Antidualnationalism
"even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."
So argues Leo C. Donofrio, whose pending case in the United States Supreme Court seeks to have Barack Obama disqualified on the grounds that he is not a natural born citizen. According to Donofrio's novel reasoning, if one parent of a baby born in the United States is not a United States citizen, that child is not a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution and can never be president.
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;
That's it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and all other "Citizens". And that's why it's important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn't consider themselves to have been "natural born Citizens" due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

I was wondering what the fallback position of the Birth Certificate Truthers would be if for some reason they received what they've been demanding -- hospital records showing exactly where Barack Obama was born.

So now we know!

There are no defeats and no dead ends for true conspiracy theorists, and it seems the Birth Certificate Truthers are no exception.

All roads lead to new conspiracies.

However, if this becomes their new position, I'm not sure it would be fair to call them Birth Certificate Truthers anymore.

Perhaps Natural Born Anti Dual Nationalist Truthers.

I think the Truthers ought to look into the strange case of President Chester Arthur, whose birth to an Irish father who apparently moved here from Canada was not only undocumented, but never was officially proven to have taken place in the United States:

Chester Alan Arthur was the son of Irish born preacher William Arthur and Vermont born Malvina Stone Arthur. Most official references list him as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, Arthur sometimes claimed to have been born in 1830 (the date is on his grave inscription and occurs in some reference works). His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Quebec, Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 80 miles (129 km) north of the U.S. border. There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. Given a lack of official documentation and the seeming confusion about the year of Arthur's birth, historians have been unable to rule this possibility out. If Arthur had been born in Canada, he might not have been a "natural-born citizen" and might therefore have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president.[citation needed] Some of his opponents circulated the Canada rumor during the 1880 election, but they could not prove it, and no proof has emerged since.
Not to be an alarmist, but what if the Arthur administration was unconstitutional?

What then?

MORE: According to some people, birth in Hawaii does not constitute birth in the United States, because Hawaii is not legally part of the United States!

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

If you consider the history and believe that Hawaii is not legally a part of the United States, as many do, then one might ask, is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States?

One could even make the argument that being born in Hawaii, he's a Hawaiian national! I believe the most compelling legal analysis based on Hawaiian kingdom and international law and precedent, is that the Hawaiian national population today is comprised of descendants of Hawaiian subjects and those foreigners who were born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1898....

Now there's a thought!

Maybe the Truthers can get on board the Hawaiian nationalist movement.

posted by Eric on 12.05.08 at 11:40 PM










Comments

Interesting article on your topic by Leo Donofrio. Not justification for the present situation I think.

“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
Posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
December 5, 2008 - 5:34 am

This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.

Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 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;

JAMES BUCHANAN

The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.

His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.

Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

ANDREW JOHNSON

Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:

Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.

[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

WOODROW WILSON

Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.

Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,

“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]

This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.

HERBERT HOOVER

Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.

So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.

CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

Kirk Zimmer   ·  December 6, 2008 1:40 AM

Interesting. Thanks! However, I think the idea that "natural born citizen" means that both parents have to be US citizens is specious.

Anyone born in the United States to an American citizen mother is a natural born citizen.

Eric Scheie   ·  December 6, 2008 2:11 AM

Îãðîìíîå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå ñïàñèáî÷êè !

RobertHQ   ·  December 6, 2008 6:35 AM

Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: Albeit the Court is loathe to enter this dispute, it now has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit he may be a “citizen”) .

Ted   ·  December 6, 2008 7:13 AM

Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: Albeit the Court is loathe to enter this dispute, it now has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit he may be a “citizen”) .

Ted   ·  December 6, 2008 7:13 AM

SORRY FOR THE DUPLICATE, REVISED Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).

Ted   ·  December 6, 2008 8:00 AM

Êëàññíî, âåùü ïîëåçíàÿ!

BFLarry   ·  December 6, 2008 11:07 AM

BFLarry and RobertHQ:

Don't think youse guys are "natural born" either.

Kirk   ·  December 6, 2008 12:00 PM

Íå çà÷åò!

QVGregorio   ·  December 6, 2008 3:43 PM

Greetings:

I think your article, in an effort to diminish the "Natural Born Citizen" concerns, treats the "dual citizenship" situation too casually.

Not long ago, there was an item on one of the entertainment news programs about a model who was upset by some country refusing to grant her a third concurrent citizenship.

Apparently, this whole "dual citizenship" situation is not something that has been evauated legally as a constitutional issue.

If we accept as valid the allegiance concerns of the founders of our republic, should there not also be concerns about the multiple citizenships that seem to be proliferating within both our immigrants and our multinational "elites".

Today, the constitutional aspect may not be clear, but, in the New Testament, someone mentioned something about, "No man can serve two masters..."


11B40   ·  December 6, 2008 7:12 PM

In 1898, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark came before the Supreme Court. Wong was born around 1870 in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrant parents. In 1894, he made a trip to China, but when he tried to return to the US the following year, he was not allowed to re-enter, on the grounds that he was not a US citizen.

The Court decided 6-2 that Wong was a US citizen, even though his parents were not.

To quote Wikipedia:

"....under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

My truther conspiracy theory is that Obama was born in Hawaii, but not in 1961 - he was actually born in 1893, before the islands became US protectorates, long before Hawaiians printed birth certificates. Obama - aided and abetted by the media - cleverly concealed the fact that he is 115 years old so as not to allow McCain to run as the "youth" candidate. And why doesn't Obama look like someone who is more than a century old? Well, don't you find it significant that he has never mentioned the name "Dorian Gray" in public?

coriolan   ·  December 6, 2008 10:33 PM

In 1898, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark came before the Supreme Court. Wong was born around 1870 in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrant parents. In 1894, he made a trip to China, but when he tried to return to the US the following year, he was not allowed to re-enter, on the grounds that he was not a US citizen.

The Court decided 6-2 that Wong was a US citizen, even though his parents were not.

To quote Wikipedia:

"....under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

My truther conspiracy theory is that Obama was born in Hawaii, but not in 1961 - he was actually born in 1893, before the islands became US protectorates, long before Hawaiians printed birth certificates. Obama - aided and abetted by the media - cleverly concealed the fact that he is 115 years old so as not to allow McCain to run as the "youth" candidate. And why doesn't Obama look like someone who is more than a century old? Well, don't you find it significant that he has never mentioned the name "Dorian Gray" in public?

coriolan   ·  December 6, 2008 10:33 PM

The date Obama was born is not nearly as important as the place. I suspect it was Mars. Can't you see the resemblance? Look at the ears:
http://www.crazyabouttv.com/myfavoritemartian.html

Donna B.   ·  December 7, 2008 2:32 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits