“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
December 5, 2008 – 5:34 am
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 – the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens – natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens – natural born citizen.
CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
THE MYSTERY – When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.
FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:
“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.
CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
December 5, 2008 at 6:05 AM
A very exhaustive and comprehensive assessment, Leo. I applaud your effort.
Here’s the only problem: If Arthur did indeed do the things you say, in terms of destroying his father’s naturalization records, etc, you’ll never prove it. It’s unfortunate, but true. And because you can’t prove it, it’s precedent.
We’ll see what happens in the next 4 hours. I would say this, however:
You’ve come at this case with a motive. Only you know this motive and I will not pretend I have even the faintest idea what it is. If you are truly concerned about the Constitution, and only the Constitution, then I applaud your efforts to seek the legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen”, as this would surely be the reason you succeed.
However, if you have pursued this case because of a political distaste, or any form of anger towards the candidates, then this will be the reason you fail.
I hope that your motives are sound.
December 5, 2008 at 6:09 AM
To all McCain electors,
If Barack Obama continues to evade the eligibility question, then on Dec. 15th all of the McCain electors should protest by voting for Hillary Clinton. If they stick to voting for McCain, then Obama will obviously become President since he has more than enough electors.
BUT, if word gets out that the McCain electors will vote for Hillary for President, then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we can get 50 or so Democratic electors to defect and vote for Hillary instead. That way, the integrity of the Constitution will be protected, and Republicans will show that they put principle above all else. (Plus, a President Hillary Clinton will be less effective if she wins under these circumstances)
This would PROVE that Republicans place principle above politics. Hillary Clinton is no doubt a natural-born citizen, and conservatives will prove their strict adherence to and love of the Constitution by supporting an eligible candidate for office (even though we all disagree with her on the issues, of course).
Please consider supporting this option. Thank you.
December 5, 2008 at 6:15 AM
I think when it comes to History, That might of been the most brilliant thing I have ever read. I usually just fall asleep
December 5, 2008 at 6:16 AM
Well done Leo!!!….The article read pretty much like I thought it would….The precedent set forth by a criminal would not be a good one for Obama to follow or rely on in a court of law.
“We the People” are ALL IN!!!
May the SC Justices stay true to their duty and protect our beloved Constution today.
Thanks again for everything Leo!!!
December 5, 2008 at 6:19 AM
I listened to the radio show last night and was left thinking that you and the other lawyers were showing your cards to the otherside. Isn’t it much better to not discuss or write about your case so the oposite side does not know all your thoughts or what you might do in court in the future. The opposite side is not on the radio talling all that they are doing or will do. How can you win will you tell the enemy everything? How Sir? I do thankyou for your effort and good luck.
December 5, 2008 at 6:20 AM
Thank you for that.
December 5, 2008 at 6:35 AM
God bless you, Leo. You have obviously put an enormous amount of time into this case (along with Cort W. and Philip B. and their similar cases), and it looks like it has interrupted your sleep (posts in the wee hours of the morning). Great info on the past persidential precedents (or lack thereof).
THANK YOU for all that you are doing, and the sacrifices you are making. The three of you are heroes to our family. We don’t have much money, but I donated a small amount to Phil’s cause and want to do the same for you and Cort, but I don’t see a donation link on http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
I am sure you are very busy this morning, with the case and the rally, so you will likely not be able to reply today. Our thoughts are with you-Good Luck!
If anyone knows the links to donate to Leo and Cort, please post a comment with the links. I donated to Philip Berg, and I find a donate button on a “Citizen Wells” site, but the site is in first person, and does not mention who the person is!!!!
Thank you,
Kelly
December 5, 2008 at 6:44 AM
I pray that the courts will see through all of this and make the right decision. Thank you for your effort. Lets not forget it is our Constitution that gives us the Freedom of Speech. Thank you for protecting it! I applaud you.
December 5, 2008 at 6:54 AM
May God have mercy on us today.
December 5, 2008 at 7:00 AM
Truth seeker…dude, DUDE, i dont like hillary, but how cool would that be?!!!!!!
Republicans setting aside politics and basically being responsible for the first female president in US history. talk about the final twist in an already bizarre experience. but i dont think it’ll happen.
thanks leo for that in depth analysis
December 5, 2008 at 7:02 AM
Thank you!! Brilliant article! Don’t know where you find the energy, but keep up the good work.
So many are behind you and your efforts. Praying for you from across the ocean…
December 5, 2008 at 7:10 AM
I think you have a typo in the second paragraph on Chester Arthur: Did you write “Hoover” where you meant Arthur?
Fascinating and astute! Too bbad I’m not getting a thing done while I’m following this! lol
December 5, 2008 at 7:13 AM
I think you say ‘Hoover’ once when you mean ‘Arthur’ and ‘1770-1780′ once when you mean ‘1870-1880′. Hey, it’s late.
========================================
December 5, 2008 at 7:17 AM
God bless you. I pray today for you and the actions of Supreme Court.
December 5, 2008 at 7:17 AM
I’ve heard Leo say before that he does not accept donations. If you send him something he will send it back.
December 5, 2008 at 7:22 AM
From Dec. 5th Yahoo news:
US Supreme Court to decide on Obama’s citizenship
Washington, Dec.5 : The United States Supreme Court plans to meet on Friday to decide whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s president.
Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after Justice David H. Souter denied it.
Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.
The decision to put the case on Friday’s docket resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship at birth. The issue preoccupied many conservative bloggers in the weeks before the November 4 election.
Obama was born under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, Britain, and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States, according to a lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, for the lawsuit even to make it to the docket raises the possibility of an unprecedented case going before the Supreme Court. At least four of the court’s nine judges must approve before the case is heard.
December 5, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Correction” Above article is from Newkerala News. Sorry for the error.
December 5, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Just wanted to let you know about a typo in the second paragraph under your analysis of Chester Arthur: “Hoover was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad”. I think you meant Arthur not Hoover. You don’t have to post this. Just wanted to let you know so you have a chance to correct it. Thanks for very detailed information on this topic. Discussions on Chester Arthur’s eligibility has been flying around the chat rooms for several days now. You are a true patriot, Leo. Thank you for all you have done.
December 5, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Pretty good work in short time, once you became aware of the exceptions.
Elizabeth Speer was born in PA, though, not Ireland.
Johnson’s father would have had to take action under the 1802 Act. Unclear that he did. The mothers were always going to be the easiest to work with.
So, let me give you a new set of precedents to look at:
VP Dallas, whose father was from Jamaica; VP Humphrey, whose mother was from Norway (but who is likely to be covered through the marriage to an American citizen before 1922); and VP Agnew, whose father was from Greece.
The last of them there is not much to be done about. Charles Curtis’s mother was ineligible to be a United States citizen, even though she married a resident of the Territory of Kansas. Indeed, he spent many of his childhood years living with her people.
December 5, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Thank you Leo for your fierce tenacity and your ability to sift through to the salient points. I believe the creators of the Constitution were very wise in making the distinction about natural born as they were in many things. I am worried sick that Obama’s obviously divided loyalties will expose our Nation to great peril. I only wish I had more faith in the courage and honor of our Supreme Court. I pray they will rise to the occasion.
December 5, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Leo takes no donation. In the above about showing your hand to the other side.
The truth can stand thye light of day. Our SCOTUS will have the facts and understand those facts better than most.
Leo, from the start just wanted his case to be heard. Please read his early stuff that is what Leo might like for you to do.
In fact I hope he might one day consdier becoming a teacher. I think he would like that line of work better than poker which he enjoys greatly.
Tex Dix
http://www.dixhistory.com/
December 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM
[...] Here’s the essay… [...]
December 5, 2008 at 8:29 AM
[...] Citizenship is questionable. Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has written a rather extensive history of all Presidents who had parents born abroad, including our 21st president, Chester Arthur. Arthur [...]
December 5, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Can anyone offer any insight regarding when and how we will find out the outcome of today’s SCOTUS conference?
December 5, 2008 at 8:43 AM
KELLY: He’s not panhandling. He has not once asked for a donation. Applaud him for this. He’s doing it on his own volition.
Also, I just finished listening to the Dec 4th interview on Plains Radio Network. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DOES NOT EQUAL CITIZEN AT BIRTH. CITIZEN AT BIRTH IS A NATURALIZATION PROCESS IN WHICH A COURT RULES THAT A BIRTH IS NATURAL AFTER THE BIRTH TAKES PLACE BECAUSE THERE ARE QUESTIONS CONCERNING STATUS. NO ONE CAN BECOME A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BY A DECISION IN A COURT OF LAW.
EX. 1: SO YOU GO TO COURT TO FIND YOUR CITIZENSHIP STATUS, THEN THE JUDGE SAYS “OKAY. OKAY. YOU’RE A NATURALIZED CITIZEN NOW. I’LL EXTEND THIS STATUS TO YOUR BIRTH.”
EX.2: SO YOU GO TO COURT, THE JUDGE LOOKS AT YOUR HISTORY AND SAYS: “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN MY COURTROOM FIGHTING YOUR CITIZENSHIP STATUS? YOU’RE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE BOTH OF YOUR PARENTS ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. DUH!” See, the judge didn’t have to award you a status. NATURAL!
How does this lawyer Gary not get this?
It’s much like having 2 seeds that are claimed to be 2 tulip seeds. They are set side by side in potting soil. They grow. Then geneticists extract the DNA of each tulip. One of the tulips is an exact match to known databases of tulip DNA. The other tulip’s DNA is almost an exact match, but it looks like there’s been some DNA manipulation. Lo and behold! A guy walks out and says: Hey Geneticists. They both look like tulips don’t they? But the first one you looked at, the one with an exact match, is a pure tulip. It is a NATURAL BORN TULIP. The other tulip was once a carnation, but we did some splicing, reorganizing, and other forms of manipulation to make it look like and resemble the DNA structure of a tulip. It’s close enough to be considered a tulip, so how about just saying it’s a natural born Tulip for labeling sakes. The geneticists look at each other, talk it over, and come back and say that they disagree. The pure tulip was a tulip when it was born; hence, it’s a NATURAL BORN TULIP. The manipulated carnation that looks like a tulip, is no longer a pure carnation, but it is not a pure tulip either, so we’ll group it in the category as a tulip since it looks more like and has more DNA that resembles a tulip than a carnation now. We’ll NATURALIZE the manipulated tulip, and consider it a NATURALIZED TULIP at birth, as a way of saying it’s closer to the natural tulip than the carnation.
I think that’s a pretty easy example to follow.
December 5, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Great Job Leo and Merry Christmas !
I read an article recently, written by an attorney, who belives that if we are not able to get the courts to make a decision on this issue now, it will be done thru the criminal courts later. When Obama signs a bill into law, and someone is accused of breaking that law, their defense attorney will be able to bring this issue to bear, by contesting the validity of this law, since it was signed by an usurper.
Hope the Judges play chess and can see a few moves ahead.
December 5, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Every American who wants to can visit Fairfield, Vermont, to see the little home that is known as the Chester A. Arthur Birthplace. They can do it online here:
http://www.virtualvermont.com/towns/fairfield.html
However, no American who wants to can visit Hawaii and come away with any idea at all where Barack Obama was born — anywhere. Even citizens of Hawaii are unable to locate the spot.
There’s a little cottage behind his Grandmother’s home out on the Kalanianaole Highway. Some are guessing this is where Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham lived until they were married, while they both were attending college in Honolulu, because that address was used in the birth announcement in the Hawaiian Sunday Advertiser in August, 1961. But, nobody knows for sure.
Why? Because there are the admission records of the University of Washington that record Stanley Ann Dunham attended classes in the Seattle in August, 1961, the same month Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Does this mean that during Barack’s first year, he was raised by a “single father,” who was also going to school, staying in Honolulu? Or, was he raised by his grandmother, during the time his mother was away attending college on the mainland? In that case, Barack would have lived in at his grandmother’s home. Again, nobody knows for sure.
Whatever scenario is correct, any compassionate person should be able to understand why Barack Obama might not be willing to revisit that time and place. Simply that it hurts too much.
But, for the American voter, not only the birthplace, but where he lived his early years, remain undocumented.
In any case, the American people have entrusted him with their majority vote. On those grounds, Obama probably would be our next President-elect, had he only authorized the Secretary of State of New Jersey to examine his original birth certificate so she could fulfill her duty to certify New Jersey’s Ballot and certify NJ Electors to the Electoral College on December 15.
However, because he didn’t, she can’t!
Now comes Leo Donofrio from East Brunswick, NJ, with a challenge whether or not Obama is even eligible to enter upon the duties of the President of the United States, because his father was a British subject (ON THE DATE!) when Obama was born.
This may prove to be Obama’s Achilles heel, a fatal weakness despite his tremendous strength, leading to his downfall.
The most famous rhyme showing that small actions can result in huge consequences is this one, called “For Want of A Nail:”
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
It was very popular in Colonial times, and one version was included by Benjamin Franklin in his Poor Richard’s Almanack, when America and Great Britain were on opposite sides during the American Revolutionary War.
Remember that War when you read our Constitution!
Because that will help you understand why the Framers did not want to have “any foreign influence” in our Commander-in-Chief. The fear of “foreign influence” would be defeated by the birth requirement.
Elbridge Gerry noted that rival princes in Europe spared no expense to influence our affairs, and that everyone knew what were the vast sums laid out in Europe for their secret services. This fear would be defeated by the residency requirement.
The 35 year age requirement speaks for itself: there would be no infant monarchs in America, as in the history of England, France or Spain!
December 5, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The fact that Chester Arthur lied to project legitimacy supports your case and can be a precedent in that manner.
December 5, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Thanks guys. for pointing out the Hoover/Arthur typo…
December 5, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Wayfaringstranger,
thanks for the Elizabeth Speer info… yes, she was born in Pennsylvania. I’ve corrected it.
December 5, 2008 at 9:31 AM
[...] An interesting read on presidents whose parentage is similar to Obama’s. [...]
December 5, 2008 at 9:32 AM
David,
the tulip thing was an interesting analogy.
thanks to everybody and the words of support.
for those asking about when we’ll know anything… SCOTUS usually publishes orders on Monday for Friday conference.
Leo (sorry I cant respond to everyone.)
December 5, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Humm, looks like at least of this year’s Presidential Candidates was playing from the Chester Arthur playbook. Not saying which one but, it could be the guy that studied Constitutional Law in college perhaps.
December 5, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Hi Leo, You might be interested to know some other information about our lying presidents. according to Dr. leroy Vaughn, we have already had 5 afro american Presidents. Three of them before the 14th amendmant, actually born of slave fathers and mothers. They are Thomas Jefferson, who destroyed all of his mother’s papers, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson whose real father was a slave. You can read the genealogy here: http://hubpages.com/hub/Five-Black-American-Presidents
http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/
Dr Vaughn says that Andrew Jackson’s older brother was actually sold as a slave.
the remaining two are Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding.
Dr. Vaughn has speculated, but not confirmed Dwight D. Eisenhower as being the 6th.
so the first three, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were not even natural born citizens since they were born before the 14th amendment.
December 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM
The weight of academic commentary remains against you.
December 5, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Bill, I don’t guy the idea that Leo should not be revealing his cards to the defense. The constitution must be upheld, pure and simple.
Obama doesn’t have a defense. His plan was to deceive to usurp.
He didn’t count on a person like Leo, the lion-hearted defender of Freedom.
I’m sure, at the very least, the Justices will require that documents be presented.
December 5, 2008 at 10:19 AM
buy the idea
December 5, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Leo,
Thank you for this fine piece of work. It will blunt any arguement BHO will try to use when this case is heard by SCOTUS. Yes, I truly believe it is WHEN, not if.
Also, you may want to check in at the texasdarlin blog for an incredible piece just submitted by dr. kate called “Stand By Me”
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/stand-by-me/
May God richly bless you and your efforts!
December 5, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I have an interesting thought that I like to bring up. Obama has a dual citizenship at birth, if he doesn’t renounce his British, later transfered to Kenya citizenship, then he’s still a dual citizen. So will his children be eligible to be the POTUS? Also, anyone talked about his citizenship status when he was in Indonesia? He may have taken on Indonesian citizenship while he was living there, because of adoption and also his attending of Indonesian public schools. If those are true, then Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US.
December 5, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Your faith in the courts is much stronger than my own. I pray that your resolve trumps my well earned cycinicism.
Irrespective of the outcome you have show yourself to be a most honorable man and I hope the robed ones can rise to meet your character.
God Bless you and Yours and a Merry Christmas.
You have gifted all who know you and all who have come to know you by your good work that great privilege.
You are also a great American.
Thank you ~ G
.
December 5, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Leo, my family and I really appreciate your efforts here. We’re praying for you and for the Court.
I just wanted to let everybody know, I called the SCOTUS Public Information office and got ahold of a clerk, who told me that there will be an announcement regarding their decision from today’s conference on Monday.
That’s right, we’ll be biting our nails ’til Monday. Keep praying guys.
December 5, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Leo,
Also, I think one other “bleary eyed typo” under Chester Arthur section….”His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1921″…should read “1821″.
God Bless you Leo for your perserverance and may God Bless America!
December 5, 2008 at 11:12 AM
thanks, Jan
December 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Leo,
Good luck with SCOTUS today. I want to thank you for seeking the Truth for all of us. I voted for McCain and I am Conservative, however, I have to accept all of your case in totality, not just Obama. I have no problem having my eyes opened up by someone who clearly has done alot of Research.
If you would like to have a website, which would provide a larger space, let me know; I will put one together for you on me. Whatever I can do to help, I’m here. Be good, Leo, and thank you for all that you have done.
December 5, 2008 at 11:15 AM
The media is starting to crack. There was mention of this. This morning on Fox 5 in Wash., D.C., they had a brief ( 15 sec.) report on the case before the SC today. The tone of the report was of surprise, that his citizenship was even being questioned.
I think they are grossly ignorant and willingly incompetent.
I was astonished that it was mentioned.
Maybe there is hope for them yet.
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.
December 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I simply second Gene’s lovely post. Thank you, Leo, for giving so generously of yourself to protect the honor and integrity of our Constitution. May our SCOTUS have all that is needed to do the same.
December 5, 2008 at 11:24 AM
It’s becoming apparent that the Jake Tapper (ABC News) blog has a “censor” exercising a heavy hand. It’s the entry which leads off with the headline about the “Anti-Obama Fringe” and goes downhill from there. I put up two posts yesterday (removed) and I note several posters this morning are asking “What happened to plaintiff Leo Donofrio’s post that was on here last night and is missing now?”
I’m a lawyer.
I used to work at CBS Broadcast network in NY.
I noted with interest that Dan Rather was interviewed on-air after the election and was upfront in stating that he thought the mainstream media showed a heavy bias in the 2008 election cycle, relative to which candidate “gaffes” it played up and which it downplayed.
It is upsetting that posts which were educational and/or mildly corrective are meeting up with the heavy hand of censorship. I’ve “saved” an entire page of article+comments which are a “freeze frame” and I entered the following post which will probably get zapped, as it pointed to the censorship problems being played out.
———————————-
Dear Jake Tapper:
Please make a correction to your report. It confuses the allegations of the Berg lawsuit (which seeks a birth certificate for Obama) with the relief sought by the Donofrio case that’s coming up in conference today.
As to
McCAIN
and
OBAMA
and
CALERO
that case, filed before Nov. 4th but not acted upon as quickly by NJ courts as it should have been, sought a finding of ineligibility because the first two are not “natural born citizens” and the last one is not only not a “natural born citizen” but not even a U.S. citizen.
The Donofrio case assumes that the “certification” information posted by FightTheSmears and FactCheck are rooted in “better evidence” source documents such as a “certificate” and likely to be supported by such a “certificate” if Mr. Obama is inclined to exercise his right to produce the “certificate.”
Significant historical research over the past few days into several other Presidents “alleged” to have served without being “natural born citizens” turns up the finding that they either met the standards of the ‘grandfather clause’ or had parents who were naturalized Americans prior to the time the Presidents were born. The ONLY former President who may have destroyed records and lied about his birth date (moving it from 1829 to 1830) in order to work around a date when his immigrant FATHER had become “naturalized” as a “citizen” and would be able to pass along a “natural born citizen” status to his son, born on American soil, was Chester Arthur.
Details about the case of the “possibly fraudulent President” are here
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%e2%80%99s-eligibility/
It is noteworthy that responsible posts being put up by lawyers, including the actual plaintiff in the Donofrio lawsuit which has come “so far” and advances a question for LEGAL interpretation (and not FACTUAL speculation), are getting deleted by whoever moderates this Comment area for ABC. I used to work at CBS and am keeping an incidental “log” of what gets deleted and what it stated since you never know when someone might want to do a little “short story” a la “60 Minutes” on the topic of Media bias, and how it plays out. (Dan Rather admitted on-air that bias was a problem with the 2008 election.)
Posted by: NJ Citizen | Dec 5, 2008 10:56:47 AM
———————————
I don’t come from a “background” which finds me having been exposed to charges of being a “fringe” or a “wingnut” or “irresponsible” and this exposure to how ABC News is comporting itself is …. (racks brain, searching for kind and gentle word) …. enlightening. To say the least.
December 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Here is a link to a Fox 5 Wash, D.C. report that aired yesterday. I missed this one.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8005649&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.3.1
December 5, 2008 at 11:48 AM
All this seems too simple:
Obama’s father was not a U. S. citizen.
Obama has admitted to having dual citizenship at birth on his web site fightthesmears.com.
His mother’s citizenship does not enter into the equation.
Therefore, Barack Obama is a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawai’i) but not a natural born citizen.
Is it clear from historical precedent that these are the “rules”?
Is my understanding of the legal issues correct?
Assuming that the Supreme Court decides to hear the case how can they not rule against Barack Obama?
Governor Bill Richardson also ran for president and he also is not a natural born citizen according to the above criteria. His father was born in Nicaragua and his mother was born in Spain. His parents lived and worked in Mexico City. He was born in California by virtue of the fact that his mother was specifically sent there so he could be born in the U.S. (according to Wikipedia.com)
December 5, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Now I’m really scared…is there a suggestion that Berg is going down the same track as Hinman, knowingly or not?
December 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM
MSNBC again reports on Supreme Ct case but persists in misleading:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=28067492�
I beg to differ with Pete William’s conclusions. It’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court COULD FIND Barack Obama to be a “Natural Born Citizen”. Moreover, MSNBC & Williams persist in misleading the public by failing to report that while Hawaii officials state there IS a birth certificate on file (which Obama refuses to allow anyone to see, his spending $1 million so far in that effort), Hawaii officials carefully don’t say that it is or it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Bottom line, Pete Williams, along with MSNBC, are treasonous liars by their acts to mislead the American public on such a vital news story, having bearing in whether the United States will continue to be a constitutional republic.
December 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM
@ Truth Detector: hate to admit this but you are correct about Republicans understanding that putting McCain’s electorate votes out there for Clinton as Prez would probably be the way to go. The Constitution, above all else, is the main issue here. It may quiet the political repercussions but there would still be racial accusations to deal with from those who either don’t understand or just don’t care about our Founding Father’s and the documents they left for us to govern this nation.
December 5, 2008 at 11:57 AM
What a great lesson your essay provides! We get to see an actual historical view of why “natural born citizen” establishment in our U.S. Constitution is there concerning presidential, and vice-presidential candidates.
I am reminded of an excellent essay I read yesterday over at The New Media Journal – Why the POTUS Needs to
Be a Natural-Born Citizen
Both essays compliment each other in that they show exactly why “natural born citizen” clause was, (and still is) so very important when it comes to our U.S. Constitution and candidates for POTUS.
Your essay shows to what great lengths one man (Chester Arthur) went to lie, cheat, and conceal the truth about the details of his birth for his own personal (NOT for the country!) political gain. Sounds so similar to Obama (although I think O’s case is far worse) – it’s scary!
Thank you so much for continuing to educate the American electorate about this issue, Mr. Donofrio.
Prayers are being sent up regarding the U.S. Supreme Court conference today.
God bless you and may God bless and reward your valiant efforts on behalf of all of us concerned Americans!
Christine
December 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Leo: I am a Democrat who voted for McCain…Agruably, the best Dem on any ticket. There is something about PE Obama’s lack of American rearing (already on record) that causes pause. This is the main reason I support your efforts to expose the truth. If anything, I pray your efforts bring his past into the light so we may know more about his motives as President of our great USA.
December 5, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Leo Donofrio ends with “It’s no precedent to follow.”
This is exactly right. If the truth is Chester Arthur was a usurper, this did not make it right any more than would someone who committed murder and got away cleanly, never to be caught, set a precedent that murder is now legal.
Personally, I believe that Chester Arthur’s father would have been naturalized as quickly as possible and probably was a U.S. citizen when his son was born. But, I will reread your article, do more research, and I always have an open mind.
The three current cases bear little resemblance to Chester Arthur’s situation.
First, Barack Obama: He clearly states that he was a dual national at birth. NO other post-Constitutional U.S. President has EVER made this claim. Even the mainstream media’s number one tool, factcheck.org, concurs with this and they actually link to a copy of the British Nationality Act of 1948 in which it is quite clear that former Senator Obama was indeed a British Subject at birth. Obama’s cult-like following and 66 million votes doesn’t change the fact that he is ineligible to be President.
Second, John McCain: He produced a birth certificate showing he was born NOT in the Panama Canal Zone, but in Colon, a city in the REPUBLIC OF PANAMA. It’s sad that the mainstream media is so inept that they can’t even get this straight. In addition, the U.S. Senate passed a “resolution” in April that somehow gave Senator McCain “natural born” status. Any “resolution” passed by any government body is NOT legislation and carries less weight than a grocery store circular. I acknowledge that John McCain was served the United States of America honorably, and that he made sacrifices far greater than most Americans in doing so. But that and his nearly 60 MILLION VOTES does not make him eligible to President.
In John McCain’s case, there is a U.S. Law passed in 1937 (found at http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1403.html ) which confers status as a U.S. citizen at birth to certain people born (a) in the Canal Zone and (b) in the REPUBLIC OF PANAMA. This law does NOT say “natural born,” and even if it did, that might not hold water. A court will have to interpret this law and see if it’s any help for Senator McCain. My belief is that it will NOT hhelp.
FYI: Colon Panama was NEVER part of the Canal Zone, and the Coco Solo military base where the inept media continues to claim as John McCain’s birthplace in 1936, didn’t even exist until after the U.S. entered World War II in 1941. (research: “Executive Order 8981″)
Third, Roger Calero, Candidate for U.S. President: Mr. Calero is not even a U.S. Citizen! Although he could have applied to become a naturalized citizen, he would also be ineligible to become President. The MYSTERY is how did this guy get his Electors on the 2008 general election ballot in five states? Mr. Calero should be arrested and deported for this crime.
SOONER OR LATER, a court of law will have to act on our current trio of ineligible candidates, and make a FINAL determination for each of the three. Otherwise, we will have a never ending stream of lawsuits going through the state and federal court systems. In addition, we will either have a federal government with no authority or perhaps even a failed federal government.
December 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Leo, great job on the history of the Presidents mentioned. I think you must be a chess player, as well as a sharp poker player, because you move very quickly to checkmate those who desperately want to shield Obama.
Here’s a thought, Leo: Why not run for President in 2012??? Well, it was a good thought anyway
One more thing, based on the preponderance of all your efforts (just what we can see and read about, but have no knowledge of the real sweat equity you’ve poured into this worthy cause), I have come to the conclusion that you must be a clone. I mean, how else can all this reeearch and writing be accomplished!
I hope you take frequent cat naps! Anyway, may God bless you, protect you, sustain you, and keep invigorating your tremendous spirit and fight for the basis of law in our land–the U.S. Constitution. And yes, the truth will come out sooner or later. God hear us: may it be sooner!
December 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Does anyone know if Leo has someone ready to post the Justice’s decision on this blog site? Or, is there a better source for minute by minute information till the decision breaks?
God bless you Leo! Some people are content to “ho-hum” this issue away and trash this case. Thank God for patriotic Americans… this issue won’t disappear or go away until Obama speaks up publically and admits to the name of the hospital in Hawaii he was (allegedly) born in.
December 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Israeli Insider is reporting too:
http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-eligibility-case-goes-to
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-us-supreme-court-confers
December 5, 2008 at 1:35 PM
There is nothing so entertaining as watching lunatics tilt at windmills. Thank you for providing me with a few moments of laughs.
December 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM
EXACTLY!
December 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM
There is no transparency in government, corruption is the rule of law. Corruption is the root of this Obama problem.
Please support the Transparency of Loyalty in Government Amendment: A proposal to keep citizens safe from cultivated treason against The United States of America. If you are not against corruption you are for corruption, if you are not for America you are against America.
http://www.petitiononline.com/tona2009/petition.html
December 5, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I very much doubt the Supreme Court would entertain the Alcatraz defense. It would be incredible that just because one person escapes the law that they would shut down the entire legal institution set forth in the Constitution.
December 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Are you crazy? Even illegal aliens who give birth on US soil have kids that are US citizens. That’s why they come here. His father’s citizenship is irrelevant. Do you really believe that the any country could make a law that says what applies to another country? The brits can make all the laws they want about their own citizenship, but not ours. Why don’t we just make a law that says everyone born in Pakistan is a US citizen, that should terrorism.
December 5, 2008 at 6:23 PM
[...] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%8... [...]
December 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Wayfaringstranger – I did some quick research on those VP names and here is what I came up with. I’m missing several dates, so if anyone can find them, please post them.
George Mifflin Dallas – born 1792
Father – Alexander J Dallas – born 1759 in Jamaica
Mother – Arabella Smith Dallas – born ??? in Pennsylvania
Parents Married – 1780
Moved to Jamaica in 1781
Moved Philadelphia in 1783 (9 years prior to George’s Birth)
Alexander J Dallas achieved prominence as a jurist, statesman, and author. Dallas was born June 21, 1759, in Jamaica, British West Indies. He relocated to the United States, becoming a citizen in 1783
Therefore – George Mifflin Dallas was a Natural Born Citizen.
Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr. – born 1911
Father – Hubert Humphrey, Sr. – born ???? in Oregan
Mother – Ragnild Kristine Sannes – born 1883 in Norway
Parents Married – April 16, 1906 in Granite Falls, MN
(His mother became a citizen 5 years prior to Humphrey’s birth when she married his father)
Therefore Huber Horatio Humphry was a Natural Born Citizen
Spiro Theodore Agnew – born November 9, 1918 in Maryland
Father – Theodore Spiros Agnew, born ???? a Greek immigrant who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos when he moved to the USA (His father emigrated from Gargalianoi, Messinia, Greece to the United States in 1897 where he became a US CItizen) – 21 years before Spiro was born.
Mother – Margaret Akers – born ???? a native of Virginia.
Married in ????
I believe the name change makes is very hard to find anything on his parents.
Therefore Spiro Agnew was a Natural Born Citizen
Charles Curtis – born 1860 in North Topeka, Kansas
Father – Orren Curtis – born 1829 in Eugene, Indiana
He was of English and northern European ancestry
Mother – Ellen Pappan – born 1840 on Kaw Indian Reservation,Oklahoma Territory
She was one-fourth Kaw, one-fourth Osage, one-fourth Pottawatomie and one-fourth French.
Married in 1859
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860-0ne year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory.
I’m not sure how history views Indians and citizenship and the effects of an Indian marrying a citizen.
Barry Goldwater – born 1909 in Phoenix, in what was then the Arizona Territory
Father – Baron Goldwater born May 1866 in perhaps California
Mother – Hattie Josephine Williams – born March 9, 1876 in Bowen, Illinois
Married in 1907
Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the
Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964 due to being boin on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State.
Therefore, Barry Goldwater was a Natural Born Citizen.
Of historical note, Martin Van Buren was actually the first “natural born citizen” to become President. Prior Presidents had been born British subjects and were not “natural-born Citizens” but were eligible because they qualified by being “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”
December 5, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Stan, I believe you are mixing up the term ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’.
December 5, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Trying to keep a focus here… yes it is of great importance that the person we place in the White House IS properly vetted, and lets remember that he, or possibly she, is just a public servant.
Think about those two little words.
That is something which has been absent for many administrations.
I think we all deserve that as a minimum once the new Prtesident is in office
December 6, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Thank you, Leo for your fine work here; and thanks to all of the other contributors as well. Having reviewed this matter for some months now, I am completely puzzled that it seems no entity in our Country is responsible for qualifying candidates. And the fourth estate has fallen asleep. Do you realize you cannot even drive into Canada and return without a passport or birth certificate, but you can be POTUS apparently.
I am at a complete loss to imagine what any Justice might be thinking to walk away from defending the Constitution; their only job. Lacking their acceptance of this case or a very credible explanation Monday, I would support articles of impeachment to be drafted for each of them. I do fear for our Country but do trust in the Lord. In the meantime, I am selling all my mutual funds tomorrow. A great storm is gathering.
December 6, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Sally -
George Mifflin Dallas – born 1792
Father – Alexander J Dallas – born 1759 in Jamaica
Moved Philadelphia in 1783 (9 years prior to George’s Birth)
He relocated to the United States, becoming a citizen in 1783
Therefore – George Mifflin Dallas was a Natural Born Citizen.
That depends on when he got to the United States. If it was after September 3rd, then he was not.
Further, he would only have become one even before then if he were a citizen of the state – he may not have satisfied that requirement, and therefore not been a US citizen and his son not a NBC.
[Ed. Note - Alexander J. Dallas would have become a US citizen when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Because of the Treaty of 1783, the colonists who came here were legally free of the Crown. The states had no naturalization laws. Residents of the states were citizens of the states. See the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, which was in effect until 1790.]
Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr. was a Natural Born Citizen – conceded in my original post.
Spiro Theodore Agnew – born November 9, 1918 in Maryland
Father – Theodore Spiros Agnew, born ???? a Greek immigrant who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos when he moved to the USA (His father emigrated from Gargalianoi, Messinia, Greece to the United States in 1897 where he became a US CItizen)
[Theodore Spiros Agnew was a resident for 21 years before Spiro was born. The Naturlization residency requirement was only five years. The weight of evidence suggests Theodore was naturalized. His records shouldn't be hard to track down. Feel free to post whatever you find. All threads can be updated if need be.]
I found nothing about the elder Agnew’s becoming a US Citizen. Got a link?
n
Charles Curtis – born 1860 in North Topeka, Kansas
Father – Orren Curtis – born 1829 in Eugene, Indiana
He was of English and northern European ancestry
Mother – Ellen Pappan – born 1840 on Kaw Indian Reservation,Oklahoma Territory
She was one-fourth Kaw, one-fourth Osage, one-fourth Pottawatomie and one-fourth French.
Married in 1859
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860-0ne year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory.
I’m not sure how history views Indians and citizenship and the effects of an Indian marrying a citizen.
But, you see, according to Leo’s argument, as the son of a woman who was not a citizen, he could not be a Natural Born Citizen.
[Ed. Note- If Ellen Pappas wasn't a US citizen before 1855, she became one automatically in 1855. An Act of February 1855, stated “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2. See http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/ogle.html ]
Further, you note that you are unfamiliar with the laws regarding Indians and Citizenship of the day.
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” The year was 1860 – but even the 14th Amendment would not help Charles Curtis.
“By the phrase “Indians not taxed” is meant Indians living on reservations under the care of Government agents, or roaming individually, or in bands, over unsettled tracts of country.”
Curtis spent years on the Kaw Reservation, living with his mother’s parents. He would have been accounted an Indian, himself.
Through March 3 of 1871 the Kaw were entitled to negotiate treaties with the United States as if a sovereign land.
So, I really don’t see how you can conclude that Charles Curtis was by any stretch of the imagination a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
[Ed. note - see bold print above.]
December 6, 2008 at 11:06 AM
[Ed. Note - As to McCain, military installations abroad are not considered US soil and children born do not get their citizenship under the 14th Amendment. That's straight from the State Department.
Also, EXCELLENT research was done by this commented. Nice job.]
George Mifflin Dallas – born 1792
Father – Alexander J Dallas – born 1759 in Jamaica
I guess Leo answered the question about Dallas.
However, let me say I didn’t assume he was a citizen merely due to the fact that he emigrated here – I actually found that in print – link: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Alexander+James+Dallas
Spiro Theodore Agnew
Father – Theodore Spiros Agnew, born ???? a Greek immigrant who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos when he moved to the USA in 1897 where he became a US CItizen)
While I did find a link that stated he was a citizen, 21 years certainly gave me reason to believe he was a citizen. I found the text in a Times Magazine article – so I’d give it some credence. Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840347,00.html
Charles Curtis
Mother – Ellen Pappan – born 1840 on Kaw Indian Reservation
So, I really don’t see how you can conclude that Charles Curtis was by any stretch of the imagination a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
While I, personally, did not conclude by any stretch of the imagination that Curtis was a NBC, I did fail to quote where I found the info regarding Curtis regarding NBC. “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860-0ne year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory.” Link: http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
I threw Goldwater in the mix as a result of this link, due to his situation as to being born in a state that had yet to attain statehood at the time of his birth.
LOL – Although I’m guessing Leo has posted info confirming Curtis was a NBC, in retrospect I probably shouldn’t have used that link for confirmation since it also concludes that McCain was a NBC. Since I do not believe that to be true, I shouldn’t have accepted their rationale for their determining that Curtis was also NBC.
Although Leo has stated that the mother likely became a citizen in 1855. I must admit, I still question that a bit, due to the attitude at the time in the Nation concerning Native Americans. My question is, does “any woman” include Native American women? (at that time in history)
[Ed. Note - Of course "any woman" includes Native American Woman.]
Again, I’m certainly NO lawyer, don’t understand legalize at all….I just had an hour or two on my hands yesterday and your post intrigued me – so I threw together some research.
Thanks to you both for your input.
December 6, 2008 at 11:57 AM
[Ed. Note - We won't know anything about there decision unless they tell us in an opinion.]
If the writ is not granted does that suggest possibly that SCOTUS is simply deferring to the lower-level court decision — that is they view it as a question of jurisdiction as opposed to an issue of the cases merit. In that case unless there is some inconsistency in the lower-level courts they could conceivably stay out of “deciding” the issue of NBC?
December 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM
You cannot build precedent on a lie. Accordingly, if evidence cannot be established as truth in fact, then that cannot be established as or considered as precedent, either. It should be considered nothing more than an abhorration not to be repeated. There was no court ruling on the CA Arthur situation so, in reality, it was just something that happened – nothing more. Certainly, not something for anyone to hang their hat – or their Presidency – on.
December 6, 2008 at 2:45 PM
[Ed. Note - I can't take credit for the argument. Despite the fact that every President (outside the grandfather clause) we've had was born in the US to two US citizen parents (with the possible exception of Chester Arthur who lied about his parents' heritage - see below), I still can't take credit for the argument. For example, the drafters of the 14th Amendment got there before me:
"In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: 'All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.'
