Obama Not the First to Have Presidential Eligibility Questioned

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES’S FATHER WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT, JUST AS OBAMA’S WAS; THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS, HE LOST

by Sharon Rondeau

Was this presidential candidate from 1916 a “natural born Citizen”?

(Apr. 5, 2010) — The year 2008 is not the first time  a presidential candidate’s eligibility has been questioned based on the  “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) served on the Supreme Court, was elected governor of New York, and was nominated as Secretary of State under President Warren Harding from 1921 to 1925.  He was later nominated Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Herbert Hoover.  His appointment to that position overlapped Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency, during which time Hughes sometimes voted in favor of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and sometimes against them.  However, he opposed FDR’s attempt to reorganize the Supreme Court in 1937, also known as  “court-packing.”

In 1916, Hughes resigned from his first Supreme Court appointment to launch an unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Woodrow Wilson, the incumbent.  The electoral vote count was extremely close, 277 to 254.

During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”  Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:

Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.

He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.”  But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”?  At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England.  His father had not then been naturalized.

Long was a Democrat and large donor to FDR’s 1932 presidential campaign, and Hughes ran for President as a Republican against Wilson.

In discussing the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Long stated:

The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President.  For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”

Long’s definition of “natural born citizen” was  “one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society;…It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.”

The citizenship of the father is the determining factor for a child’s citizenship, according to Long.  He states that in the case of Hughes, his father was a British citizen when Hughes was born, which precluded him from qualifying as a “natural born citizen”:

If the father becomes naturalized before the birth of the child and is at the time of the birth of the child a citizen of the United States, then the child is a ‘natural born’ citizen.  But in the case of Mr. Hughes the father was not naturalized at the time the son was born and was at that time a subject of England.  How could the son be a “natural born” citizen of the United States?…There can hardly be…any dispute that Mr. Hughes was at the time of his birth an English subject.  If he was at that time an English subject, he became a citizen of the United States by a process of naturalization, and is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Long also analyzes the matter of dual citizenship:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance.  A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience.  Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States…The doctrine of dual citizenship and of double allegiance are too well known and too well founded in international law to be doubted or disputed.

Long discusses various examples of children of foreign parents who, although born in the United States, received protection from their parents’ home countries once taken there by their parents.  He cites a case from 1866 in which a 19-year-old young man born in Massachusetts to French parents who had returned to France with them and was called to military duty by that country.  The young man disputed his obligation to serve by appealing to the American Embassy in France.  The Secretary of State at the time, Thomas Bayard, instructed the American Embassy to “to use ‘its good offices'” to secure a release from French military service for the young man.  However, according to Long,  Bayard issued the following admonition: “You will, however, advise him that his remaining in France after he becomes of age  may be regarded as an election of French nationality and that his only method of electing and maintaining American nationality is by a prompt return to this country (December 28th, 1887).”

The author then provides a detailed but seldom-discussed account of how the term “natural born citizen” was placed in the Constitution by the Framers:

It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a “citizen of the United States.”  It was so reported to the Convention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787.  It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution.  There is no record of debates upon the subject, but the Federalist contains a contemporary comment on it written by Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton is then quoted as having said:

Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.  These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils…(Federalist, LXVIII).

Long’s final argument against Hughes’s eligibility for the office of president states that in 1862, which happened to be the year Hughes was born, the United States declared that certain people residing in the country were exempted from military service, described as “All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized;” and “All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.”  Long argues that because neither Hughes nor his father could be called upon to “defend the flag” of the United States, Hughes could not be considered a “natural born citizen.”

As if reaching almost 100 years into the future, Long then states, “The government he now aspires to preside over classed him under the general head of “Aliens” the year he was born and drew a line of distinction between him and “natural born citizens…”

Breckenridge Long served as Ambassador to Italy and also presided over immigration and visa issues during World War II. He was severely criticized for denying visas to Jews attempting to escape the holocaust.

If Breckenridge Long was correct that the citizenship of a father determines that of the son, then Obama was never eligible to run, much less serve, as president.  Long uncannily raised the three major factors which preclude Obama from being a “natural born Citizen”:

  • his father was not a naturalized citizen of the United States before Obama’s birth;
  • Obama had been taken to Indonesia and reportedly made a citizen of that country;
  • on his campaign website, Obama admitted to having been born with dual citizenship.

Obama’s actual birthplace and original citizenship remain unknown.

Is Obama a “natural born Citizen”?  If not, why was he allowed to seek the presidency?  What were the influences at work in promoting a candidate with so many challenges to the “natural born Citizen” requirement?  Have foreign powers seized control of our government, the possibility of which had been predicted by Alexander Hamilton?

If so, why has Congress allowed that to happen?  Why will the courts not order discovery about Obama’s citizenship status?

Print Friendly

31 Responses to "Obama Not the First to Have Presidential Eligibility Questioned"

  1. Bill Cutting   Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM

    Obot’s have scrubbed the Long article from SCRBD, I am going to have it transribed and post a link here. ASAP
    It looks like 500+ people downloaded.

  2. MinutemanCDC_SC   Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 12:55 AM

    A Vice Presidential candidate reported that the Dept. of Justice has been silencing public figures who might mention the usurper’s Constitutional ineligibility, threatening to sic U.S. Attorneys on them, their families, and their attorneys.

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the usurper don’t need more evidence; they need a judge strong enough to compel official discovery of the evidence they already have. Such a judge has not arisen in the past 18 months, so we need a stronger power to enforce the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, ¶ 5.

    I pray for intervention by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who surely know all about the ineligibility of the de facto but not de jure Commander-in-Chief. If not, then only Jesus the Lord God Almighty can deliver us, if He will.

  3. Raina   Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM

    I read that article AuntieMadder and was very impressed……… The author did intensive and extensive research and although he agrees that Obama is a questionable character and does question his eligibility for the presidency, he is amazed that there has not so much as been a peep from the media nor the government employees (house, senate, congress) all except for the one noble Representative Nathan Deal………..
    I personally believe that so many of them have their own stuff to hide and bribes to be kept which makes their own fears and deceptions own them………. What a pathetic group they have become………..
    Thank you for bringing that article up……….

  4. BillCutting   Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 7:44 PM

    I mean, it seems that Breckenridge Long, and therefore the US Constitution, wasn’t taken much more seriously then than we and it are now, nor does it seem that many know or care what natural born citizenship means.
    —————————————————————————–
    The fact is that Hughes eligibility was brought up 2 weeks before the election, an October suprise.

    Long’s speech was reported nationally. We will never know the impact it had on the election of 1916. The Breckinridge Long article stands unchallenged, even today. You can almost take out the name Hughes and insert Obamba

    Barky’s “Dual Nationality ,NBC” eligibilty issue was ignored by every major media outlet. Why?

    Why the coverup by congress and the media?

    Forget the R’s we know why they were silent, multiple reasons.

    Notice how the Koolaid Blogs such as Dr. Comm are not discussing this article, they do not have a leg to stand on. They have been exposed as frauds and have disappeared back into their Rat Holes.

  5. AuntieMadder   Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM

    When I first heard the rumor toward the end of the 2008 election campaigns that the GOP were mum on the topic of Obamao’s Constitutional ineligibility because they want to run the Constitutionally ineligible Jindal in 2012, I didn’t think much of it. It was just a rumor. However, a blog post at Hillbuzz about Jindal being on the GOP’s long list for 2012 brought that rumor to mind.

    I started out running searches on Jindal, Obama, and eligibility because I was curious about the source(s) of the rumor and maybe I’d find it in an article or, more likely, in the comments sections of an article. However, the more articles I found and read about Jindal and a run for prez, the more I thought there might be some truth to it.

    And now I find this Jan 13, 2010 piece at an Australian news blog in which the writer, Zach Jones, is also beginning to suspect this old rumor might just have some truth to it, if not completely truthful and factual.

