately for Gray, he can’t unmake history nor can he hide from what he had ruled in Elk. Again, Kim Ark was not born into the allegiance of the United States, his parents had no political attachment, and his parents were subject to treaties in the same way that Indians were.
When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.“
That statement pretty much removes all doubt whether the Wong Kim Ark court had any idea what they were talking about.
The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”
It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).
Furthermore, these former slaves could be said to had no political attachment to any other country – meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.” To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.
Gray asserts the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…”
Couple of factual problems with this assertion. One, resident aliens were required to take an oath of allegiance to some State and declare intent to become citizens with all other aliens deemed transient where statutes in most states prohibited citizenship to their children born within the their limits including District of Columbia. Two, courts have always held change of location never makes any change to one’s allegiance. This fact prohibits the argument an alien being within the territory magically changes an aliens pre-existing allegiance.
So Gray’s assertions here are just plain false on their face.
The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.
Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.
It is worth mentioning that it was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.
For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of personal allegiance to the King, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.“
There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.“
The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”
What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we think payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.
Conclusion
The ruling in Wong Kim Ark is of little relevance to the question surrounding the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” since that was not the question before the court as it was in Elk. Whatever one wants to make of the Wong Kim Ark ruling it will have little bearing over questions of whether aliens who have no political attachment to the country can be born born subject to its jurisdiction.
Posted by P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006.
Tags: federal jursidiction, James Madison, limited powers
Categories: citizenship
52 Responses
The problem I have with Wong Kim Ark is that he was born after 1866, which clearly placed him under the federal civil rights law that acted to banish him from automatic citizenship. It does not make any sense why the court would discard national law, that alone the legislative construction behind the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” I’m not a lawyer, but when you have one supreme court ruling that is in direct conflict with two other court rulings (not to mention in conflict with the 14th), can the conflicting ruling be considered either binding or persuasive? Stranger still, citizenship to babies born to foreigners seems to be a recent phenomena.
by Greg923 on Dec 11, 2006 at 1:32 am
I agree that the intent of the 14th amend. was missed in this case. But what upsets me is that this ruling is being illegally applied today far beyond original intent of this ruling. Wong Kim Ark’s parent’s had legal residence and were processed when they entered the US and this was a huge reason the court ruled that they were under the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal immigrants children are given birthrights citizenship today and these illegal immigrants do not have legal residence and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the US based on this ruling.
by walter on May 8, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Too bad the words “commen sense” don’t come into play. All this writing to state the obvious: “to be a natural born citizen, at least one parent has to be a citizen.”
End of discussion!
by Tim R. on Oct 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Actually this says P-A-R-E-N-T-S:
John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”¦” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
by Daniella on Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 am
In Reply to Daniella: So? It was taboo in 1866 to talk about having a child out of wedlock you know?
by JimAZtec on Nov 29, 2008 at 11:07 am
Tim, in order to be considered “natural born”, the person must be born on American soil and to 2 American citizens. This term “natural born citizen’ is extremely important qualification for POTUSA, as it demonstrates complete allegiance. one born with a parent of another country will have a tainted birth, and will not be eligible for POTUSA
by Dr. bobbi Anne white on Nov 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm
You have made the argument why you think Wong Kim Ark is wrong. However, the SCOTUS does not automatically reverse incorrectly decided cases due to the principle of Stare Decisis. There has to be an extremely good reason to upset people’s settled expectations upon which they have reasonably relied. Barack Obama could reasonably rely on Wong Kim Ark to establish that he is a natural-born citizen. We have gone through a two year election process, expending billions of dollars. 67 million Americans voted for Barack Obama as president. There is no good reason for the SCOTUS to reverse itself now, declare that all that time and effort was for naught, and leave the country leaderless in the middle of a critical global economic crisis and two wars.
by W. Cobb on Dec 1, 2008 at 11:51 am
In Reply to W. Cobb: So you believe SCOTUS is above the law do you? They can violate treaties with impunity and future courts can do the same thing by hiding behind stare decisis?
by JimAZtec on Dec 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm
In Reply to Tim R.’s: “Too bad the words “commen sense” don’t come into play. All this writing to state the obvious: “to be a natural born citizen, at least one parent has to be a citizen.” End of discussion!”
Well, Tim,
if COMMON sense were used, then you would be agreeing with Justice Swayne and Rep. John Bingham’s meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, instead of creating your own definition from what you want it to mean.
by Ken on Dec 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm
In Reply to W. Cobb’s: “There is no good reason for the SCOTUS to reverse itself now, declare that all that time and effort was for naught, and leave the country leaderless in the middle of a critical global economic crisis and two wars.”
TheSupreme Court would not be reversing itaself, but would be legally defining the term “natural born citizen”, as the term is in the Constitution, and a legal definition, based on the framers’ understanding of that term, and other politicians’ understanding of the framers.
We must NOT ignore our Constitution. We must DEFEND it.
And if we want to alter the Constitution, that is what amendments are for.
