National Constitution Center Rejects Comment about Chester Arthur’s Presidential Eligibility

DESPITE SCHOLARLY RESEARCH QUESTIONING IT

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 5, 2019) — On Saturday morning, The Post & Email received an email from reader Robert Laity, who has filed lawsuits and written extensively about the “natural born Citizen” provision contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution relating to presidential eligibility.

He reported that after reading an article on putative 21st President Chester Arthur at the National Constitution Center and attempting to leave a comment in response, he received a message indicating that the comment was considered “spam” and would not be published.

Published October 5 on the anniversary of Arthur’s birth in 1829 or 1830, as his tombstone reportedly states, the article begins, “Arthur was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. (In later years there were claims, never proven, that Arthur was born across the border in Canada, which would have threatened his eligibility to serve as President.)”

An article dated October 14, 2009 by Marquette University Law School Prof. J. Gordon Hylton titled, “President Chester A. Arthur and the Birthers, 1880’s Style” acknowledged questions which had arisen over Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility but deemed Obama “clearly eligible” without explanation.

The article states, in part:

Questions of Arthur’s eligibility for the nation’s highest office surfaced during the 1880 campaign. Arthur was the son of an Irishman who emigrated first to Canada and the then to the United States, and who finally became a naturalized United States citizen in 1843, fifteen years after his son Arthur’s birth in 1829. Arthur’s mother was a United States citizen born in Vermont but whose family emigrated to Canada where she met and married her husband. By the time of Arthur’s birth, his parents had moved back to Vermont.

The controversy over Arthur’s citizenship status centers around the place of Arthur’s actual birth. By one account he was born in his family’s home in Franklin County, Vermont. If this was true, then he was clearly a natural born citizen. On the other hand, the competing account has it that he was born during his pregnant mother’s visit to her family’s home in Canada.

If the latter story is true, then Arthur was technically foreign-born, and in 1829, citizenship in such cases passed to the child only if the father was a United States citizen, and, of course, at this point Arthur’s father was still a citizen of the British Empire.

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, but credible reports issued prior to his seeking the U.S. presidency reported him as born in Indonesia or Kenya.  He claims a foreign-born father who never became a U.S. citizen.

At least one lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility in 2008 by Leo Donofrio claimed that he was ineligible simply because of his father’s non-U.S.-citizen status.

Ironically, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and said he intends to compete for it again in the future, was born in Canada to a foreign-citizen father, yet two former solicitors general claimed that because of his mother’s presumed American citizenship at the time of his birth, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen.”

Some constitutional scholars believe that the “natural born Citizen” clause intended for the president and leader of the nation’s military possess undivided loyalty by birth to two U.S.-citizen parents. In 1868, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio was recorded in the Congressional Globe as having said that a person born in the United States to parents having no other allegiance is “natural born.”

After receiving the “spam” notification, Laity wrote to the website’s manager, copying this writer and another journalist. His message reads:

I wrote an erudite comment about Arthur and Obama being “Imposters in the Oval Office” (read my book by the same name) and my “comment was marked as spam”. You  ought to be ashamed of yourself, Very ashamed. My comment was NOT SPAM!!

Whether you want to admit it or not, Arthur and Obama were FRAUDS.

http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama

http://www.thepostemail.com/11/19/2017/imposters-oval-office

Robert C. Laity
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of our American Republic

In an email responding to The Post & Email’s question about his comment, Laity further provided:

I wrote a comment that explained why Arthur and Obama were not bona-fide Presidents.  I submitted it and then a notice said that comment would appear  after moderation. Several minutes later a notice was written where the coment should have appeared that “Comment was marked as spam”.  Oh well. Some people can’t handle the truth.


Update, October 7, 2019: Mr. Laity located an online resource depicting Chester Arthur’s father’s naturalization on August 31, 1843, 13-14 years after Chester Arthur was born.  The document was obtained from the Library of Congress and posted by Leo Donofrio at his “naturalborncitizen” website launched in 2008 in conjunction with his lawsuit challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility on the basis of his alleged British citizenship at birth.

 

30 Responses to "National Constitution Center Rejects Comment about Chester Arthur’s Presidential Eligibility"

  1. Jigsaw St. John   Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:55 AM

    “Had Chester’s Dad naturalized as a US Citizen before Chet was born. Chet WOULD have been an NBC. ”

    And a natural born subject of Great Britain. Dual nationality does not prevent someone from being eligible to the Presidency. As someone recently said, “We are not under British Law.” And this exactly right. When evaluating a candidate’s eligibility, other countries laws have no effect.

  2. Robert Laity   Friday, October 18, 2019 at 1:29 AM

    Earl, Lelong, Jr. was NOT eligible to be President. Contrary to Teddy’s belief, Junior was NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Both “The Venus”,USSCt, (1814) and Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1874) were decided before Junior was born. Roosevelt may not have been so perspicacious in the law since he clearly was not correct in saying Lelong,Jr. could be POTUS. Junior was a citizen but he was NOT an NBC., “one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves”.

  3. Robert Laity   Friday, October 18, 2019 at 1:10 AM

    Jigsaw, Again. Had Chester’s Dad naturalized as a US Citizen before Chet was born. Chet WOULD have been an NBC. We are not under British Law. The fact that Chet’s dad was not a US Citizen when Chet was born ruined Chet’s chances to be eligible for the Presidency.

  4. Earlington Smith   Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 4:08 PM

    @jigsaw

    I found the Roosevelt article interesting and so I did a genealogical investigation into Pierre Antonin Lelong Sr.

    He came to the US in 1870. He married Marie Olivia Cavoroc (a native-born American citizen) in 1876. And they had a son, Pierre Antonin Lelong Jr. born in New Orleans in June, 1881. Lelong Sr. became a naturalized U.S.citizen in June, 1911 and died in February, 1913.

    So while the dates are a little off, the overall story is the same as the P.A. Lelong letter.

    According to Teddy Roosevelt, A. P. Lelong Jr. was “eligible to the Presidency of the United States” even though he was born in the US to an alien father.

    FYI, here is the father’s 1913 rather long and detailed obituary:

    https://www.newspapers.com/clip/20779051/pierre_antonin_lelong_sr_obit/

  5. Earlington Smith   Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 8:57 PM

    So according to Teddy Roosevelt, Chester Arthur was both a natural born citizen of the United States and a natural born subject of Great Britain?

  6. Jigsaw St. John   Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 2:29 PM

    Under English law, Chester Arthur was a British subject no matter when his father naturalized. England did not abandon the concept of perpetual allegiance until 1870.

    Roosevelt recognized the fact that Arthur had dual nationality.

  7. Robert Laity   Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 12:59 PM

    Jigsaw, Had Chester’s Dad naturalized before Chester was born in the U.S. Chester WOULD BE an NBC. When one is naturalized one gives up ALL allegiance to the former nation. Chester’s birth was in the US. Had his father naturalized before Chester was born (he didn’t) both of Chester’s parents would have been U.S. Citizens themselves. A NBC is one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. -Minor v Happersett.

  8. Jigsaw St. John   Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 10:53 AM

    Follow-up on President Roosevelt’s comment on President Arthur’s dual nationality:

    Roosevelt’s comment was part of a larger article on dual nationality and the problems it can create. He begins the article by reproducing a letter written in 1915 to the US State Department and their response. The letter was from P. A. Lelong Jr. and concerned his understanding that on a trip to France, he might be inducted into the French military or imprisoned for failing to join the French military. Lelong outlined his circumstances in his letter. They are as follows:

    About 1873 – Lelong Sr. immigrates from France to the U.S.

    1880 – Lelong Jr. is born in New Orleans.

    About 1908 – Lelong Sr. naturalized as a U.S. citizens.

    1913 – Lelong Sr. dies.

    1915 – Lelong Jr. writes to U.S. State Department.

    1915 – U.S.State Department responds that Lelong Jr. was born with dual nationality and he is subject to the citizenship laws of France should he travel to that country.

    1916 – President Roosevelt writes about the Lelong letter and states the following:

    “Mr. Lelong was born in this country; when he became of age he elected to exercise his birthright granted to him by the Constitution of the United States; he took an oath to support that Constitution, and he has held military office under its authority, and under the authority of two states of the American Union. He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States. He is a citizen of the United States, standing on an equality of right with all other citizens, and he is entitled to the protection of the United States both in and out of any foreign country, free and exempt from any provisions of the law of that country as to citizenship.”

    President Roosevelt knew the circumstances of Lelong’s birth. He knew Lelong had dual U.S. and French citizenships. He also knew that Lelong’s father was a resident alien at the time of his birth and naturalized long after it. But President Roosevelt still believed Lelong was eligible to the Presidency of the United States.

    Interesting.

    Lelong’s letter and the State Department’s response:

    https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1915/pg_387

    President Roosevelt’s article on Dual Nationality:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=3KQZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA291&dq=fear+god+and+take+your+own+part.+lelong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwjOSkg6HlAhUJvJ4KHYHqD7EQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=fear%20god%20and%20take%20your%20own%20part.%20lelong&f=false

  9. Jigsaw St. John   Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 10:03 PM

    From Donofrio’s website referenced by Mr. Harrison,

    “Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.”

    I’m not sure this is true. It was well known that Arthur’s father immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland (part of Britain at the time). When he naturalized as a U.S.citizen is immaterial as Arthur would have been born a British subject even had his father been naturalized before Chester’s birth.

    President Theodore Roosevelt even wrote in 1916 that Arthur could have been drafted into the British army had he traveled to England.

  10. Art Telles   Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:54 PM

    Hi Sharon,

    On his book tour Justice Gorsuch defined and strongly defended “originalism” against the “living constitutionalists” who assert that the words on the page may be ignored for a greater good. Two greater goods that he adduces are Dred Scott v. Sanford (slavery) and Korematse (Japanese citizens interned during WW2).

    “Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a special Constitution Day conversation exploring his new book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It.”

    Posted on Youtube on September 17, 2019
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR9Q-Xm7JJE

    At 00:01:31 Jeff Rosen starts his introduction of Justice Gorsuch with an announcement:

    “And, one of the great thrills and honors of today has been to celebrate our first Constitution Day with the new Honorary Chair of the Constitution Center, Justice Neil Gorsuch.”

    So, for those who can communicate with Honorary Chair Justice Gorsuch, who identifies himself as a “words on the page” “originalist” and “textualist” as was his friend and fishing partner Justice Antonin Scalia, here are three question related to eligibility and “natural born Citizen”.

    1) Does Justice Gorsuch believe that eligibility to be president requires that a “natural born Citizen” MUST have

    ONLY singular U.S. citizenship which is possible
    ONLY by birth alone
    ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
    ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents (perpetual heterosexual marriage intent in 1787 America)
    ONLY married to each other (no multiple wives at the same time as Muslims and some Mormon sects)
    ONLY married before the child is born

    2) Does Justice Gorsuch believe eligibility to be president ALSO allows dual U.S. and foreign citizenship which is also possible by birth alone and when ONLY one parent is a U.S. citizens (Obama, Cruz – Arthur in 1829 is in a different category as Donofrio clarified)?

    3) Does Justice Gorsuch believe eligibility to be president ALSO allows dual U.S. and foreign citizenship which is possible by birth alone to parents who are both NOT U.S. citizens (Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, Sen. Rubio under the “opinion” of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court)?

    Is it singular U.S. citizenship or dual U.S. and foreign citizenship”
    It’s one or the other.
    It’s not neither
    It’s not both

    For an “originalist” like Justice Gorsuch, “one or the other” and definitely NOT both and NOT neither, should be a simple question to answer.

    Art

  11. Jeffrey Harrison   Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:55 PM

    Today as I was researching Chester Arthur I came upon an article entitled:

    HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH-PROFF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH This article printed out to 5 pages. It is dated Dec. 6, 2008

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

    This article printed out to five pages and had some 339 responses/remarks.

    Opps! This article can’t be good for National Constitutional Center Perhaps they meant well,
    but may have to adjust their claim of Arthur.

  12. Jeffrey Harrison   Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:29 PM

    Dear Sharon and Robert Laity,
    I am thankful for all your efforts to shine light on Obama’s fraud and usurpation of the White House. Robert, let me plug your book “Imposters in the Oval Office”. Today I am doing research and I referred to it and it was very helpful. I was researching Chester Arthur and found info on page 4 of your book of all the info I needed.
    Thanks!

    Let me do a “plug” for your book. I got several copies of that book and sent it to “high rated people”. You’s others out there, check it out for yourself and get some copies out to VIP”S who need to be stimulated. Then do some follow up. Additionally, send some
    correspondence and do some more follow up…

    Sharon, I am constantly doing research of Obama’s fraud and his usurpation. The Post & Email is a great resource on this topic. Your articles have greatly helped me with information
    and insights. For example, currently I am researching Chester Arthur and how many others
    who ran for the office of presidency in the past and who are currently running that are not
    “Natural Born Citizens”. For example, I found your article entitled “They Can’t Find Two
    Natural Born Citizens Out of 300 Million People?” helpful.

    For the record, both parties have had candidates or currently have candidates running for
    the office of President who clearly are NOT “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS”. The founding
    fathers were not being mean nor discriminating. They were only preventing usurpation.
    They must be spinning in there graves of the usurpation of Obama.

    After a great deal of studying the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement and the usurpation of
    Obama and his damage to America I not only say no and don’t change this requirement,
    I say, “Hell No” to changing it.

    The Israeli people have a saying, “never again” “never again” in referring to the holocaust.
    I equate the usurpation of Obama twice obtaining the White House a holocaust. It should
    have never occurred. The media, both the Congress and Senate were mute and complicit.
    Moreover, both the Demorats and the Rebublican’t were mutually mum and immoral.
    Likewise, the states did not vet Obama and disqualify him at the elections.

    Therefore, on next presidential election, “ONLY NATURAL BORN CITIZENS APPLY”.

  13. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Monday, October 14, 2019 at 8:07 AM

    REVOLUTION 1775- 1783
    USURPATION 2008- 2016
    RENOVATION 2016- 2024

    2020 VISION: ARREST PELOSI-OBAMA II, RELEASE AMERICA
    https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/09/10/jb-williams-exposes-dnc-conspiracy-in-2008-general-election/ >>>
    https://www.teaparty.org/trump-nancy-pelosi-hates-the-united-states-of-america-413239/

  14. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 2:01 PM

    https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-white-house-formally-tells-pelosi-democrats-to-pound-sand-wont-cooperate-with-impeachment-probe-illegitimate-412738/

    https://www.teaparty.org/republican-representative-introduces-resolution-to-expel-nancy-pelosi-from-congress-412759/

    The Whoreable Nancy Pelosi is a prostitutionalist not a Constitutionalist!

    We the People: Rise up from cowering ants to towering giants and look down on your gangster garbage government …refuse to swallow the Democriminal Fool-Aid Kool-Aid…IMPEACH PELOSI…for promoting Fake presIDent Obama II on 08-28-08 and demoting Real President Trump today!

    2020 VISION: IMPEACH PELOSI…ARREST OBAMA II…VOTE TRUMP

  15. Robert Laity   Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 2:41 AM

    Glen Day, Don’t get held up by the 14th Amendment. IT has nothing to do with making anyone a “Natural Born Citizen”. One can only be an NBC by birth IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves.

    The term of art “Citizen” is NOT Tantamount to the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. All NBCs are Citizens. All citizens are NOT natural born Citizens. Ark was ruled to be a “Citizen”. He was NOT, however, a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Curiously, Hinman’s book is advertised as ” a conspiracy theory about presidential eligibility that could have come from today’s newspapers”. It, however, is NOT a “theory”. It is a fact.

    Obama has repeated Arthur’s original crime of usurping the Presidency by fraud.

    It is true though that the story “COULD [emphasis mine] have come from today’s newspapers” but many of today’s newspapers (The P & E excepted) hide the truth of our second phony “President” to their own benefit.

  16. Glen Day   Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:58 PM

    Wong Kim Ark Follow-up

    (1898)

    Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco California but was legally considered a subject of the Emperor of China. He and his Chinese parents legally resided in San Francisco. Ark was never naturalized. Ark went to China on business and upon his return wasn’t allowed to re-enter the United States based U.S. law. Ark sued and won the lawsuit. His victory was based on the first section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. As result, the Supreme Court awarded Ark U.S. citizenship.

    Justice Gray and the majority attempted to avoid a debate over the language in the 14th Amendment by the Senators, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull, who basically wrote the language in that Amendment. Justice Gray also wanted to avoid dealing with the Courts earlier ruling in the case of Elk v. Wilkins.

    Elk v. Wilkins

    (1884)

    The ruling stated, any Indian who was born a member of an Indian tribe within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the United States, and who voluntarily separates from the tribe, and takes up residence among white citizens of a state, but has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, IS NOT a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

    Justice Gray and the majority understood the only way to achieve their desired decision in Ark was to reinterpret the Constitution.

    Justice Gray wrote:

    “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

    NOT ADMISSIBLE!!! SINCE WHEN?

    Justice Gray wrote:

    “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”

    The majority presumed what the language used by Congress in the 14th Amendment meant, yet the Court also ruled the recorded debate which would have disclosed the true intent of Congress was inadmissible as evidence.

  17. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Monday, October 7, 2019 at 11:54 AM

    Trump: MAGA as Obama: FAKA [Fool-Aid Kool-Aid]

    On 08-28-08, Nancy Pelosi broke away from the confines of our U.S. Constitution to begin a lawless LEGACY OF LUNACY of “OPEN CITIZENSHIP” and “OPEN BORDERS”.

    Nancy Pelosi rigged the general elections of 2008 and 2012, and since she and her band of Democriminals failed to rig the election of 2016 for Hillary RICO Clinton, Nancy Pelosi is now attempting a quickie IMPEACHMENT of a legally sitting President, Donald Trump.

    Nancy Pelosi is a criminal for her actions on 08-28-08 et al, Hillary RICO Clinton is a career criminal for Benghazi Massacre and Cover-up et al. Joke Biden and Coke Biden (Hunter) are carpetbagger criminals for US-influence peddling in Ukraine and China et al.

    OUR U.S. GOVERNMENT UNDER NANCY PELOSI HAS BECOME A GANGSTER GARBAGE GOVERNMENT with laws and punishments for “street citizens” and considerable lawlessness and get-out-of-jail gift cards for Washington, DC’s “elite citizens”!

    Our U.S. Government has failed us under Nancy Pelosi’s Reign of Error, and We the People have failed to remove them for Constitutional malfeasance, most notably, We the People have failed to enforce John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” invention and intention to only mean “born in a sole-US-allegiance-jurisdiction to sole-US-allegiance-Citizen-parents”…any other definition is SPOOF WITHOUT PROOF!

    We the People voted-in Nancy Pelosi’s narrative-identified ineligible Obama II, TWICE!

    We the People cast more votes for Nancy Pelosi’s un-indicted career felon and murder-accomplice, Hillary RICO Clinton, in 2016!

    We the People have got to smarten up and spit out any Jim Jones brand of Democriminal Fool-Aid Kool-Aid…DON’T DRINK…THINK!

    SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS EFFORTS TO EXPOSE AND ARREST PELOSI-OBAMA II FOR INTOXICATING WE the PEOPLE WITH THEIR FOOL-AID KOOL-AID!

  18. Jigsaw St. John   Monday, October 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM

    So to Hinman native born = natural born?

  19. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:55 AM

    Yes, then the author quotes Article II, which says “natural born…”

  20. Jigsaw St. John   Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:42 AM

    The first sentence of Hinman’s book sets the tone:

    “The Constitution of the United States requires that both the President and Vice-President should be native born.”

  21. Jigsaw St. John   Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 11:38 PM

    Cort Wrotnowski,

    A. P. Hinman’s book on Center Arthur is called “How a British Subject Became President of the United States” and is available online.

    https://archive.org/details/Hinman

  22. Cort Wrotnowski   Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:13 PM

    I didn’t see anyone reference the book that was written in the late 1800s on Arthur’s eligibility. Long time ago, I visited the Library of Congress where they have a copy. A friend found it and showed it to me, but I didn’t have a chance to read it.

    This book alone suggests it was more than a matter of “spam”. Also, it is my understanding that there was a similar scramble to find Arthur’s birth certificate in Vermont. There were whispers it was really in Canada. Who knows?

  23. Gary Wilmott   Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 11:09 AM

    As to Cruz it is important to note that he was a Canadian citizen for the first 43 years of his life.

  24. Robert Laity   Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:25 AM

    Glen Day, See: https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/. Four Supreme Court Cases define “Natural Born Citizen”. One of these four IS United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

  25. Robert Laity   Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:27 AM

    Glen Day, activist Judicial legislation from the bench does NOT change the definition of Natural Born Citizen as defined and reaffirmed in the cases I cited. Those precedents would have to be vacated for the past controversy of what an NBC is to be resurrected.

    Because those precedents have not been vacated the current definition remains.

    One born IN the United States to Parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. Arthur was not and Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. That is an immutable and incontrovertible fact.

  26. Thomas Arnold   Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:12 PM

    No matter how you cut it, “Barack Hussein Obama” (or whatever his real name and foreign birthplace- his 1991 bio said it was Kenya which stood uncontested for sixteen years) IS NOT A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN! Not even a so-called “native-born U.S. citizen” or other concoction of legal-speak! The really sad thing about all of this is that for the last decade plus, THIS ONE FACT AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN TEARING APART OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTION. No thanks to the cowardly U.S. Supreme Court. No thanks to the “4th Estate” government watchdog news media. No thanks to Congress. No thanks to the CIA and FBI. It is beginning to look like our constitutional republic, as it was envisioned, fought for, and died for by our wise Founding Fathers, NOT by “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,” may be about to fail. God help us all.

  27. Glen Day   Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 3:56 PM

    Justice Horace Gray was the principal writer of the U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark decision and was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Arthur. The opinion in Ark is controversial for several reasons including the fact that Justice Gray benefited from the result.. To make the decision somewhat palatable, Justice Gray and the majority used the 14th Amendment to
    craft a new and novel type of citizenship designation for Wong Kim Ark. One not found in the Constitution. They made Ark a “native-born U.S. citizen” rather than a “natural-born citizen“ or “naturalized” citizen. They did so because the decision would not work otherwise. Ark didn’t qualify as “natural-born citizen” as his parents weren’t U.S. citizens and they owed allegiance to a foreign potentate, the Emperor of China. Ark didn’t qualify as a naturalized citizen because only Congress has the authority to naturalize and in Arks’s case, Congress clearly did not do so. By conferring birthright citizenship on Wong Kim Ark, the Court also conferred it on President Arthur, thus legitimizing his presidency and his appointment of Justice Horace Gray to the Supreme Court.

  28. jeffrey Harrison   Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:59 PM

    P.S. What is the list of candidates on both sides who are not Natural Born Citizens
    running for the next election? Perhaps this is an idea for a future story item?

  29. jeffrey harrison   Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:40 PM

    In addition to this wonderful article. Just for the “pun” of it, approaching the next presidential
    election can we (the numb) public be subjected to another one or two (more) Congressional
    Research Memo’s stating what is a Natural Born Citizen is?

    This next coming presidential election we have had numerous candidates running for office who
    are Republican’s Can’t and Demorats Won’t who are not Natural Born Citizens.

  30. Robert Laity   Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM

    It is unsupportable that the founders would countenance a person who by British Law would be recognized as a Natural Born British Subject. After all, the United States declared it’s independence from Britain in 1776.

    Both Arthur and Obama have that status in common. Both Arthur and Obama were born as British Subjects. Both Arthur and Obama had British Subject fathers. Both Arthur and Obama were not alive at the time of the Declaration of Independence and were not grandfathered in as eligible to be President.

    Again, the founders would NOT have accepted a Brit to be our President.

    I expressed factual information to Jeffrey Rosen, the President and CEO of the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of our Republic. It is strange and very unusual that such a publication would regard such information as “spam”.

    Although Article II does not define what a “Natural Born Citizen ” is, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on that conundrum and has since the very early 19th century has reconciled any controversy.

    There are six cases that I frequently cite that were decided from 1814 all the way up to the most recent case in 2018 which left the prior decisions undisturbed. They are “The Venus”., “Minor V. Happersett, USSCt. (1874) [which unanimously stated that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the U.S. to Parents who are both U.S. citizens themselves],”Wong Kim Ark”., “Shanks v Dupont”., “Laity v NY & Obama, USSCt. (2014) and “Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal, USSCt. (2018).

    The first four cases affirmed and reaffirmed the definition of NBC as one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. The latter two cases, both of which I filed, left the decisions in the former four undisturbed.

    Any lawyer will tell you that a U.S. Supreme Court precedent left undisturbed is still, in legal parlance, “Good Law”.

    Neither Arthur, Obama, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Swarzenegger, Harris or Gabbard meet this legal definition. Yet they have all flouted the constitution by attempting to ignore it’s prohibition against their being President. Two of these people actually usurped the Presidency, by fraud. Obama did it during time of war. That makes Obama both a traitor and a spy. Talk about corruption. All these people have shown contempt for our Constitution. Ted Cruz actually stated that “If Obama can do it, so can I”.

    For the Constitution Center to have called these facts “Spam” is egregious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.