Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: plenipotentiary
Chester Artur hid his birthplace and parents citizenship from the electorate.
As I understand it, there was active "opposition research" by the Democrats against Arthur with respect to his birthplace, but his father's citizenship was well-known, (as the source for the questions about the candidate's birthplace,) and that that was not an issue for the electorate. Is there a reference somewhere that William Arthur's birthplace or citizenship was hidden? Or that Arthur's eligibility was challenged based on his father's citizenship? Thanks.
657 posted on 11/01/2009 4:06:12 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies ]

To: MN Doc

“MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.”

“The evidence comes from the August 23, 1894, issue of The Nation magazine which states:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Here we have an official US State Department ruling from 1885 that people born in the US of foreign parentage are subject to foreign powers and not considered US citizens.

This provides proof positive Bayard had no idea whatsoever that, at the time of President Arthur’s birth, father William was not a US citizen.

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“. That’s the key. “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power. “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen. The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time. Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born. Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

The Nation article appears below in full for your review.”

PLease post any evidence you have that the electorate knew that Chester Arthurs fathe was British Subject at the time of Chesters birth.

658 posted on 11/01/2009 7:27:29 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson