PDA

View Full Version : Define "Natural Born Citizen"




Zera
12-09-2008, 06:25 PM
All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.

dannno
12-09-2008, 06:28 PM
I thought his Grandma and the Ambassador to Kenya both said he was born in Kenya :confused:

Everybody else seems to be basing their opinion off a certificate of birth from Hawaii, which doesn't even necessitate that he was born in the state of Hawaii.

Zera
12-09-2008, 06:30 PM
I thought his Grandma and the Ambassador to Kenya both said he was born in Kenya :confused:

I also heard that he wasn't a citizen because he was also apparently an Indonesian citizen. I dunno, the story changes every week. I guess some people REALLY prefer the failure of McCain over the failure of Obama, which seems funny since apparently O = W, so the failure would really be the same.

nate895
12-09-2008, 06:34 PM
In order to be a natural born citizen, you must:

a) born in the United States to at least one person who is here on a permanent basis (or illegally, I mean work releases, educational visas, etc. don't count)

or b) born to two United States citizens abroad (or single mother)

a) or b) and c) never relinquish it, and by law if you obtain citizenship of another country after you obtain US citizenship, you are no longer a citizen.

Zera
12-09-2008, 06:36 PM
In order to be a natural born citizen, you must:

a) born in the United States to at least one person who is here on a permanent basis (or illegally, I mean work releases, educational visas, etc. don't count)

and b) never relinquish it, and by law if you obtain citizenship of another country after you obtain US citizenship, you are no longer a citizen.

I've never looked into b), but I've also never heard of that.

dannno
12-09-2008, 06:37 PM
I also heard that he wasn't a citizen because he was also apparently an Indonesian citizen. I dunno, the story changes every week.

No, that's the second part of Berg's lawsuit. His lawsuit claims that Obama can't be President on two different grounds. Both must be proven false for Obama to be President. It's like splitting your hand of double aces in Blackjack.



I guess some people REALLY prefer the failure of McCain over the failure of Obama, which seems funny since apparently O = W, so the failure would really be the same.

Hmm, I've always sort of half-preferred the failure of Obama over McCain, but that hasn't really been an issue here. The issue is are we going to take the constitution seriously or not? Are we going to let them pull another one over on us or are we going to show the sheep that the systems of control are corrupt?

Personally, I've been following this since before the election. I wanted Obama to come out and clear everything up before the election. I feel like TPTB can now remove Obama at any time and put in someone who wasn't elected. Getting this story out is all apart of waking people up. Let me explain.. Democrats say that if Obama isn't a citizen, then the Republicans would have come after him during the election, so anybody who believes this must be a nutcase. Once they realize that the Republican elites were apart of the plot to get Obama elected, then we have a larger group of people who realize that Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, two management teams bidding for CEO of Slavery Inc.

slothman
12-09-2008, 06:41 PM
If you are born in US soil then, via the 14th amendment, you are natural born.
If you are born according to laws you might also be natural born.
Right now I only know that if you have at least 1 parent, though they don't have to be natural born, you are also natural.

bojo68
12-09-2008, 06:47 PM
All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.

Well, if you do a litle research into US history, you'll find that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are 2 separate things, and it's been this way since 1789. If you bone up on British law, you'll find that their equivalent of citizenship is referred to as a "subject", because it's a monarchy. Any offspring of british subjects citizenship derives from the father according to british law at the time. So, at birth, his mother's citizenship was irrelevant, especially in this case as because the way US law read at the time was a parent had to be over 14, and lived in the US for 5 yrs after that point, which his mother was to young to do, so that also would have prevented him being a natural born citizen if his father being british hadn't. Of course, all of that is immaterial as when he enrolled in school in India, the act of enrolling in that school made him a Indian citizen. There's never been any record of him having relinquishing his Indian citizenship,(he claims it expired all by itself) or making any effort to become a US citizen. In the 80's, he went to Pakistan, off limits to anyone with a US passport at the time.
There are still 2 cases in front of the supremes on this issue, and they've already heard most of the arguments in one of them, and still scheduled a conference.
So there you have about 5 reasons that would prevent Obama from becoming president, before the supreme court acts, and it will, soon.

BeFranklin
12-09-2008, 06:49 PM
To be a citizen by where you are born is from the serf days, the idea that you owed alliegence to the king and was his property. To be a freeman, you inheritied it. The former is Jus Soli, the later is Jus Sanguinis or by the blood or parentage and is older and goes back to the days of the Roman Republic. Citizenship by inheritance is natural, and does not need a government to operate to tell you its right.

English law had *BOTH* forms of citizenship at birth. One more applicable to serfs, the others used for the king, ambassaders, nobility and peers, etc. By the time of founding of this country, in common law the long established definition of natural born was to be born in the country or by a father if there was a conflict of citizenship, such as the child was born oversees.

The concept is actually important to understand who we are, and that the people are suppose to be sovereign, and government officals are suppose to be public servants.

The following may explain this better. The linked law article review also goes over some of the points nicely - only briefly quoted below:




By inheritance is how clans, tribes, and people *naturally* form. Boundaries are artifically contrived artifacts created by governments. If citizenship was determined under natural law by boundaries, the governmnet would be creating the people. But the people created the government, and existed before it.


I found an article on Michigan Law Review that in the middle of it reviews everything I have been saying on this forum that I think might be useful to look at. It asks every question except one, which I'll follow up on after qouting it. The principles behind Obama's elibility are much deeper than who should be president, they involve who is a citizen, if the citizens are free or are they subjects, and if the citizens create the government or the government determines the citizenry.

But even so, letters and lawsuits following this line of reasoning are a lot shorter than allegations about Obama's place of birth, because the burden of proof is no longer yours, but Obama's - at the end of this post I give an example of just how short it is. The post is long because I want to show that some of the principles behind all this are important.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm

First, on citizens and subjects the review says:
"The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between “citizens” and “subjects.” For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates “citizens” of the several states from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people."

Second, the review article notes 'the first great constitutinal case decided after the ratification of the Constition,' i.e. Chisholm v. Georgia, with the opinions of Chief Justice John Jay that (quoted a little more fuller than the michagan law review) “At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty” followed by Justice James Wilson opinions on the difference between citizen and subjects.

There is a wide difference between the concept of sovereign citizenry as expressed by this supreme court case and subjects, and the issue relates to citizenship being determined by Jus Solis - or where you are born,or Jus Sanguinis, or parentage.

This last quote from the above review article may make the point clearer: "Those leaned in English law, however, understood another aspect of the concept of “natural born subject.” Children of the sovereign were natural born subjects wherever their birth occurred. The issue of the king owed a natural obligation to their father; [...] But in republican theory the people are sovereign, suggesting that the republican conception of natural born citizens would naturally treat the children of citizen-sovereigns as equivalent to the children of a monarchical sovereign or king."

Jus Solis is derived directly from the english concept of subjecthood, and serfs, that you owe your alligence to the king because you were on his 'property'. Jus Sanguinis is how the kings passed on their citizenship by parentage as noted above as did freemen, as I noted previosly quoting the first part of the Magna Carta to demonstrate it.

This is how the founders understood these concepts, as seen by the previous quotes from blackstone, the magna carta, jefferson, and the supreme court case noted above. Natural born did not mean what most people are qouting, which is the 14th amendment. Insofar as it cuts right at the heart of the issue of a free society, Not mere citizens, but *sovereign citizens* versus subjecthood, it seems somewhat vital.

We share the same common law heritage with Britain, and for the same legal principles that made Obama a natural born British citizen at birth makes him at the very same time not a natural born citizen here. In which case, I am writing a very short letter decrying this - much shorter than questions on where he was born, because he needs to prove everything himself.

Dear Sirs,
Obama was a British Citizen at Birth. He is not a national born citizen here. Here is the documentation showing he was a British Citizen at birth. Obama has never disputed this, showing that he was an American citizen at birth.

Since he is not eligible to be president under the constitution, please remove him post haste.

Zera
12-09-2008, 06:50 PM
Well, if you do a litle research into US history, you'll find that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are 2 separate things, and it's been this way since 1789. If you bone up on British law, you'll find that their equivalent of citizenship is referred to as a "subject", because it's a monarchy. Any offspring of british subjects citizenship derives from the father according to british law at the time. So, at birth, his mother's citizenship was irrelevant, especially in this case as because the way US law read at the time was a parent had to be over 14, and lived in the US for 5 yrs after that point, which his mother was to young to do, so that also would have prevented him being a natural born citizen if his father being british hadn't. Of course, all of that is immaterial as when he enrolled in school in India, the act of enrolling in that school made him a Indian citizen. There's never been any record of him having relinquishing his Indian citizenship,(he claims it expired all by itself) or making any effort to become a US citizen. In the 80's, he went to Pakistan, off limits to anyone with a US passport at the time.
There are still 2 cases in front of the supremes on this issue, and they've already heard most of the arguments in one of them, and still scheduled a conference.
So there you have about 5 reasons that would prevent Obama from becoming president, before the supreme court acts, and it will, soon.

...

Like I said, something new every week.

BeFranklin
12-09-2008, 06:52 PM
This is the preamble to the Magna Carta, one of the great articles of freedom in our legal history and part of our common law heritage. Note that the rights of free men go by parentage to their heirs:

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

bojo68
12-09-2008, 06:54 PM
If you are born in US soil then, via the 14th amendment, you are natural born.
If you are born according to laws you might also be natural born.
Right now I only know that if you have at least 1 parent, though they don't have to be natural born, you are also natural.

the 14th amendment does not make anybody a "natural born" citizen. Natural born was in use WAY before the 14th came along, and the 14th didn't change the meaning of everything preceding it.

dannno
12-09-2008, 06:59 PM
...

Like I said, something new every week.

This is why I wish the courts would take a look at this rather than passing it around the table like a hot potato made of glowing uranium.

BeFranklin
12-09-2008, 06:59 PM
This are some quotes from Blackstone, one of the more used commentaries at the time of the writing of the Constitution and quoted in the federalist papers several times. This is how the framers understood the word natural born, and intent and that time is the only thing relevant to the discussion:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html


When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

And several more like it. The statues being talked about go back to the 1300-1500s, and were well part of the legal framework before the founding of this country.

That is what the founders understood natural born to mean. To be born inside the country and of parents who are citizens. It was a mixture of the two concepts of citizenships. How the king passed on his citizenship to his children, no matter where they were born, is also more of the same concept, and most applicable to a nation whose citizens are sovereigns.

BeFranklin
12-09-2008, 07:01 PM
This is why I wish the courts would take a look at this rather than passing it around the table like a hot potato made of glowing uranium.

Viva la America!

bojo68
12-09-2008, 07:27 PM
...

Like I said, something new every week.

The Berg case has been going on since midsummer, the Donofrio/Wrotonoski cases for over a month, and we haven't even talked about Keyes yet. While there are new events in the cases, sometimes daily, to contend that this is all new is a little far fetched.

bojo68
12-09-2008, 07:29 PM
BeFranklin, not a bad job on a definition for "natural born citizen"!:)

mrsat_98
12-10-2008, 01:00 AM
This is why I wish the courts would take a look at this rather than passing it around the table like a hot potato made of glowing uranium.

This entire situation is really a can of worms for the court. To determine whether or not Obama is qualified to be president the court will have to state what is and what is not a natural born "C"itizen. If you check out Ex Parte Frank Knowles 5 cal 300 you will find that prior to the 14 th amendment there was technicially no such thing as a United States Citizen. In actuallity the People refered to in the preamble to the consitution where state "C"itizens and they where the soverigns of the country Chilsom vs Georgia a good place for more information on this is www.state-citizen.org or http://www.supremelaw.org/

If you look at this long enough you will come to the conclusion that there are two classes of citizenship in the u.S. of A. or in more simple terms the people and the slaves that where allegeldy freed after the civil war. they where most black or negro ( look up the definition of negro in Blacks law dictionary it means slave) andway the freed slaves are subjects under the 14th that cannot dispute the validity of the public debt Art 14 clause 4 go ahead and look it in the constitution the 14th amendment.


SO why is this a can of worms for the court. they will have to explain all this and the governments entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

The people , state "C"itizens, freeman, sovereign "C"itizens are all the same thing and a united states citizen is a subject, slave, second class citizen that can't be president.

Also the former dont have to pay income tax, See " The Federal Zone" at supremelawfirm.org or have driver's licenses, license plates inspection stickers etc. see www.state-citizen.org Just for fun check out Gordan vs Smith Arkansas supreme Court holding inspection stickers unconstitutional in 1937 maybe 8.


In a nutshell these non compus mentis litigators get it right the USSC will have to explain the difference then Bush wasn't natural born, clinton wasn't, reagan wasn't.

Also if one throughly gets a grip on the difference between a 14th amendment slave and a Natrual Born "C"itizen ( the people ) the looks into the national emergency that got publicity on March 9. 1933. On discovers that the 14th amendment citizen is effectively the enemy of the government (US) on a military reservation ( 4 usc 110(d)&(e)) see also jurisdiction over federal areas within the states. I losely refer to the governemt (us) as created under the constitution when in reality it is a fictious entity that got created as a result of several different reorganizations of the uS of A since the civil war. under bankruptcy

In a nutshell there is no United States ( the republic) as we would like to know it. It was foreclosed on prior to most of us being born. Just no one bothered to tell anyone or teach us after the fact. Many of the other posts in this thread or actually along the same lines as I am trying to convey. I seriously doubt if there has been a pres. since FDR thats was actually natural born the rest have waived that status to become 14th amendment citizens, subject, slaves. Another good place to see the difference between a state "C"itizen i.e. natural born Citizen and a united states "c"itizen is in the various laws prohibiting distribution of communist propaganda such as Louisiana Revised Statues 14:390 & 14:358 et. seq.


Hopefully my capitialization of "C"itizen and "c"itizen has not fallen on deaf ears or blind eyes one is a common noun and the other is a proper noun and it is distinguishable in the original copies of the constitution the two are as differnet as night and day.


Hopefully this helped clear this misconception up a little. I am not much of a typist nor do I have the time to chase down each quote. After 15 years of study I am just trying to point out a placce to start so that one can gain and understanding. I am very surprised that paul andrew mitchell has not addressed this issue or richard mc donald. Probably in the forums on their boards there is a discussion of it I just have not taken the time to look.


hope this helps


Mike

Natalie
12-10-2008, 01:01 AM
Natural Born citizens... in the chat partAAy... now

eredeath
12-10-2008, 08:28 AM
char

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 08:33 AM
http://www.ask.com/web?q=natural%20born%20citizen&l=dir&qsrc=167&o=10616 (http://www.ask.com/web?q=natural%20born%20citizen&l=dir&qsrc=167&o=10616)

Elwar
12-10-2008, 08:49 AM
Ok, I have been following this for a while and also wanted the Supreme Court to at least define "natural born citizen" as opposed to "nationalized citizen". Apparently there was already a case very similar to Obama where a girl, Marie Elg, was born in the US by Swedish parents who then went back to Sweden with her family but returned when she was an adult. They tried to deport her for being an alien but she took it to the Supreme Court and they 'declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States'

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

They found that even if you or your parents renounce your citizenship as a minor, you do not have the ability to make that choice until you are an adult and can come back before you are 21 and have full citizenship if you so choose.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 08:52 AM
BeFranklin, not a bad job on a definition for "natural born citizen"!:)

Thank you :)

eredeath
12-10-2008, 08:54 AM
char

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 08:57 AM
Why would you use ask.com? Because dictionary.reference.com sent me there. :)

eredeath
12-10-2008, 09:03 AM
char

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 09:09 AM
LOL okay.
Tested and confirmed. :cool: ;) :D

angelatc
12-10-2008, 09:16 AM
All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.

Maybe you've always just been wrong. There are two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. Because McCain and Obama were citizens at birth, they are both natural born citizens.

If the child is born as a dual citizen it doesn't negate that he was naturally born an American.

Bruno
12-10-2008, 09:19 AM
I'm just glad this story still has legs, as they say.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 09:22 AM
Maybe you've always just been wrong. There are two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. Because McCain and Obama were citizens at birth, they are both natural born citizens.

If the child is born as a dual citizen it doesn't negate that he was naturally born an American.

And out goes 800 years of legal history, because you said so :rolleyes:

Edit: you can only be a natural born citizen of one country, and the reason Obama had British citizenship at birth is because he was a natural born British citizen and its the same legal principle for natural born that we are using!.

Dual natural born citizenship - not dual citizenship, would be like being born by two different mothers at the same time.

Bruno
12-10-2008, 09:44 AM
Bill Richardson calling Barack Obama an immigrant

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 09:59 AM
Bill Richardson calling Barack Obama an immigrant

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114

I also don't believe that Obama was born in Hawaii either. But its enough to know that he was a natural born British citizen through his father. Eventually, his birth certificate will come out, if not through the civil trials, through the criminal cases.

To tell you the truth, considering the nature of the mother, I also wonder if she renounced her citizenship. Something no one has looked into.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 10:00 AM
Maybe you've always just been wrong. There are two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. Because McCain and Obama were citizens at birth, they are both natural born citizens.

If the child is born as a dual citizen it doesn't negate that he was naturally born an American. If he was born a Kenyan it does.<IMHO> This dual crap unnecessary and bogus complication is merely another BS smokescreen. :p :rolleyes:

Elwar
12-10-2008, 10:12 AM
I also wonder if she renounced her citizenship. Something no one has looked into.

His parents citizenship has no play if he was born in the US.

Bruno
12-10-2008, 10:14 AM
His parents citizenship has no play if he was born in the US.

That's a big IF at this point.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 11:04 AM
His parents citizenship has no play if he was born in the US.

Um, yes it does. Are you saying his mother renounced her citizenship?

Pete
12-10-2008, 12:13 PM
To tell you the truth, considering the nature of the mother, I also wonder if she renounced her citizenship. Something no one has looked into.

Hmm, yeah.

An idea I've had about the original is that it might list no father, which would be interesting. It would get around the 'dual citizenship at birth' issue, but not without ignoring other information.

bojo68
12-10-2008, 12:22 PM
THE WASHINGTON TIMES COVERAGE OF DONOFRIO AND WROTNOWSKI SCOTUS CASES
Posted in Uncategorized on December 10, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

Tom Ramstack of The Washington Times has made consistent attempts to report accurately on the SCOTUS cases - Donofrio v. NJ Secretary of State and Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State. Of all the main stream media coverage, Ramstack’s has been the most accurate.

But there are a couple of things I need to clarify about his last two reports from a purely legal standpoint. The issues involved in these cases are not easy to report accurately. Most of the reporters are not lawyers and if not a lawyer they are truly at a disadvantage and must really strive to lock down understanding of each key phrase as whole worlds of meaning change on even tiny discrepancies.

This today on Cort’s case:

On the same day the Supreme Court declined to hear one appeal challenging Barack Obama’s right to become president because of questions about his citizenship, Justice Antonin Scalia distributed another appeal on the same issue for the court to consider.

The new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, is scheduled to be discussed by the justices at their Dec. 12 private conference. They plan to decide whether to give the case a hearing - again on whether the British citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father makes the president-elect ineligible to assume the office…

Mr. Donofrio helped Mr. Wrotnowski prepare his Supreme Court appeal.

“Cort’s application before [the Supreme Court] incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it,” Mr. Donofrio said on his blog.

The report should have stressed that, according to Obama, his birth status as a British citizen was “governed” (Obama’s Fight The Smears’ choice of words) by Great Britain in that Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth, not just his father.

Ramstack also reports:

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting Democratic delegate to Congress, speculated that the Supreme Court is considering appeals that challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship only long enough to reject them “and lay to rest manufactured doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s election before the inauguration.”

That’s a rather absurd statement. Frivolous cases aren’t graced with any respect at all. If it deserves immediate denial, then they deny it. But on the same day the order came down rejecting my case, Justice Scalia referred Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to the full Court and it was distributed for the Dec. 12 conference.

If the Court wanted to send a message as Norton suggests, they could have denied Cort’s case at the same time as mine. Now that would have sent the message she suggests.

For example, when a stay application is renewed to a second Justice, that Justice may deny it straight away rather than referring it to the full Court. Examine the following two SCOTUS dockets where stay applications were denied by the first Justice and then denied by the second Justice upon renewed application:
No. 07A638
Title:
Ate Kays Company, Applicant
v.
Pennsylvania Department of General Services, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District
Case Nos.: (175 EM 2007)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 1 2008 Application (07A638) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Souter.
Feb 2 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Souter.
Feb 6 2008 Application (07A638) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Feb 7 2008 Application (07A638) denied by Justice Scalia.

—————

No. 7A421

Michigan, Applicant
v.
Corey Ramone Frazier
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Michigan
Case Nos.: (131041)

Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) for stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Stevens.
Nov 20 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Stevens.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Nov 28 2007 Application (07A421) denied by Justice Alito.






Now let’s take a look at Ramstack’s December 9, 2008 report:

Leo C. Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer who filed the case, argued that Mr. Obama had British citizenship when he was born, thus disqualifying him from being president under the Constitution’s requirement of being a “natural-born citizen.”

“My case is done,” he said. “I’m perfectly comfortable with their decision.”

Preventing Mr. Obama from becoming president was less of a consideration for him than ensuring constitutional law is followed, he said.

“I’m not worried about Barack Obama, I’m worried about the precedent of law,” Mr. Donofrio said. “This sets a precedent for someone who doesn’t have a tie to this country” to become president…

Fair coverage again. But it appears as if I intended to imply that Obama had no tie to this country. I didn’t mean that. And to Mr. Ramstack’s credit, we did discuss this exact quote. I told him people might mis-understand. He was confident otherwise. And I let it go because I felt like I might be bullying him in that I parsed over multiple statements in his original draft of the story when he called me to verify the statements before going to print. I was deeply gratified that he took the time and effort to make sure the story was accurate.

But reading that statement in print has confirmed my fears. It is confusing.

I meant to convey that a person - born to a father who is an alien and who remains an alien not residing here - would probably have a tie to whatever country his father is from. For example, as to Obama, in 1963 his British citizenship transferred to Kenya, and while he may have dropped his dual national status at the age of 21, the influence of that country and his tie thereto are self evident.

I take personal responsibility for any confusion on this issue. I should have been more vigilant.

This is why it’s so difficult for news reports to accurately convey legal issues. Every word is so important. I cannot stress that enough.

[Watch for blog post #2 today regarding an update on the Chester Arthur story.]

25 Comments »

phoenixrising
12-10-2008, 02:40 PM
All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.


http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/)

Posted in Uncategorized (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/) on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen December 6, 2008 6:36 PM

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=176) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law), and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President” (http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6978891M), have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
CHESTER’S LIES
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves (http://www.amazon.com/Gentleman-Boss-Chester-Arthur-Signature/dp/0945707037). It’s an exhaustive reference. 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. He burned all of his papers. (http://books.google.com/books?id=Sqr-_3FBYiYC&pg=PA2365&lpg=PA2365&dq=%22arthur+burned+his+papers%22&source=web&ots=X_STHDZmHx&sig=liFooTimEK4-d6sVyhguM8pGVb4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=119), 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 in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
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 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=115).
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=116) and 203 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=117):
[I]“…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.”
Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.
In the Brooklyn Eagle (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Skins/BEagle/Client.asp?Skin=BEagle) newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hinmanbrooklyn2.jpg) accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hinmanbrooklyn1.jpg):
“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.
On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspape (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveG ifMSIE_BEAGLE&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=BEG/1880/08/15&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00401)r that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveG ifMSIE_BEAGLE&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=BEG/1880/08/19&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00400).
It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim - that Arthur was born abroad - while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.
FATEFUL FACTS
I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography (http://books.google.com/books?id=_v0owy-Xl4sC&pg=PP1&dq=chester+arthur+dehler&client=firefox-a#PPA1,M1) which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.
I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Skins/BEagle/Client.asp?Skin=BEagle) from the Brooklyn public library.
I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.
Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.
About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:
Leo,
Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?
Greg
I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=176) and was staring at the shifting sands of history.
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially 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.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied 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 virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
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.




after these findings leo & cort added a supplement to their case & brought it to SCOTUS ...it has now been distributed as well.


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm



Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)

phoenixrising
12-10-2008, 02:54 PM
Maybe you've always just been wrong. There are two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. Because McCain and Obama were citizens at birth, they are both natural born citizens.

If the child is born as a dual citizen it doesn't negate that he was naturally born an American.


you may need to do some more research;) being a citizen at birth & being a natural born citizen are 2 completely different entities.

i would suggest reading leo donofrio's blog...he sums it up in an easy manner:

here is a snippet:

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

and this:

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President.


the distinction for POTUS is that he MUST be natural born citizen. the founders did this for a reason. remember they grandfathered themselves in so they could run for POTUS. ...& barky is not old enough to qualify for their grandfather clause ;)

bojo68
12-10-2008, 02:54 PM
Hmm, yeah.

An idea I've had about the original is that it might list no father, which would be interesting. It would get around the 'dual citizenship at birth' issue, but not without ignoring other information.

From what I've seen about her, it would have been pretty hard to KNOW who the father was, which makes this guess seem like it may be likely. Of course, we can find out who the father is now, if he's still alive.

Elwar
12-10-2008, 03:31 PM
Um, yes it does. Are you saying his mother renounced her citizenship?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

Pericles
12-10-2008, 03:53 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

Good case - born in the US = native born, but I did notice this as part of the decision:

"The statute does, however, make a distinction between the burden imposed upon the person born in the United States of foreign parents and the person born abroad of American parents. With respect to the latter, section 6 of the Act of March 2, 1907, lays down the requirement [307 U.S. 325, 346] that, as a condition to the protection of the United States, the individual must, upon reaching the age of 18, record at an American consulate an intention to remain a citizen of the United States, and must also take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining his majority. "

libertarian4321
12-10-2008, 04:42 PM
If you bone up on British law, you'll find that their equivalent of citizenship is referred to as a "subject", because it's a monarchy.

That is not correct. "Subject" and "citizen" are not the same under British law.

One can be a British subject without being a British citizen.

My wife was a British subject before she became a US citizen. She was not a British citizen- there is a huge difference.

As the law stood from 1949 to 1982, those born in British colonies (including Kenya in 1961) were British subjects, but NOT British citizens- they had a lesser form of citizenship which did not include the full rights accorded British citizens. Hence, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, but was NOT a "British citizen."

Also, at that time, citizens of the Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, NZ, etc) were British subjects, but were citizens of their own country.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 05:20 PM
From what I've seen about her, it would have been pretty hard to KNOW who the father was, which makes this guess seem like it may be likely. Of course, we can find out who the father is now, if he's still alive.

Obama is The One.. the wrong one and we're all going to die :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Zera
12-10-2008, 05:26 PM
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/)

Posted in Uncategorized (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/) on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen December 6, 2008 6:36 PM

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=176) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law), and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President” (http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6978891M), have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
CHESTER’S LIES
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves (http://www.amazon.com/Gentleman-Boss-Chester-Arthur-Signature/dp/0945707037). It’s an exhaustive reference. 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. He burned all of his papers. (http://books.google.com/books?id=Sqr-_3FBYiYC&pg=PA2365&lpg=PA2365&dq=%22arthur+burned+his+papers%22&source=web&ots=X_STHDZmHx&sig=liFooTimEK4-d6sVyhguM8pGVb4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=119), 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 in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
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 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=115).
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=116) and 203 (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=117):
[I]“…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.”
Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.
In the Brooklyn Eagle (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Skins/BEagle/Client.asp?Skin=BEagle) newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hinmanbrooklyn2.jpg) accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hinmanbrooklyn1.jpg):
“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.
On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspape (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveG ifMSIE_BEAGLE&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=BEG/1880/08/15&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00401)r that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToSaveG ifMSIE_BEAGLE&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=BEG/1880/08/19&ChunkNum=-1&ID=Ar00400).
It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim - that Arthur was born abroad - while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.
FATEFUL FACTS
I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography (http://books.google.com/books?id=_v0owy-Xl4sC&pg=PP1&dq=chester+arthur+dehler&client=firefox-a#PPA1,M1) which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.
I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine (http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Skins/BEagle/Client.asp?Skin=BEagle) from the Brooklyn public library.
I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.
Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.
About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:
Leo,
Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?
Greg
I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=176) and was staring at the shifting sands of history.
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially 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.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied 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 virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
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.




after these findings leo & cort added a supplement to their case & brought it to SCOTUS ...it has now been distributed as well.


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm



Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)

Yeah, I dunno if I trust a site that's completely dedicated to getting Obama not to be president at this point.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 08:16 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

No they weren't swedish citizens, they were naturalized American citizens at the time, so this doesn't say anything about any of the various topics we've discussed on
the thread. Says it in the first line :cool:

Anyone whose parents were naturalized Americans are natural born under any view. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't eligible to run for president, but his children would be.

BeFranklin
12-10-2008, 08:42 PM
A copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th Amendment was intended to say the same thing, but to put it into the Constitution. It makes clear that "subject to the jurisidiction of" in the 14th Amendment is the same thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the Civil Rights Act.

Obama, by being a British and Kenyan Citizen at birth, was subject to a foreign power and not subject to the United States, therefore could not get citizenship this way. We've looked at what natural born means, and those who wanted to look it up in Blackstone have done so by now. This is a look at a different area. Under the 14th, Obama wasn't born under the jurisdiction of the United States as this amendment was actually written and intended to mean. He was subject to a foreign power, and ineligible.

Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Theocrat
12-10-2008, 08:57 PM
All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.

This is what "natural (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural) born (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/born) citizen (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citizen)" means. Put it all together, and you have a phrase which Obama cannot even understand in all his Harvard Lawness.

Elwar
12-11-2008, 08:56 AM
No they weren't swedish citizens, they were naturalized American citizens at the time, so this doesn't say anything about any of the various topics we've discussed on
the thread. Says it in the first line :cool:


Aww man, I didn't see that they were naturalized.

That sucks, I thought that that pretty much cleared it up. The Supreme Court definitely needs to define natural born citizen.

phoenixrising
12-11-2008, 01:01 PM
Yeah, I dunno if I trust a site that's completely dedicated to getting Obama not to be president at this point.


no that is not the pt of the site....if you read the entry for today you will see a recap from an older entry...it has not been about being dedicated in not allowing barky to be POTUS....it's been about "returning the election to the Constitution"

phoenixrising
12-11-2008, 01:05 PM
Aww man, I didn't see that they were naturalized.

That sucks, I thought that that pretty much cleared it up. The Supreme Court definitely needs to define natural born citizen.


try this...a part of todays blog entry (read in entirety here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Edybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#II-%C2%A7144) The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

BeFranklin
12-11-2008, 02:23 PM
try this...a part of todays blog entry (read in entirety here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Edybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#II-%C2%A7144) The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Bravo. I saved it.

Emer (Emerich or Emmerich) de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his 1758 work Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns). This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

Vattel's masterpiece was largely influenced by The Law of Nations by Christian Wolff. His work began, in fact, by translating Wolff's text from its Latin into the vernacular and adding his own thoughts. The work was also heavily influenced by Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius. Focused largely on the rights and obligations of citizens and states, the work also had ramifications for Just War Theory as it outlined international diplomacy as we now know it. Vattel elucidated the "Golden Rule of Sovereigns": One cannot complain when he is treated as he treats others.

bojo68
12-11-2008, 02:35 PM
Nice to see some informed opinions in here as compared to the simplistic rantings of "he was born in america, therefor he's an american citizen".

Elwar
12-11-2008, 03:17 PM
I would say that the best way to get any headway with this is to challenge in court any law passed by Obama if charged. But the judge would just throw that argument out the window and throw the book at you.

I'll probably try it anyway when I'm thrown in jail for supporting freedom without also supporting socialism under some new fairness doctrine for all.

hotbrownsauce
12-11-2008, 03:38 PM
A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.

BeFranklin
12-11-2008, 06:29 PM
A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.

After several of us have quoted from the legal references at that time, its over with. Natural born was a well defined legal concept at that time, and did not originate "ill defined" in the Constitution. Case over. Obama is not a natural born citizen under the Constitution, and appears in fact to be a citizen of several third-world countries.

Emer de Vattel, founder of modern international law, 1758:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

bojo68
12-11-2008, 06:36 PM
After several of us have quoted from the legal references at that time, its over with. Natural born was a well defined legal concept at that time, and did not originate "ill defined" in the Constitution. Case over. Obama is not a natural born citizen under the Constitution, and appears in fact to be a citizen of several third-world countries.

Emer de Vattel, founder of modern international law, 1758:

For about 5 different reasons. Seconded.

fedup100
12-11-2008, 06:58 PM
Define a corner!



The problem with forums, blogs and the media in general is "talking, discussion, fair and balanced etc. This sounds right and it sounds fair. The problem is simple, you are allowing the meaning of simple words and thoughts to be taken away from you by allowing endless and mindless discussion of an issue such as BO and his obvious not being a natural born citizen problem. He is not a natural born citizen PERIOD end of the effin discussion. Therefore, he is not qualified PERIOD! Now, something must be done about it.

When we have sunk so low on the totem pole that it requires endless hours of discussion to define the shape of a " CORNER", we have lost all common sense.

The enemy here on this forum and those who control our information are using this endless babble about everything in order to talk it into oblivion. The constitution and it's simple words can be talked to death and finally all parties walk away and our rights are walking away with them.

Words have no meanings any longer. Shame and Treason are impotent sounds that are volleyed about and left to fall to the ground after having never hit their mark.. This is how they are robbing you blind. We must put our foot down damn it. The words written on the page mean just what they say....period!

phoenixrising
12-11-2008, 08:19 PM
A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.
OK...i'll giva ya 1 last resourse...extremely simplified.

as you can see several of us have done the research...anyone seeking answers can ;)


http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/madison11-28-06.html#b

i'll just let you read the whole thing--very educational ;)




& 1 more:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

phoenixrising
12-11-2008, 08:31 PM
[quote=fedup100;1864820]


{{snip}}

The problem with forums, blogs and the media in general is "talking, discussion, fair and balanced etc. This sounds right and it sounds fair. The problem is simple, you are allowing the meaning of simple words and thoughts to be taken away from you by allowing endless and mindless discussion of an issue such as BO and his obvious not being a natural born citizen problem. He is not a natural born citizen PERIOD end of the effin discussion.

hey fed...i jumped in on this discussion & others that are similar because so many people have taken the words citizen & natural born citizen for granted & used them interchangeably.

when in need of a true definition...it was coming out all backasswards from a lot of people (all over the internet really) ..& bottom line...it's OUR constitution & REALLY important not to let these slipups cont.

just think of all the people not in the discussion & just reading who have learned something ...as well as the ones participating who have. in that regard --it's worth it (yet i do believe there is an extensive amount of info here now--if people read!)

i have seen many seemingly useless threads here over the last year..imho ...yet this one was necessary. it was an education. the more people that *get it* ...the better we all are! ;)

BeFranklin
12-12-2008, 09:47 AM
[quote=fedup100;1864820]


{{snip}}

The problem with forums, blogs and the media in general is "talking, discussion, fair and balanced etc. This sounds right and it sounds fair. The problem is simple, you are allowing the meaning of simple words and thoughts to be taken away from you by allowing endless and mindless discussion of an issue such as BO and his obvious not being a natural born citizen problem. He is not a natural born citizen PERIOD end of the effin discussion.

hey fed...i jumped in on this discussion & others that are similar because so many people have taken the words citizen & natural born citizen for granted & used them interchangeably.

when in need of a true definition...it was coming out all backasswards from a lot of people (all over the internet really) ..& bottom line...it's OUR constitution & REALLY important not to let these slipups cont.

just think of all the people not in the discussion & just reading who have learned something ...as well as the ones participating who have. in that regard --it's worth it (yet i do believe there is an extensive amount of info here now--if people read!)

i have seen many seemingly useless threads here over the last year..imho ...yet this one was necessary. it was an education. the more people that *get it* ...the better we all are! ;)

I agree, but I think we are also all recognizing the several people who don't want to get it - that the constitution means whatever we say it means and the majority.
At least I got to hone my own sources. :)

BeFranklin
12-12-2008, 10:46 AM
OK...i'll giva ya 1 last resourse...extremely simplified.

as you can see several of us have done the research...anyone seeking answers can ;)


http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/madison11-28-06.html#b

i'll just let you read the whole thing--very educational ;)




& 1 more:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

FYI: I don't like the last blog very much, as it uses a quote from Mason which is exactly opposite from he was saying at the convention in context when you read it - and I knew it was, because none of our founders were against the common law.

The concept of "sovereign citizenship" as found in early cases etc, is exactly what lifts common law to an American pedestal, because it takes all the good out of the common law as applicable to sovereigns and free men, and leaves all the subjectdom and serfdom concepts behind because all citizens are equals and sovereign. This concept directly relates to the concept of natural born citizens. Also, you can't effectively study english legal history without some lens to divide the good and the bad as they had as much history of shyster lawyers and kings creating legal fictions for their benefit as we do.

Here is what Mason was really saying, in context. You will notice he is arguing exactly against fleeing to the law of nations as opposed to common law rights, so in context, are we not again being mis-directed?

Mr. Henry

We may be told that we shall find ample refuge in the law of nations. When you yourselves have your necks so low that the President may dispose of your rights as he pleases, the law of nations cannot be applied to relieve you. Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated. We are in contact with two powers--Great Britain and Spain. They may claim our most valuable territories, and treaties may be made to yield them. It is easy on our part to define our unalienable rights, and expressly secure them, so as to prevent future claims and disputes. Suppose you be arraigned as offenders and violators of a treaty made by this government. Will you have that fair trial which offenders are entitled to in your own government? Will you plead a right to appeal to the trial by jury? You will have no right to appeal to your own Constitution. You must appeal to your Continental Constitution. A treaty may be made giving away your rights, and inflicting unusual punishments on its violators. It is contended that, if the king of Great Britain makes a treaty within the line of his prerogative, it is the law of the land. I agree that this is proper, and, if I could see the same checks in that paper which I see in the British government, I would consent to it. Can the English monarch make a treaty which shall subvert the common law of England, and the constitution? Dare he make a treaty that shall violate Magna Charta, or the bill of rights? Dare he do any thing derogatory to the honor, or subversive of the great privileges, of his people? No, sir. If he did, it would be nugatory, and the attempt would endanger his existence.

George Mason

Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition--in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.

In context, Mason and others are saying something very different, that the treaty protections in the constitution may not be holdable under common law like it was over there (period). He is not saying we didn't carry on with common law over here (a historic fact), nor that it wasn't a very good thing, nor was he supporting giving it up :cool: The antifederalists didn't like the treaty making clause of the Constitution - and they also didn't like any possible concept of protections being giving under the law of nations.
---------

Back to common law, and Toward a Republican understanding of Sovereign Citizen and Natural Born.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm

Under common law, natural born "sovereigns" is not the same thing as "natural born subject". A sovereign's children are his no matter where they are born. As soverein citizens, under common law, the same principle has to apply to all Americans. Although this may appear to be the same definition, it gives all the traditional rights and privilages recognized by common law, which a definition only under international law may not.