On April 5, 2010, Sharon Rondeau
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/05/obama-not-the-first-to-have-presidential-eligibility-questioned/
posted a blog article exposing another scandal regarding the US “natural born” issue in 1916. She had obtained a copy of the Chicago Legal News in which Attorney Beckinridge Long (who later served as US Secretary of State, and US Ambassador to Italy) discussed how that the father of Charles Evan Hughes disqualified his son from legally being President of these United States. Hughes had lost to Woodrow Wilson by only 23 electoral votes. The article was posted at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26233441/Is-Mr-Charles-Evans-Hughes-a-Natural-Born-Citizen#
Hat tip to Bill Cutting who posted in the Comment section of Mario Apuzzo's website, which alerted me to the article and the posting links above: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=981165088460178427
And a hat tip to Sharon Rondeau for the 04/05/2010 post and research.
And my first installment of that article, almost the first 3 columns, as it was written by Mr. Long, reads:
IS MR. CHARLES EVAN HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?
A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT BY BECKINRIDGE LONG, OF THE ST. LOUIS BAR
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 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. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.
If war had broken out between this government and England this government would have had a right to intern the father, the mother and the sons as subjects of an enemy power.
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.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “Native born” does not mean quite the same thing. He might be born in a country under conditions similar to the conditions under which Mr. Hughes was born, and subsequently became a citizen of that Country. In that case, after he became a citizen, he would be a “native born” citizen, but he would not have been a “natural born” citizen. From the instant of his birth this government would not be solely responsible for his protection.
Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.
The only reference in the Constitution to the subject (except that section specifying the qualifications for President) is that Congress shall have the power to make uniform laws to provide for naturalization. Congress, under that authority enacted the following law: “The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law of the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.” That Statute says that children born of persons who have been duly naturalized become citizens, but become so by virtue of the act of the parent. That is, they become naturalized citizens. They are citizens by operation of law. They were not born so, but, because of the act of their father , are invested with all the rights of citizens. If they are born in this country and their father subsequently became naturalized, they then, upon the naturalization of their father, become citizens. After becoming citizens they are “native born” citizens; but they are not “natural born” citizens. That is, they are not born, in the nature of things and by the laws of nature, a citizen of this Republic. 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 the time a subject of England. How could the son be a “natural born” citizen of the United States? If you had been born in England of American parents, would it be necessary for you to be naturalized if you came to this country to reside? No. If it was not necessary for him to be naturalized in England, would he be a “natural born citizen” of the United States?
The Statute above referred to announced the law of this country to be that the children of persons who should be naturalized become citizens by virtue of the act of their father. And obversely, that they were not to be considered as citizens until their father was naturalized. “* * * The naturalization of the father operates to confer the municipal right of citizenship upon the minor child * * *.” (Secretary Blaine, February 1st, 1890)
It is admitted that the legal status of the child, under the circumstances we have to deal with, is not explicitly defined by the Statutes. By any question which the reading of the Statute does not clear up is illuminated and elucidated by the courts (112 U.S. Supreme Court 94 infra) and by official documents written by men in authority and vested with the administration of the law.
In this connection it will be pertinent to make a few illusions to the recommendations made to Congress urging them to clarify the situation. President Arthur, in his Fourth Annual Message, in 1884, said: “ Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. * * * Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents is ambiguous in its terms * * *.
“An uniform rule of naturalization such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born in the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens * * *. “
President Cleveland, in his First Annual Message, in 1885, said: “The laws of certain states and territories admit a domiciled alien to the local franchise conferring upon him the rights of citizenship to a degree which places him in the anomalous condition of being a citizen of a state and yet not of the United States within the purview of Federal and international law.”
The United States Supreme Court has said: “The existing provisions leave much to be desired and the attention of Congress has been called to the condition of the laws with reference to the election of nationality; and to the desirability of a clear definition of the status of minor children whose fathers had declared their intention to become citizens * * *.” (143 U.S. 178)
Again, the United States Supreme Court says, in the same case: “clearly minors acquire an inchoate status by the declaration of intention on the part of their parents. If they attain their majority before the parent completes his naturalization, then they have an election to repudiate the status which they find impressed upon them, and determine that they will accept allegiance to some foreign potentate or power rather than hold fast to some citizenship that the parent has initiated for them.”
These opinions indicate where the doubt and uncertainty may be.
On the other hand, Willoughby, in his work on the Constitution (Vol. 1, page 283) makes the positive statement that: “The naturalization of a father operates as a naturalization of his minor child, if they are dwelling in the United States."
Elk v. Wilkins is the 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Every time the name Hughes comes up, one can easily substitute "Obama", because Obama Sr. remained a British Subject until his death as a British Commonwealth Citizen, and was a Kenyan National whom NEVER naturalized nor sought naturalization into the US. Obama is a USURPER of the Presidency, and his pointing fingers at Chester A. Arthur to justify his Criminal Act is no better than pointing to Hitler and Stalin for justifying Death Squads and Mass Murders. It is THAT cut and dried.
Even Michelle Obama tells us that Barack's "home country" -- or love, loyalty, and allegiance -- is NOT the United States of America, but "Kenya."
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/05/obama-not-the-first-to-have-presidential-eligibility-questioned/
posted a blog article exposing another scandal regarding the US “natural born” issue in 1916. She had obtained a copy of the Chicago Legal News in which Attorney Beckinridge Long (who later served as US Secretary of State, and US Ambassador to Italy) discussed how that the father of Charles Evan Hughes disqualified his son from legally being President of these United States. Hughes had lost to Woodrow Wilson by only 23 electoral votes. The article was posted at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26233441/Is-Mr-Charles-Evans-Hughes-a-Natural-Born-Citizen#
Hat tip to Bill Cutting who posted in the Comment section of Mario Apuzzo's website, which alerted me to the article and the posting links above: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=981165088460178427
And a hat tip to Sharon Rondeau for the 04/05/2010 post and research.
And my first installment of that article, almost the first 3 columns, as it was written by Mr. Long, reads:
IS MR. CHARLES EVAN HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?
A LEGAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT BY BECKINRIDGE LONG, OF THE ST. LOUIS BAR
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 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. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.
If war had broken out between this government and England this government would have had a right to intern the father, the mother and the sons as subjects of an enemy power.
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.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “Native born” does not mean quite the same thing. He might be born in a country under conditions similar to the conditions under which Mr. Hughes was born, and subsequently became a citizen of that Country. In that case, after he became a citizen, he would be a “native born” citizen, but he would not have been a “natural born” citizen. From the instant of his birth this government would not be solely responsible for his protection.
Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.
The only reference in the Constitution to the subject (except that section specifying the qualifications for President) is that Congress shall have the power to make uniform laws to provide for naturalization. Congress, under that authority enacted the following law: “The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law of the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.” That Statute says that children born of persons who have been duly naturalized become citizens, but become so by virtue of the act of the parent. That is, they become naturalized citizens. They are citizens by operation of law. They were not born so, but, because of the act of their father , are invested with all the rights of citizens. If they are born in this country and their father subsequently became naturalized, they then, upon the naturalization of their father, become citizens. After becoming citizens they are “native born” citizens; but they are not “natural born” citizens. That is, they are not born, in the nature of things and by the laws of nature, a citizen of this Republic. 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 the time a subject of England. How could the son be a “natural born” citizen of the United States? If you had been born in England of American parents, would it be necessary for you to be naturalized if you came to this country to reside? No. If it was not necessary for him to be naturalized in England, would he be a “natural born citizen” of the United States?
The Statute above referred to announced the law of this country to be that the children of persons who should be naturalized become citizens by virtue of the act of their father. And obversely, that they were not to be considered as citizens until their father was naturalized. “* * * The naturalization of the father operates to confer the municipal right of citizenship upon the minor child * * *.” (Secretary Blaine, February 1st, 1890)
It is admitted that the legal status of the child, under the circumstances we have to deal with, is not explicitly defined by the Statutes. By any question which the reading of the Statute does not clear up is illuminated and elucidated by the courts (112 U.S. Supreme Court 94 infra) and by official documents written by men in authority and vested with the administration of the law.
In this connection it will be pertinent to make a few illusions to the recommendations made to Congress urging them to clarify the situation. President Arthur, in his Fourth Annual Message, in 1884, said: “ Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. * * * Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents is ambiguous in its terms * * *.
“An uniform rule of naturalization such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born in the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens * * *. “
President Cleveland, in his First Annual Message, in 1885, said: “The laws of certain states and territories admit a domiciled alien to the local franchise conferring upon him the rights of citizenship to a degree which places him in the anomalous condition of being a citizen of a state and yet not of the United States within the purview of Federal and international law.”
The United States Supreme Court has said: “The existing provisions leave much to be desired and the attention of Congress has been called to the condition of the laws with reference to the election of nationality; and to the desirability of a clear definition of the status of minor children whose fathers had declared their intention to become citizens * * *.” (143 U.S. 178)
Again, the United States Supreme Court says, in the same case: “clearly minors acquire an inchoate status by the declaration of intention on the part of their parents. If they attain their majority before the parent completes his naturalization, then they have an election to repudiate the status which they find impressed upon them, and determine that they will accept allegiance to some foreign potentate or power rather than hold fast to some citizenship that the parent has initiated for them.”
These opinions indicate where the doubt and uncertainty may be.
On the other hand, Willoughby, in his work on the Constitution (Vol. 1, page 283) makes the positive statement that: “The naturalization of a father operates as a naturalization of his minor child, if they are dwelling in the United States."
Elk v. Wilkins is the 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Every time the name Hughes comes up, one can easily substitute "Obama", because Obama Sr. remained a British Subject until his death as a British Commonwealth Citizen, and was a Kenyan National whom NEVER naturalized nor sought naturalization into the US. Obama is a USURPER of the Presidency, and his pointing fingers at Chester A. Arthur to justify his Criminal Act is no better than pointing to Hitler and Stalin for justifying Death Squads and Mass Murders. It is THAT cut and dried.
Even Michelle Obama tells us that Barack's "home country" -- or love, loyalty, and allegiance -- is NOT the United States of America, but "Kenya."
No comments:
Post a Comment