Posted on 04/08/2024 5:27:10 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 8, 2024) — by Joseph DeMaio
The writer first presents text from Paul Clement and Neal Katyal’s 2015 subject essay followed by his own commentary in bold, indented text. Page breaks in the original C&K text are indicated in brackets.]
Deep Dive Part 3
“While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15 Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Again, this statement is simple ipse dixit based only on the manufactured narrative that “it is so because they say it is so.” The use of the term “happenstance” seems to have as its primary goal the trivializing and marginalizing of the fact that someone was born outside of the geographic boundaries of the United States.
[In point of fact, birth “in” the country is a sine qua non requirement of the definition of a natural born citizen in § 212 and was of central concern as well to the Founders, as corroborated by their inclusion of the “Citizen-grandfather” clause as an exception to the highly restrictive nbC eligibility clause.] ... continue reading at the link provided.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I find the observation made by Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), that “...[B]irth and allegiance go together”... to be wrong.
Under English common law, birth and allegiance do go together, but not in a Republic made of the ‘Consent to be Governed.’
This point also supports the notion that ‘natural citizenship’ is citizenship acquired as a natural right by natural law at birth. It is not citizenship acquired by the state, either at birth or after.
As far as jurisdiction goes, Congress sets jurisdiction. As long as birth occurs within the sole jurisdiction of the United States, they are natural citizens.
I think that was said around page 26 in his book “Dreams From My Father”, which book was a sort of his own Mein Kampf agenda, for what he had planned for the bringing down the economic and military power of the United States.
And very, very interestingly he never published an image or copy of that birth document which he said in his book also contained his vaccination record. He only ever foisted on the electorate pictures and PDF copies of the forged short-form and forged long-form PDF documents. Inquiring minds would like to see and hear the main stream media and press ask the Usurper in Chief Obama about that point. What does that document look like and where was it issued and by whom? In what countries does a birth certificate also contain a record of one’s vaccinations on a special section of it provided for that purpose? I’ll give you one guess for one country that does.
You have this concept wrong. It is not consent "to be" governed, it's consent "of the" governed.
"Consent to be governed" defines sheeple content to let Big Government make decisions for them.
"Consent of the governed" defines a people who watch over a government that has been given delegated limited powers.
As to the former, the sheeple are indifferent to "birth an allegiance."
As to the latter, it is directly because of "birth and allegiance" that the people keep a watchful eye on the government to keep it from straying from the first principles that defines us as a nation.
-PJ
In 2011 it was discovered that somebody tampered with Justia.com, the preeminent website for searching Supreme Court cases, precedents, links to cited cases, etc.
In the summer of 2008, all references to "natural born citizen" in Supreme Court cases were scrubbed from Justia.com. A few years after the election, the references were restored. It's almost as if some people were concerned enough to conspire to make it difficult to research prior SCOTUS mentions of "natural born citizen" leading up to the Obama election. And it was happening while the birth certificate stories were swirling.
See the following Free Republic articles on this finding. Note that it got no mention in the LAAP-dog media.
10/20/2011 - JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
10/23/2011 - Eligibility rulings vanish from Net (Minor v Happersett, FReeper Danae quoted)
10/27/2011 - Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
10/29/2011 - Conspiracies, Lies, and Justiagate
10/31/2011 - JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues
12/14/2011 - JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear
-PJ
tories
Andy Jackson`s parents were born in Ireland.
His parents were original citizens of the United States at the founding, since they were already here as colonists (in 1765) when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
-PJ
You cited Jack Maskell per the clip below. See the links below for constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio’s analysis and critique of Maskell’s linguistic torts used in that CRS Memos, and also in the other CRS memos on the subject of nbC which were written to give the members of Congress a unified disinformation answer to the numerous constituent’s letters and email and phone calls questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility.
Your nonsense from 2012 preceded the reelection of Barack Obama for his second term. The specious legal claim that International Law preempts United States law on American citizenship has been unanimously rejected by every court that has seen it. International Law pertains to relations between two or more nation states, not to the domestic affairs of any une state. It is not even a consideration in determining United States citizenship at birth.
BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0
Birther blather has been laughed out of court, going down 381 consecutive times and never winning. Your own case was dismissed for frivolous filing.
Another gem from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898)
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.
The implication would be that the entire lineage would not be citizens because an ancestor, presumed to have been a citizen, was not. The court rejected the insane interpretation.
Enjoy Jack Maskell, 2016.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42097.html
Author name redacted.
or
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Congressional Research Service Report RL-42097
January 11, 2016
[Excerpt pp 43-50]
Citizenship of ParentsConcerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen-parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born United States citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.2
In 1825, in a significant and widely recognized work on the Constitution, William Rawle specifically noted that the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution would include “every person born within the United States ... whether the parents are citizens or aliens....”201 Similarly, in his treatise on Citizenship of the United States, Frederick Van Dyne, Assistant Solicitor of the Department of State, explained in 1904 that the rule governing citizenship is not one derived from “international law” or the so-called “law of nations,” but is rather municipal law which “[e]very nation determines for itself’ and, in the United States, derives from the common law principle of jus soli, dependent “on the place of birth,” as modified by statute incorporating the principles of jus sanguinis to include the children of citizens “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.”202 In reviewing Supreme Court decisional material, the author in this treatise noted that the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 civil rights act “reaffirm the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth” which “was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed to be natural born citizens thereof.”203
Although the Supreme Court has never had to address the issue of “natural born” citizenship directly in the context of a challenge to the eligibility of one to be President, the federal courts have discussed the concept on numerous occasions for more than 200 years and have, other than in the Dred Scott decision, consistently relied upon the place of birth, without regard or reference to the status of one’s parents, as the determining factor of natural born citizenship. A celebrated and frequently relied-upon state court ruling in 1844 provided a detailed explanation of the legal history of the citizenship laws and statutes in the United States, and provided the following conclusion with respect to natural born citizenship:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.204
That the place of birth was principally the rule governing “natural born” citizenship under American jurisprudence, regardless of the status of one’s parents (except for children of official diplomats or hostile armies), even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, was explained by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898, which noted that the Fourteenth 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 born here of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory ....”205 The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cited with approval those previous judicial rulings which held that every child born on the soil of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are “natural born” citizens of this country, without regard to the nationality or citizenship status of their parents.206 The Supreme Court, this time using the term “native born citizen” again explained in that case:
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States . 207
As discussed previously, the Supreme Court has used the term “native born” citizens (as expressly used in Wong Kim Ark to mean those born in the United States “whether children of citizens or foreigners”) as synonymous with, or at least included within the term “natural born,” in subsequent references to eligibility to the Presidency. In United States v. Schwimmer, for example, the Court stated: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens ”208 Similarly, in Luria v. United States the Supreme Court stated: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency,”209 and noted in 1931 that other than the one instance in the Constitution which provides a difference, that is, the eligibility to the Presidency, “[t]he alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born.”210
With regard to the citizenship of children born in the United States to recent immigrants, it is significant to note that in this country in the late 1800’s, the public’s economic fears and hostility to foreigners led Congress to—in the words of one historian—“legitimize[ ] racism as national policy”211 by adopting legislation to prevent immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, and to prohibit anyone of Chinese nationality to obtain U.S. citizenship through naturalization.212 Despite this law and its extensions, commonly known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the federal courts consistently held that children born “in” the United States of Chinese parents were “natural born” citizens of the United States, even if the parents may not have been United States citizens themselves and could not have “naturalized” under the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1919, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the appellee, Low Hong, based solely on the fact that he was born in San Francisco, without any reference to the nationality of his parents, “is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”213