But we do not IGNORE the Constitution. It is the Supreme Court’s DUTY to legally define the term.
by Ken on Dec 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ken,
The SCOTUS has already defined “natural born” citizen in US v. Wong Kim Ark. In order to exclude Barack Obama, it would have to reverse its holding in that case. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that persons born in the US to foreign nationals are “natural born” citizens unless a parent is an ambassador or a hostile occupier of US territory. Neither exception applies to Obama.
Jim Aztec,
I don’t know what treaty you are referring to, but a treaty which strips a citizen of his constitutional rights is unconstitutional. Obama is a “natural born” citizen as that term is defined by the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark. Stare Decisis strongly mitigates against the Court reversing that definition at this time. It would throw the nation into chaos. The Court could even be putting its own authority into jeopardy, since Obama with the support of Congress could well decide to defy what would be, in effect, an attempt at a judicial coup.
by W. Cobb on Dec 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm
In Reply to W. Cobb:
The treaty in question with China was ratified by the Senate in 1868. Most of the membership consisted of those who drafted and adopted the citizenship clause (including Trumbull and Howard).
In 1883 Congress passed an act entitled “AN ACT TO EXECUTE CERTAIN TREATY STIPULATIONS RELATING TO CHINESE.” Section 14 of this act read “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”
Here the Court was prohibited by law made in pursuance to the powers invested in Congress by the Constitution to Naturalize subjects of China.
Under the Constitution powers of Naturalization is exclusively invested with Congress and not the Supreme Court. To defend Wong Kim Ark one would have to show Congress had no authority to make the treaty it did with China and had exceeded its constitutional powers over Naturalization in prohibiting Naturalization of Chinese subjects.
Good luck with that.
Regards,
Paul
by P.A. Madison on Dec 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
In reply to P.A. Madison,
As you should know, Congress’ powers of naturalization are irrelevant to Wong Kim Ark, since he did not have to be naturalized-the Court held that since he was born in the United States he was a “natural born” citizen. I realize you disagree with Wong Kim Ark, but pursuant to Stare Decisis, I cannot imagine that the Court would reverse it and hold Obama ineligible to be president. That would spark the worst constitutional crisis since 1860. Justice Roberts is too smart to take such a reckless action.
by W. Cobb on Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 am
In Reply to W. Cobb:
You are dead wrong buddy.
Wong Kim Ark had to be naturalized by the court because the both law and treaty said he couldn’t be a citizen. By your broken logic children of foreign ministers would also have to be citizens of the United States because they are also born somewhere in the United States! But you will say they are excepted from jurisdiction by law. Well so were all Chinese subjects from becoming citizens of the nation! There is no constitutional exception for foreign ministers under the 14th amendment.
This isn’t about Madison disagreeing with Wong Kim Ark, it is about law and facts that disagree with Wong Kim Ark.
by J. Aldridge on Dec 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm
But Wong Kim Ark COULDN’T be naturalized by law because a US treaty with China forbade it.
by Bob on Mar 2, 2016 at 5:54 am
In reply to J. Aldridge,
If you read the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark you will see the difference between the children of foreign ministers born in the US and the children of Chinese citizens born in the US. According to the majority opinion, the exemption of children of foreign ministers from being “natural born” citizens is built into the Constitution. This is because the term “natural born” is a term of art developed under English common law. The drafters of the Constitution were obviously well-versed in English common law, so when they used terms derived from that jurisprudence they intended them to have the same meaning. So if the term “natural born” subject excluded children born in the realm to foreign ministers, then “natural born” citizens also automatically excluded children born in the US to foreign ministers.
In contrast, English common law does not exclude children born in the realm to Chinese citizens from being “natural born” subjects. Since they could be “natural born subjects”, then they would be “natural born” citizens as well pursuant to the Constitution. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by passing a law, so it could not deprive children born in the US to Chinese immigrants of their rights as “natural born” citizens.
Please understand, I am not saying the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark is correct-I don’t know since I have not engaged in an independent study of English common law on the subject. What I am saying is that Wong Kim Ark is precedent, and pursuant to Stare Decisis, the Court will not lightly reverse it. Just as an example, baseball fans will know that the Court granted Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws. The Court later decided this was a mistake-no other sports league has an anti-trust exemption. However, the Court would not reverse itself in regards to Major League Baseball due to Stare Decisis-thus it continues to enjoy an exemption from anti-trust laws.
by W. Cobb on Dec 2, 2008 at 8:17 pm
In Reply to W. Cobb:
The Constitution says nothing about stare decisis. Justices of the court take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not uphold stare decisis or uphold court usurpation.
The 14th amendment does exempt children of foreign ministers just as it exempts everyone who are subject to another power. No need to invoke common law to exclude foreign ministers.
The court did not reverse itself on the MLB anti-trust question because it left it to Congress to handle it. If we didn’t live under cruel dictators I think any court under a republican government would had promptly corrected this error of judgment.
by J. Aldridge on Dec 3, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The counter argument is that a Democrat president would use this against us.
But the counter counter argument is that government bureaucrats are mostly Democrats.
BUSH LEAGUE REPUBLICANS ARE DEMOCRATS!
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.