    Australia.to News
    Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
    Wednesday, 13 January 2010 08:21
    Written by Zach Jones
    Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
    http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=446:obamas-presidential-eligibility-scandal&catid=94:breaking-news

    Please, anyone and everyone who has the minutes to spare, read the article linked and let me know what you think about it.

    Thanks!

  6. JQC   Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 5:57 AM

    Never going to happen; enough people are not hurting and they will not give up the little they have for what is right. A nation of Sheep!!!!! No Patriots remain!!!!

  7. AuntieMadder   Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 12:17 AM

    Breckenridge Long’s article could backfire in that Hughes did, indeed, run for POTUS, unsuccessfully. Who’s to say that if he’d won most of the electoral vote that he wouldn’t have been sworn in and served a term or more as POTUS? I mean, it seems that Breckenridge Long, and therefore the US Constitution, wasn’t taken much more seriously then than we and it are now, nor does it seem that many know or care what natural born citizenship means.

    I’m sorry if I sound like an Eeyore as I’m surely not. But I suppose I am somewhat discouraged to see that one whose parentage is so similar to The Won ran for prez almost 100 years ago and wasn’t disqualified before coming out the gate.

  8. Spaulding   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 8:03 PM

    Excellent scholarship Ms Rondeaux. This could be important to any legal challenge.

    Many don’t understand that most Republicans were quite aware of McCain’s problem. Whether or not Gabriel Chin’s analysis was air-tight, McCain’s birth certificate read Colon, and the U.S. didn’t have total jurisdiction in the Canal Zone. It seems harsh, but the legislature could always have tried to amend it. Protecting our freedoms is more important than equal opportunity to be the chief executive. McCain’s candidacy insured the Dems that there would be no challenge of Obama’s legitimacy. Had McCain won, the Dems probably would have challenged McCain, leaving Hillary with the next largest percentage of the popular vote. It was Checkmate!

    Now all legislators are complicit. Dems will lose lots of the house because we don’t want socialism. Republicans could be challenged for failing their oaths to protect the Constitution, though I doubt it will happen. Ignoring the Constitution is fraught with danger. There are mechanisms for amending the Constitution. Amendments to natural born citizenship have been proposed twenty four times, last by Orrin Hatch in 2003. No amendment reached the states.

    As some have recognized, eligibility based upon one citizen parent (though we don’t actually have evidence the Obama’s mother was still a citizen when Barry was born), would make a son or daughter of Chavez or Bin Laden born to an American wife, raised in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, sent to live with maternal grandparents, then to Columbia and Harvard for a law degree, to wait fourteen years and run for president. If he or she was a skilled orator, and trained in deception by Alinsky, he or she would be the usurper which so concerned John Jay in the first four Federalist Papers – the same John Jay who reminded George Washington to be sure the natural born citizen criterion was put in Article II.

  9. Bill Cutting   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 5:03 PM

    I suggest signing up for scrbd free and downloading it in PDF. Be patient.
    In Pdf you can blow it up and turn it the right way. For anyone who has been following this, it is worth it.

  10. TexomaEd   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    Never mind, I managed to see the reference made by Chester Arthur (just took a bit of neck-bending to read it!). Is the entire next paragraph (the one that starts “An uniform rule …” a quote from Arthur? It seems that it is, and it certainly makes sense that he would be asking the questions in that paragraph — especially the part about children being born in the US to fathers who have declared intentions to become citizens. Sure sounds like he was referring to his situation!

  11. TexomaEd   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM

    I would like to read the article. However, on my computer it displays sideways and in small print. Even with magnification, it is hard to read. Is there a trick to turning the text 90 degrees?

    That is interesting about Arthur’s comment. Definitely more than a mere coincidence!

  12. Texoma Ed   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    Leo Donofrio made a good point about Long’s article, in that Long did not mention Chester Arthur at all. Arthur (who was VP and then became President after Garfield’s assassination) was born in the US to a US citizen mother and an Irish citizen father (who later became naturalized when Arthur was 14). But no one in 1880 knew about Arthur’s father. However, a number of Obama defenders point to Arthur as a precedent for a President being eligible despite being born to a non-US citizen parent. The facts about Arthur’s father were not known until some 20 years ago. If the facts about Arthur’s father were known in 1880, then surely Long would have addressed Arthur’s eligibility issue in his 1916 article.
    ————————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I noticed when I was writing the article, Long made a reference to a comment which Chester Arthur evidently made about there being a need for more clarification of citizenship if a person had a parent who was not naturalized. Definitely read the article on Scribd…I believe the reference is in the left column of the second page. What a coincidence that Arthur had an opinion on that!

  13. Texoma Ed   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM

    Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory but I think he would still be qualified to be a natural born citizen because he was not born subject to a foreign power — he was born subject to the USA in the US-controlled Arizona Territory, and of course born to US citizen parents. Mexico would be the only country that could make a claim on Goldwater’s citizenship at birth, but Mexico lost its sovereignty to the Arizona Territory after the Mexican-American War, and so that claim would have been invalid.

    Roosevelt Jr, Herter, Romney (George), and McCain were all born in foreign countries and subject to a foreign power at birth, and so they would not be natural born citizens.

  14. Texoma Ed   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    Born in the USA means “native-born”. Webster defines native-born as “of a specified place by birth”. “Natural born” means that plus being born to citizen parents.

  15. Tom   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 5:24 AM

    Well, Chester Arthur assumed the office of President upon the death of Pres Garfield He wasn’t directed elected to the position
    There was , obviously, a lack of scrutiny of Garfield’s Veep regarding his (Chet’s) father’s citizenship status at the time the future usurper’s birth.

  16. DCBikerJohn   Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 5:14 AM

    Look at Zachary Taylor. He was born in the Untied States but he was exempted by the Constitution from the NBC requirement because he was not NBC. Taylor was born under the allegiance of the Congress of the Confederation, the first government of the United States, which was created by the Articles of Confederation. The United States existed before the adoption of the Constitution, but there were no NBCs under the Constitution until after the adoption of the Constitution. So, like Barack Obama, Zachary Taylor was born in the United States with loyalty and allegiance to a different government than the one established by the Constitution. Zachary Taylor was exempt by the “citizen before the adoption of the Constitution” provision – Obama was not.

    The conventional wisdom – that born in the US equals NBC – is the result of Progressive dilution of the intent of the Constitution.

  17. Jim D. Andrews   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM

    I have held Top Secret Clearance and was given a day to fill out the exhaustive form. False answers were punishible by fines and imprisonment. There is no possible way that Obama was required to meet the requirements for a security clearance!! Someone in the Justice Dept. had to waive or ignore this. There is something terriby wrong going on in the USA.

  18. jtx   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    Mrs. Rondeau:

    Both you and Breckenridge Long deserve kudos!! He for writing about it in such an informed manner initially and you for finding the material and presenting it. TYVM to both!!

    When will “the people” begin to take hold of things and bring this national nightmare to a close??

  19. Kingskid   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 10:11 AM

    Great job putting this all together, Sharon! Truth certainly is stranger than fiction. In my musings, I often wonder which other country besides Great Britain does obama hold citizenship….I’m not convinced he is an American citizen. There has been no proof. There is proof, however, that at birth he held allegiance to Great Britain, Kenya, and as a youngster, Indonesia. Time will tell.

  20. Lucas Daniel Smith   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:51 AM

    Great article! A tremendous thank you to Sharon Rondeau!

  21. Texmom   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:09 AM

    No matter where he was born, people have a right to proof of eligibility for the highest office in the land. It has been a travesty that this has been denied.

  22. ROSE KING   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 12:49 AM

    “If so, why has Congress allowed that to happen? Why will the courts not order discovery about Obama’s citizenship status?”

    The simple answer is they are all masons sworn to help each other and guard all of each others secrets. Refer to Bacon’s New Atlantis, or a new world order. The utopia of the masonic pyramid scheme and a chicken in every masters pot. Most do not understand the whole picture of wold domination. Many of the luciferians do.

    http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html

  23. Ginny   Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM

    Not only has the spirit of the law been lost, but also the logic. It is no more about law, it is like fighting an atomic bomb with a dish rag. Forget voting, it has already been decided and it bodes well for the progressives. What we need are more investigative reporters looking into the truth of the Guardians of the Free Republics. I would like to think they are on the side of the constitution but am afraid that this is yet another ploy to lull us into inaction. If they are indeed acting for ALL the people, then we need to know what they are doing on our behalf. They have the right idea, I would just like to be able to monitor their progress.

  24. Apocalyptic   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM

    Were you aware that Chester Alan Arthur was elected as president but also had a problem with not being a natural-born citizen? Leo Donofrio wrote quite extensively about this last year.

  25. nwo37   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 9:57 PM

    two thumbs – way up!!!!!!!!!

  26. Mike   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 9:23 PM

    Sharon,

    Great find. The supposed uncharted waters on this issue have been visited in the past. It is a great find this to be able compare the reactions.

    Here is a paper that also cites the issue that Charles Evans Hughes parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. The paper was written in September of 2008. It cites issues or potential issues with the following candidates: Goldwater (born in Arizona prior to statehood), Evans (noting that the parents were not citizens) and McCain (incorrectly indicating he was born the Panama Canal Zone), Franklin D Roosevelt Jr, Christian Herter and George Romney Jr. But absolutely no mention of Obama.

    https://law.slu.edu/journals/LawJournal/pdfs/Lawrence_Friedman.pdf

  27. Joseph Maine   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM

    This is good stuff. What we have been saying for some time has been corroborated, retrospectively.

    The other key issue is that NO ONE (government agency or otherwise) CHECKS FOR NBC STATUS. That alone, given it is a positive requirement of our Constitution, is madness. It is also something that people don’t understand could be possible. Yet, no one does. That’s how these kind of things happen, people, slipping through the cracks …

    Let’s hope one state’s politicians haven’t sold us out enough to demand legitimate qualifications to prove something about Obama’s background. The kind of stuff that holds up in court; not on the internet.

    If you get just 1 state to force him to give up his vital statistics, you’ll find that he will NOT RUN. I guarantee it. He will not show, no matter what. Some excuse will be created why the incumbent isn’t running, and Clinton will take over the Democratic nomination.

    Either way, he will be indicted (self or by the court of public opinion), because he is afraid to be truthful and come out of the darkness of hiding behind these legalisms.

    You’ll see his supporters fleeing from the issue like termites from a hollow piece of wood.

  28. slcraig   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:40 PM

    The Congress is full of useful idiot dupes of the ‘International Socialist DemoRat Party’, or whatever name they’ll change to tomorrow, both Libs and RINOs.

    How deep the ‘infiltration’ has gone will take years to sort out.

    Great find Sharon Rondeau!
    ————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: One of our readers supplied much of the information. It was fascinating reading through Long’s article! Do make sure to check it out on Scribd.

  29. Joe The Blogger   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    These are serious issues. We take them seriously. Congress and The Supreme Court do not. Therefore, they have forfeited the right to continue in office.

    We are within our rights to demand their resignation.

  30. BillCutting   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM

    Sharon, You should get a Pulitzer prize!
    Broadcast and Print media are dead. They did not investigate Obama. They Lied for him!!!
    God Bless Citizen Journalists
    ———————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: You can thank Mr. Charlton for his vision in founding this newspaper and our wonderful readers who submit much of the material for our articles.

  31. heather   Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM

    Sharon-excellently written and categorized. Obama cannot be a NBC. He holds dual citizenship, England and Indonesia. This is so simple and yet the courts are making it impossible.

    Michelle states that Keyna is his home country and yet the courts still refuse to hear. His book states he is a British subject by birth and yet the courts refuse to hear.

    Will they hear him when we are no longer a sovereign nation? Will they hear him when we are completely bankrupted, when are military is massacred by not being allowed to shoot until shot at, when will they finally stand and say, enough is enough and slam that gavel down and remove him as a fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.