Similarly, in a case in 1920 concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner [Kwock Jan Fat] is the son” of two Chinese persons who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then the Court would accept the characterization of him as “a natural born American citizen ....”214 The Supreme Court recognized that it had been alleged in earlier immigration proceedings that the father of Kwock Jan Fat had been born in the United States and, as averred by one witness, had voted in some election. The Supreme Court, however, made no finding, did not rely upon, nor did the Court even make a passing reference to the citizenship of the father of Kwock Jan Fat.215 Furthermore, it is significant that there was no evidence, no argument, nor even any discussion in the decision of the Supreme Court, or in the reported lower court decision,216 concerning the citizenship of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat. Neither the briefs for the petitioner, nor the brief for the respondent made any assertions or allegations concerning the citizenship of, or provided any argument or evidence concerning any naturalization of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat, but rather merely noted that she had been born in China and came to the United States as a child.217 It is, of course, well known to those familiar with U.S. immigration laws that during the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act a woman who was a Chinese national, and not a citizen of the United States at birth, could not have been naturalized as a United States citizen even if she married someone who was a United States citizen.218 However, the Supreme Court never discussed, referenced, or made any finding or conclusion concerning the citizenship of either the father, or the citizenship or naturalization of the mother of Kwock Jan Fat because the citizenship of one’s parents is not and was not relevant to the determination of “natural born” citizenship of one born in the United States. The relevant factor cited and determined by the Supreme Court of the United States was not the citizenship of both the father and mother, but rather—citing to the Wong Kim Ark precedent—was the physical presence of the parents in the United States (that is, that the parents were “domiciled” here) at the time of Kwock’s birth in this country. Concerning the issue of balancing the considerations of fairness and justice in such identity cases of one born to Chinese parents in the United States, the Supreme Court, in an oft-quoted statement, expressly said:
It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.219In a case that preceded the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision, the United States Court of Appeals agreed with the petitioner’s claim to be “a natural-born citizen of the United States” because of his place of birth, that is, within the United States, even though his parents were both “aliens” of Chinese nationality who were in the United States privately and “not here in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.”220 That federal court in 1884, relying on precedents including Assistant Vice-Chancellor Lewis Sandford’s opinion in Lynch v. Clarke, explained the concept in American jurisprudence that one is a “natural born” citizen when born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,221 and that such was the state of American law even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (for other than those brought into the United States under slavery):
Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice-chancellor SANDFORD in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports. [1 Sandf. 583.] In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country and always resided their afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.222More recent federal cases expressly recognize the principle explained in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century cases that one born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even when one or both parents were “aliens,” is considered a citizen of the United States by birth, and thus a “natural born” citizen of the United States. The court in Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, for example, accepted the findings of fact that “The relator was born in the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, on December 31, 1921. His father was a native and citizen of Portugal, and his mother was a native of Brazil,” and that, as found by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, affirming the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry, “that the relator was a natural-born citizen....”223 In Loo Goon Hop v. Dulles, the court found that a person “having been born in this country,” without any reference to, finding, or identification of the citizenship of that person’s parents, is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”224 In Yamauchi v. Rogers, the federal court in reciting “findings of fact and conclusions of law,” found that the plaintiff, born in California of a “Japanese national” who had married another “Japanese national,” “is a natural born citizen of the United States....”225 A federal court in 1974 similarly explained and held: “The plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”226 In Diaz-Salazar v. INS, the court there noted that children born in the United States, even to an “illegal” (or undocumented) alien father, “are natural-born citizens of the United States.”227 Similarly, in Mustata v. U.S. Department of Justice, the United States Court of Appeals, in reciting the facts of the case, noted: “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”228
Recent Eligibility and “Ballot Access” Cases
Despite the existing questions of jurisdiction, as well as the issue of the applicability of a particular state protest or challenge statute to a presidential election (where only “electors” are actually voted for), numerous courts or administrative bodies in several states have rendered decisions relating to or at least addressing the merits of the arguments concerning the eligibility of a presidential candidate in challenges to ballot access in the state.
In 2008, a U.S. district court discussed the concept of “natural born” citizenship specifically with respect to the eligibility to be President as applying—since the founding of the Nation—to all who were born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States:
Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency, see, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165, 84 S.Ct. 1187, 12 L.Ed.2d 218 (1964)(dicta).229Similarly, in dismissing an eligibility case concerning President Obama’s birth in Hawaii, a state appellate court in Indiana, after a thorough review of federal case law, concluded that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of the citizenship of that person’s parents, was a “natural born” citizen eligible to be President:
Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”230Almost all of the cases in the 2012 election cycle had challenged the eligibility to office of the incumbent President, Barack Obama. To date, every court or administrative body dealing with ballot access issues has ruled against the challenges to the eligibility of President Obama. 231
Numerous court decisions or administrative rulings have expressly addressed the merits of the issues before them and found that since Hawaii has certified and verified that President Obama was born there, he is a “natural born” citizen of the United States eligible to be President. The Arizona Superior Court found, for example, that: “[P]recedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.”232 An administrative law judge in Georgia, in an opinion adopted by the Secretary of State and in which the appeals were dismissed (on jurisdictional grounds), ruled that President Obama, born in the United States, “... became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”233 In Illinois, after a formal hearing, the elections board ruled that President Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.”234 Citing to the 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark,235 in which the Supreme Court found over 100 years ago that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are “natural born” citizens, a circuit court in Maryland noted that “the issue of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion,” and held that President Obama is eligible to run for President in Maryland.236 A federal court in Virginia, similarly citing to Wong Kim Ark, found: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. ... Moreover, ‘those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ... have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding ... and thus eligible for the presidency.’”237
Courts have also specifically considered and found to be “without merit” and devoid of “any legal authority” the argument that “natural born” citizenship in the United States requires that one must at the time of birth have parents who are both United States citizens themselves. In New Jersey, for example, in a decision upheld on appeal, the court explained: “... [T]he status of ‘natural born Citizen’ for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. ... The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”238 A court in Florida also held that: “... [P]ersons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”239 In New York, a court explained that “anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.”240 Similarly, the Vermont Superior Court, citing to Supreme Court and state court precedents, held: “The common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: ‘that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.’”241
Conclusion
The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, those who are not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline have been well settled in judicial decisions in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.
The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.242
The technical constitutional meaning (influenced by the corpus of British law, both common law and long-standing statutory law), as well as the meaning of the term in both the general legal lexicon and its common usage, appear to have converged on a seeming consensus that “natural born” means having a particular attribute or nature “at birth,” as opposed to subsequently obtaining such attribute.
Are you seriously arguing that if a man is in the U.S. military stationed abroad and he brings his wife to live with him, that their child is not a U.S. citizen because of the place of birth?
Here’s your “silly birther” scenario- KGB agent sneak into the country, have a child, go back to Russia with the child, raise the child to be a Manchurian candidate; come back to the US when he’s age-eligible and he runs as the international candidate in the Democrat primary. Born of illegal parents, spent one day in America… You think he is a natural-born citizen. Silly you.
If only the Constitution and the Judicial branch had never existed you miigt have an argument, but they did, and you don't.
A child born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, i.e., subject to its laws, is a citizen of the United States at birth. The citizenship of either or both does not matter. Every child who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is a natural born U.S. citizen. If you do not like the Constitution, seek an amendment.
Article 2: "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 secret codicil about parentage cannot be found.
A natural born citizen of the United States does not lose his citizenship because his parents take him to another country. Silly you.
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
The record in this case is wholly lacking in any showing of intent, actual or presumptive, on the part of appellee at any time to abandon American citizenship and, lacking such showing, what was said by Attorney General Pierrepont in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op. Attys. Gen. 15, is true here, that:"There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States * * *."
Like opinions were expressed by Secretary Olney on May 29, 1896, in a letter to Mr. Materne, by Secretary Frelinghuysen in 1882, and by Mr. Blaine in 1892. These and many other instances of the application of the rule to a state of facts like those in the present case are to be found in Moore's Digest of International Law, Vol. 3, p. 532, et seq. And the rule is summarized in the statement of Mr. Uhl, acting Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. Rudolph of May 22, 1895, as follows:
"* * * no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."
...and Chester Arthur hid that fact because he knew that a Natural Born Citizen, as indicated in the qualifications for president requires both jus sanguinis and jus soli.
Maybe you should have researched that nonsense beyond just repeating what another uninformed birther made up out of whole cloth. Let us review how hidden the citizenship of William Arthur really was.
Of course, the naturalization of William Arthur was public record since 1843. William Arthur's ctizenship was published in Russia in 1881, in Novoe Vremya, and translated and published in the New York Herald, the largest circulation daily in the United States. The essence of it was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1881. "Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner," was published in the New York Times, Dec. 22, 1880. And, of course, Arthur's citizenship was the subject of a book published in 1884 while Arthur was still in office, "How a British Subject Became President of the United States," by A.P. Hinman. It was not that nobody knew. It was that nobody cared about your crackpot theory then any more than they do now.
Hinman was hired by the Democrat party to dig dirt on Arthur prior to his assuming office. Dig, dig, dig led to his book. As the book notes, "Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1884, by A. P. Hinman, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C."
As the 1884 Hinman biography of William Arthur shows, William Arthur did not emigrate from Ireland to the United States, but to Canada, and it was in Canada where he met Chester Arthur's mother. They married in Canada. As Chester Arthur's mother was a United States citizen, any challenge to the citizenship of Chester Arthur had to rely on his father not being a United States citizen at the time of birth.
https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/MysteryOfChester.pdf
The Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society, , August 1970, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4, The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace, by Thomas C. Reeves.
In short, while Hinman's book is a very clever attempt to destroy a politician, when read by a careful historian it also sheds much light on the earty history of our least known President and his family.Hinman reveals himself only as an anti-Arthur Republican. He had an extraordinary knowledge of the darker side of Arthur's early dealings in politics, calling attention in the early pages of the book to Arthur's bargains with Boss Tweed and to his close friendship with the corrupt Tom Murphy. He also was not above an occasional libel, such as the charge that Arthur left the New York Custom House in 1878 with a personal fortune of $3,000,000.26 Of course, the main thrust of Hinman's effort was the story of Chester Arthur's alleged Canadian birth.
So, Hinman wrote hit pieces about Arthur as early as 1881 and published a thoroughly researched book in 1884, with the purpose of destroying Arthur, and according to birther lore, everybody knew of the two parent citizenship requirement, but neither Hinman nor the Democrat party ever discovered that Arthur's father was an Irish citizen who was naturalized in New York in 1846.
Belief that Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester Arthur's birth is a prerequisite for any theory that he was not born a U.S. citizen.
William Arthur emigrated from County Antrim to Canada, and eventually to the United States after he married an American, and probably sounded like the Reverend Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, yet nobody thought to inquire if his public figure preacher father had been naturalized, nor did anyone check the public record of William Arthur's naturalization. And nobody noticed a Democrat operative wrote newspaper articles and a book about the Irish citizenship of William Arthur. Even in Russia, they ran the story. It ran in the largest circulation daily newspaper in the United States. But nobody found out because Chester Arthur hid the fact.
A forgery based upon a document posted on DailyKos with the name “Ima Forgery”.
The Daily Kos, how impressive. It is all debunked, but for hilarity's sake assume arguendo that it is true that the birth certificate was declared by an expert to be a forgery. Take it to court. Oh wait. Article 4, Section 1 provides that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each such state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial proceedings of every state. And Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof."
Congress did provide by law how a state proves a state document. The custodian of the record makes a copy and affixes the official state seal and his signature. And then it shall, it muist, be honored in every court in every state in the nation. No court may challenge the authenticity of the certified proved record or document of a state.
All such ridiculous attempts at proving forgery were debunked by actual experts.
I find the observation made by Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), that “...[B]irth and allegiance go together”... to be wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion and the Court is entitled to its opinion. Theirs is the opinion that matters.
thansk i am stupid farmer
i haven`t the slightest idea. I am a stupid farmer.
Andy Jackson`s parents were born in Ireland.
Andrew Jackson and all of his predecessors had non-citizen parents. They were eligible for the presidency because they were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their father could have been the commanding general of the British forces and they still would have been eligible.
04/20/2012
Docket #48
SUMMARY ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S FEES: granting 39 Motion for Compensation. On April 17, 2012, I heard oral argument in this matter. For the reasons stated on the record, and pursuant to the order of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the motion of Appellee Old Carco Liquidation Trust is timely. I fix the fees owed by Appellant's counsel, Pidgeon & Donofrio GP, at $127,987.50. The Clerk shall enter judgment in that amount against Pidgeon & Donofrio GP and in favor of Old Carco Liquidation Trust. The Clerk shall mark the motion (Doc. No. 39) terminated and close the docket. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 4/20/2012) (jfe) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
#1 - The Preamble of the Constitution defines a natural born Citizen.
The Preamble does no such thing as define Natural Born Citizen, and even if it did, the Preamble is not an operational part of the Constitution. It was a stylistic introduction, added by the committee on style. It is a legal nothing burger.
The U.S. Constitution: PreambleThe preamble sets the stage for the Constitution. It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.
The Constitution is the Articles and Amendments thereto.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
Just a few of the glaring examples of the Constitution protecting rights beyond just the citizenry, Amendment 5 starts, "No person...." Amendment 14 starts, "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." These do not relate to citizens but persons. They are inclusive of non-citizens.
As to my treatment before the courts, it is an obvious example of early law-fare threats at its finest.
This was in 2010, before anyone had ever heard of lawfare. On the merits, it was complete, total birther bullcrap and no court would buy what you tried to sell. It is as big a load of crap repeated now, as it was then. The birther argument did not fail 381 times in a row because of some judicial lawfare, it failed 381 times because the litigation was ridiculous.
By the way, you did not report that Atty Mario Apuzzo (now deceased) challenged the 3rd Circuit on their threat of damages in an extensive and thorough answer to the court as to why the appeal was not frivolous and by his requesting a public hearing on their threats to prove they were wrong, per his rights under the rules of the court, and the 3rd Circuit judges quietly backed off dropped that idea of theirs to sanction him. The courts did not want any light on the issue from a public hearing on the various issues in play. Thus, Atty Apuzzo was not sanctioned. The 3rd Circuit ducked on that law-fare attempt of theirs to scare off Atty Apuzzo. It did not work.
What a load of crap. The 3rd Circuit said the Orlyesque 95-page pile of fish wrap contained, "inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court's opinion which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied." And it concluded, "based on Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause." Apuzzo pleaded he tried really hard, and the Court chose not to fine him for his frivolous filing that was inaccurate on the law, not for his lack of trying, but for his inability to get it right despite trying. His failed efforts on the merits were still unpersuasive.
And Obama was not constitutionally a natural born Citizen of the United States and the courts were afraid to take him on as both major political parties were in on the fix to abrogate the nbC term in the 2008 election cycle.
And 381 times the courts across the fruited plain ruled upon birther blather and found it worthless.
And from there as you OBOTs know so we were on to the U.S. Supreme Court, who under the compromised leadership of Chief Justice Roberts as the history of my and other cases brought on the nbC issue, it has evaded the issue. Justice Thomas told us that in a Congressional hearing. From top to bottom the federal court system used every tactic at their disposal to not take a case and try it on the merits. Why? Because they new the answer. And Obama was not constitutionally a natural born Citizen of the United States and the courts were afraid to take him on as both major political parties were in on the fix to abrogate the nbC term in the 2008 election cycle. See:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0058410031629810ae268
Now there is a citation to authority if ever I saw one. Another pile of crap by yourself. That link indicating it is a book is real good work for a blogpost that fits nicely on five pages. It is barely readable at the provided link. It is better at puzo1.
By your lunatic nonsense, President Arthur was not a natural born citizen. There have been plenty of opportunities for the false birther blather requirement of two citizen parents to have been invoked. There is no American century in which a candidate without two citizen parents did not run for President or Vice-President. None has ever been disqualified based on birther blather.
Chester Arthur, 1881, Republican Vice President and later President. Arthur was born to an British subject, Irish citizen father.Charles Evans Hughes, 1916 Republican nominee, lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Hughes' father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen.
Barack Obama, 2009, 2013 Democrat President. Born to a Kenyan father. Determined by court to be a natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz, 2016 Republican candidate. Born in Canada to a Cuban father. Determined by court to be a natural born citizen of the United States.
Bobby Jindal, 2016, Republican candidate, born in the United States to two Indian parents.
Marco Rubio, 2016, Republican candidate, born in the United States to two Cuban parents.
Kamala Harris, 2020, Democrat Vice President. Born in the United States to two foreign nationals.
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley, 2024 Republican candidate, born in the United States to two foreign nationals.
Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Republican candidate, born in the United States to two foreign nationals.
You forgot to give a citation to the transcript of Justice Thomas telling you whatever in a congressional hearing. A hearing on what? When? Maybe a link to the Congressional Record.
Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009) aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010).
Kerchner v. Obama, No. 85 MD 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot)
You never had a case taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. You had one case where cert was denied.
So, where are the examples of the Constitution protecting JUST the citizenry? It's in the eligibility clauses for the House and the Senate, and more exclusively, for the President; it's in the privileges and immunities clause; and it's in the voting rights amendments.
I quote the Preamble because I see it as a statement of declared intent by the Framers of the Constitution.
I read it as the Framers setting up the who and why of the Constitution. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of mindset by the people who made the law.
In the same vein, I quoted the passage by Thomas Paine from two years later.
To me, the dispute is really about whether the phrase "natural born Citizen" was a term-of-art that was commonly understood at the time and therefore needed no further definition in the Constitution. Since it wasn't defined explicitly in the Constitution, we're still debating it 237 years later.
As a term-of-art, I point to Paine's chapter in The Rights of Man where he seems to be describing the Presidency as being limited to people who are not "foreigners" or "half a foreigner," but must have a "full natural or political connection with the country." Would you agree that "half a foreigner," as Paine put it, was a child of one non-citizen parent, and Paine was indicating that such a child could not be President?
Since that was a contemporaneous writing about the Constitution and the Presidency, I suggest that it was Paine's attempt to document the term-of-art as it was commonly understood at the time by comparing and contrasting it to European leaders.
That's why I started with the Preamble, to get into the minds of the Framers to glean their intent. Their intent was the "secure... liberty... to themselves and their posterity." That means something. That means that the Framers offered this Constitution to protect the national identity of the citizens of the United States and their future children.
Future aliens can become citizens (become We the People), and then their offspring (their posterity) can grow up to become President one day. That's what John Jay wrote in his letter to Washington, that's what Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man, and that's what the Framers wrote in the Preamble to the Constitution.
-PJ
So, where are the examples of the Constitution protecting JUST the citizenry? It's in the eligibility clauses for the House and the Senate, and more exclusively, for the President; it's in the privileges and immunities clause; and it's in the voting rights amendments.
These provisions provide a mixed bag of things related to citizens or persons.
Art. 1, Sec. 2: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."
Art. 1, Sec. 3: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
Art. 2, Sec. 1: "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."
Art. 4, Sec 2.:
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Amdt. 19: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amdt. 26: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."
The requirements for Representatives and Senators to be 7 or 9 years a citizen explicitly allows alien born, naturalized citizens to office. The requirements for President requires that one be born a United States citizen, and prohibits alien born, naturalized citizens from attaining that office.
For Senators and Representatives, it rather strangely states they shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
Art. 4, Sec. 2 shows one clause pertaining to citizens and two clauses pertaining to persons.
Amdt. 19 did not give women the right to vote. Where men are enfranchised, women must equally be enfranchised.
Amdt. 26 requires that citizens aged at least 18 years, but less than 21 years, must be enfranchised equally with those citizens age 21 or over.
I quote the Preamble because I see it as a statement of declared intent by the Framers of the Constitution. I read it as the Framers setting up the who and why of the Constitution. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of mindset by the people who made the law.
I note that the Preamble is not the law, and is not the work of the Framers. When submitting their agreed upon Articles of the proposed Constitution, the Framers submitted it to a Committee on Style to clean it up for style, withoout substantive change to meaning. It was the Committee on Style who decided it could use a Preamble. The Committee, not the Framers who created the Articles, wrote and added the Preamble to serve as an introduction for the Constitution Articles. So, the Preamble does not express the mindset of the Framers, but of the Committee on Style regarding what the Framers did.
In the same vein, I quoted the passage by Thomas Paine from two years later.
Nobody ratified the philosophy of Thomas Paine. His philosophical works are not the expressed will of anyone but Thomas Paine.
To me, the dispute is really about whether the phrase "natural born Citizen" was a term-of-art that was commonly understood at the time and therefore needed no further definition in the Constitution. Since it wasn't defined explicitly in the Constitution, we're still debating it 237 years later.
We are not really debating it at all. It has been settled law for centuries. The Constitution was emphatically written in the language of the English common law, and it is a matter of historical fact that each of the original states adopted the common law system for their state. The only state to ever not do so is Louisiana whose state legal system was derived from when it was a French colony.
As a term-of-art, I point to Paine's chapter in The Rights of Man where he seems to be describing the Presidency as being limited to people who are not "foreigners" or "half a foreigner," but must have a "full natural or political connection with the country." Would you agree that "half a foreigner," as Paine put it, was a child of one non-citizen parent, and Paine was indicating that such a child could not be President?
As a term or art under the English common law which had been in effect in all thirteen colonies, and which was carried forth into the independent states, natural born meant precisely the same after independence as it did before. Changing subject to citizen effected no change to the term natural born. In either case, the People owed allegiance to the sovereign. The People of a monarchy owe their allegiance to the monarch who is their sovereign. The People of the states were vested with the sovereignty of the political community called a state. They owed their allegiance to their collective political community, not to a singular monarch.
There is no such thing as "half a foreigner" which implies the existence of "half a citizen." One is either a citizen or one is not. Being "half a foreigner" is akin to being half pregnant.
Whatever Paine may have indicated, or appeared to have indicated, is irrelevant. Nobody ratified the mutterings of Paine as part of the Constitution, and nobody adopted his writings as the statute law of the United States.
Since that was a contemporaneous writing about the Constitution and the Presidency, I suggest that it was Paine's attempt to document the term-of-art as it was commonly understood at the time by comparing and contrasting it to European leaders.
Thomas Paine: “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
The world is not my country. My country has borders, even if the current administration makes believe the world is my country.
thomaspaine.org/pages/resources/did-thomas-paine-support-the-u-s-constitution.html
Did Thomas Paine support the U.S. Constitution?He favored the idea of the Constitution to establish the government (it was his idea in 1783), but he strongly argued against the conservative and elitist nature of it. He attacked two major areas: a single executive, and a two-body legislature, one being smaller and more powerful than the other. He favored only a representative legislative body based on increased suffrage not based on property, which should be divided into two, then have separate votes taken and combine the total. He scoffed at the idea that 50 privileged men could defeat the will of the hundreds of other legislators. He also believed that the real strength of the Constitution lay in the ability to rewrite it at the will of the people. So he was no originalist. (See “Constitutional Reform” under Chronology). Paine was a founder of the modern concept of constitutions, where the people, not the government, create a constitution from which the government if formed. The government should have no role in the creation or amendment of the constitution. This concept is rarely followed, which has gutted the concept.
Thomas Paine played no role in the Declaration of Independence and did not attend the Constitutional Convention, instead choosing to go to France.
That's why I started with the Preamble, to get into the minds of the Framers to glean their intent. Their intent was the "secure... liberty... to themselves and their posterity." That means something. That means that the Framers offered this Constitution to protect the national identity of the citizens of the United States and their future children.
The intent of the Framers, or the prevailing Federalists, was to infuse and centralize more power in the government. The Articles of Confederation worked too well at hamstringing the power of the Federal government. The post civil war Amendments were another power grab.
Future aliens can become citizens (become We the People), and then their offspring (their posterity) can grow up to become President one day. That's what John Jay wrote in his letter to Washington, that's what Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man, and that's what the Framers wrote in the Preamble to the Constitution.
All people born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. That is the organic law of the United States. A child born in an immigration detention center of two illegal aliens awaiting deportation is a natural born United States citizen at birth. The Senate debates on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment make clear that this was the deliberate intent of the citizenship clause. It may be wise to revisit that and change it, but that has not been done.
John Jay styled his term as natural born citizen, underscoring the word born for emphasis. Say the term with emphasis as Jay applied and the intended meaning attaches.
The Framers wrote nothing in the Preamble as they did not write it. Neither did the Committee on Style insert the imaginary content in the Preamble.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble does not even pretend to say a mumbling word about citizenship or two citizen parents, or natural born citizens, or naturalized citizens, or half-foreign citizens. For decades, alien white Europeans came to the United States and had children without being naturalized. Their children were always considered to be born United States citizens. The matter arose in the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment. It was observed that a large part of the German population of Pennsylvania would not be citizens had the children born of aliens been considered alien born.
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.