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means 'every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.' "
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html#more
Please READ DONOFRIO’s article with a critical mind.
DONOFRIO’ HAS HIS OWN DEFINITION of ‘NATURAL BORN’
With reference to the constitution (see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/)
The term ‘NATURAL BORN’ is not defined anywhere. It is open to your interpretation: IT CAN BE
NATURAL BORN = Both parents are usa citizens produce a child in USA.
NATURAL BORN = either parent is a citizen of the united state and born in USA.
NATURAL BORN = BORN IN USA, irrespective of your parents status
READ THE CONSTITUTION and then you will realize that the case will be thrown out.
December 6, 2008 at 3:17 PM
[Ed. Note - My law suit does not require Obama to justify where he was born. It assumes he was born in Hawaii. You've been misled if you think that's what the law suit is about.]
I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.
However, As a white man from Georgis, I am very surprised that
everything is being done to derail Democrate hard won elections.
The term ‘Natural born’ doest stand in a court of law, period.
I have been voting for the last 60 years. I have never witnessed a situation where a candidate has to justify where he was born. I thought
my own kind (caucasians) were growing out of our miserable past
where indians, blacks were considered as inferors.
What is going on ?
What is DONOFRIO’s agenda ?
His article is a nonstarter in a court of law. Rest assured that
a man, OBAMA irrespective where he comes from will fix up our
country.
REST ASSURED THAT AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL BE BETTER THAN
BUSH’s ONE. OBAMA HAS A WHITE MOTHER AND WAS BORN IN HONOLOLU (WEll documented in Honolulu 1961 newpaper), THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY, MORE IMPORTANT OBAMA IS OF EXCEPTIONAL CAPABILITIES, MAN OF GREAT INTELLECT.
THAT AT LEAST WILL BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT we have in the last eight years.
December 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
[Ed. Note - No, the Constitution doesn't say otherwise. It doesn't say at all. It draws a distinction, for purposes of various offices of government, between "Citizens" and "Natural born citizens" SCOTUS has never ruled on this issue, so it's an area of first impression.]
ED. YOUR LAW SUIT IS CLEAR.
OBAMA CANNOT BE OUR PRESIDENT BECAUSE OBAMA BOTH PARENTS
WERE NOT UNITED STATED CITIZENS (OF COURSE HIS MUM WAS CITIZEN).
THE CONSTITTION TELL US OTHERWISE
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/.
YOUR CASE WILL BE THROWN OUT BECAUSE THE DEFINITION
of ‘NATURAL BORN’ is not included in the constitution.
IT IS OPEN TO THE READER’s interpretation. THEREFORE IT IS NOT LEGALLY BOUND.
TAKE CARE
December 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM
[Ed. Note - Good research Wayfaring.
The Wiki for Charles Curtis says that his mother Ellen Pappas with 1/4 French, 1/4 Kaw, 1/4 Potawatomie, 1/4 Osage. But it appears to be wrong. Check this out from answers.com:
Although Charles Curtis was later variously described as being of one-half, one-quarter, and one-eighth Indian ancestry, none of these appears to be correct. Technically, based on his somewhat confused and contradictory genealogy, Curtis was of a little over one-eighth Indian ancestry, and predominantly of English and French extraction.
http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-curtis
If Curtis was a little over 1/8th American Indian ancestry, then Ellen Pappas had to be less than 1/2 American Indian. I found a family tree for Ellen Pappas which seems to back this up
http://www.geocities.com/lux731/d0006/g0000043.html
Indians with more than 50 percent white blood were considered white for purposes of naturalization so when she got married, the Act of 1855 would have made her a derivative citizen.
Sally -
I am in debt for your research and in awe of your skills!
Despite the editorial note asserting that “any woman” includes “Indian” women, I, too, am skeptical.
The February 1855 Act was passed for the benefit of ‘alien’ women and its applicability to this case is thrown into doubt by two items.
The first is the 1880 case, Leonard v. Grant, which applied that act, noting that “All that had to be proved, the court held, was that she was a free white person or one of African blood, for her to have acquired American citizenship upon her marriage to Leonard.” (1933 Hearing on American Citizenship Rights of Women, http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/0014160126A.pdf)
The second, and perhaps more compelling, is that Congress saw a need to pass a bill to expressly deal with the marriage of Indian women to citizens of the United States: The act of August 9, 1888 (25 Stat. 392, vol. 1, 38), provided that Indian women who married citizens of the United States thereby became citizens of the United States.
So, I must still conclude that Charles Curtis was NOT a Natural Born Citizen if one applies the standards that Leo has set.
December 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM
p.s. Leo,
I am appreciating the exchange and your time and thought, as well as Sally’s.
December 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I find it very hard to believe…..and frightening, too……that the SCOTUS
would pass up this golden opportunity to clarify once and for all what the true
meaning of “natural born citizen” really is. Unless the term is defined and set
in concrete, we could find ourselves some day in a real nightmare situation
with all kinds of ineligible crackpots citing Obama as a precedent. The public
anger that would ensue if Obama’s election is blocked by the Court would be
nothing compared to the endless chaos and violence that would result if the
Court turns cowardly and backs off. If it does, the day will come when the
US presidency is seized at gunpoint and military rule is imposed.
God Help Us.
December 6, 2008 at 7:56 PM
[...] And research on other possible ineligible Presidents, and the one who probably was ineligible, by virtue of a calculated lie: “President?” Chester Arthur et al – Why they aren’t precedent for Obama’s El… [...]
December 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Is a baby born to a non wed mother who is a US citizen and has no father of record a natural born citizen? I’ll answer my own question and say yes.
What if it is later found out the non wed mother lied and the baby was not born on US soil as stated before. I believe under Hawiian law both parents had to be residents at least for 1 year and been married prior to Obama being born out of the country for Hawaii to issue a valid birth certificate.
It could be like Chester Author Obama wants to hide some critical fact of his birth that would reveal he is not a US citizen let alone a natural born citizen.
It is critical it seems at least one parent, as in the case of a non wed mother who can’t or will not identity the father, must be a us citizen for her offspring to be a natural born citizen, right?
A parent or the parents US citizenship is what qualifies one to be a natural born citizen, is this correct?
What happens if it is exposed later that a parent is not a citizen of the US, does this affect the status of the childs natural born citizenship?
I know this is speculation but can a person’s natural born citizenship status be taken away or given because the original circumstances of birth have changed. Hawaii law allows changes to the original birth certificate for various reasons, such as a change in who the father is, with docmentation.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
It would be interesting if Obama ammended his original birth certificate to say his father was other than Obama sr. This is possible for him to do with documentation as provided by Hawaii State law.
Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?
As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:
* A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and
1. has become legally adopted, or
2. has undergone a sex change operation, or
3. a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
4. previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.
* A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.
December 6, 2008 at 11:03 PM
[ed. Note - It's not worth commenting on. It fails to mention that today was the first time in recorded history that it was discovered Chester Arthur was a British Subject. It fails to mention that Chester Arthur having been a British Citizen subject because of being born before his father naturalized was not known. Fails to mention that Arthur lied through his teeth about his father and mother's history in Canada, father's immigration records, father's age... basically the guy just lies throughout the article. ]
Leo, I found this comment on ObamaCrimes.com. Any thoughts to this?
December 7, 2008 at 4:08 AM
“Indians with more than 50 percent white blood were considered white for purposes of naturalization so when she got married, the Act of 1855 would have made her a derivative citizen.”
[Ed. - reader is quoting me in prior comment http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%E2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility/#comment-1349 ]
She was 3/4 indian, 1/4 white.
[Ed. - The reader is discussing Ellen Pappas, Mother of Charles Curtis who was the thirty-first president of the US under Hoover. The research I have found, and which I quoted and linked to in the other comment contradicts the reader's assessment. If the reader finds anything to the contrary other than the general Wiki page for Curtis, the reader is certainly invited to link thereto.
Here is the research once more. The following passage is from Answers.com:
"Although Charles Curtis was later variously described as being of one-half, one-quarter, and one-eighth Indian ancestry, none of these appears to be correct. Technically, based on his somewhat confused and contradictory genealogy, Curtis was of a little over one-eighth Indian ancestry, and predominantly of English and French extraction."
December 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Leo,
Every law abiding citizen of the Unted States, democrate, republican, what ever political choice owes a great deal to you for your courage. You sir deserve the highest medal avaialbe for non-military patriots for your efforts. God bless you ant eh United States of America.
December 7, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Leo and Wayfaringstranger – Interesting exchanges! My hubby is somewhat of an historian so all this has made for some lively debates – it’s been great!
Admittedly, hubby is the one to give me pause on the status of an American Indian at the time, but after some discussion, we are both in agreement that she more than likely did obtain Citizen status.
Thank you to Leo for your tireless efforts and know that you have many supporters!
December 7, 2008 at 7:15 PM
[Ed. Chester Arthur did some good things, was totally against slavery and fought against it. That's why it wasn't such a great feeling to expose the lies he told and that he wasn't a natural born citizen. He's a strange character in history, lots of good and some bad stuff too.]
wow Chester Arthur defended Elizabeth Jennings Graham who refused to get of a segregated streetcar in 1824. I thought Rosa Parks was the first case like that. He even won a settlement for her.
December 7, 2008 at 7:25 PM
wayfaringstranger two mistakes it’s Ellen Pappan and Curtis was 31st Vice President, not President.
December 7, 2008 at 9:07 PM
[Ed. No idea why people are calling it team Obama.]
Leo ,
Im not sure where to post this article I just found….I am posting it on Plains as well….Have you heard anything about this yet…
Team Obama’s legal argument, from OpEdNewsPosted on December 8th, 2008 by admin
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/
December 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Leo,
That was a most riveting summation of “natural born citizen”, that I think anyone could possibly construct. I thank you for your time and effort to your fellow Americans. May God be with us at the Supreme Court decisions…
Zak/USMC/F 2-11/Viet Nam/’68-’69
December 8, 2008 at 5:49 AM
Leo,
Thank you for your response vis-a-vis Curtis & Pappan. (And thank you, Sally, for your kind words.)
I am a bit distrustful of the genealogy you have found in that it has Wyhesee married to her father! Otherwise, it is similar to a couple others in that it has no information about the wives of Louis Gonville or Louis Pappan (the elder).
[Ed. Do you think the geneology people who wrote it are somehow unaware of the allegations you make as to the gaps in that geneology? Perhaps they don't consider the sources which fill those gaps as reliable. You could write to them and ask questions I suppose. I would be happy to print any answers you may receive.]
I see the Answer.com line about Louis Gonville’s being 1/4 Potawatomi, though no explanation. They have no information on Louis Pappan’s background.
Here are a few of my sources on this:
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/cctimeline.html
[Ed. This site here that you rely on tells us Pappan was Catholic. "Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist) Kansas pioneer who married (Catholic) Ellen Pappan..." That sight also says about Curtis, "He was the son of Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist). Charles Curtis was baptized Catholic four months after his birth in St. Mary, Kansas."
Seeing as how his father was Protestant-Methodist, his mother must have been a very serious Catholic to have him baptized Catholic. This leads me to believe that since she was Catholic, the sources which put her at more French than Indian are more likely to be correct.
"He was the son of Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist) Kansas pioneer who married (Catholic) Ellen Pappan whose mother was Royal Kansa(1/2)-Osage(1/2), and and her father Louis Pappan of French (1/2) and Potawatomie Indians descent (1/2), which made Charles Curtis, an 1/8th Kansa Indian, 1/8th Osage Indian, (1/8) Potawatomie Indians with 1/8th French and 50 percent American-English."
This is the genealogy page:
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/ccfamily.html
[Ed. That page has many white people listed at various stages of the family tree and quite a few gaps.]
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/032303/our_curtis.shtml
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FH17&CISOPTR=34325&REC=7
“Their son, Orren Curtis had remarried in 1859 to the daughter of Louis and Julie Gonville Pappan (DeLaPepin was French, anglicized to Pappin). Her name was Helen or Ellen, a French-Kansa woman who had been sent away earlier to school in St. Louis by her parents, as many of the half-bloods were.”
[Ed. This part of your research calls her a "half blood". Not 3/4.]
I think what may be confusing is that Ellen is often mentioned as “1/4 Kansa (or Kaw).” But the genealogy page, above, shows where the Osage and Potawatomie sides come in, as well.
Charles Harvey’s “The Indian of To-day and To-morrow” makes note of Curtis’s Potawatomie heritage, for a change, rather than the better known Kaw lineage. (This is in the Jan. – June 1906 American Monthly Review of Reviews and World’s Work: An International Magazine.)
William E. Unrau’s 1989 book represents that Curtis had only 1/8th “blood quantum,” though, again, I think he was only looking at the Kaw/Osage side.
[Ed. I truly respect you for pointing out that the resource contradicts your conclusion. This is very interesting stuff. History, it's amazing how it keeps having such relevance. On the same note, I have found that the Potawatomie signed a treaty in 1861 which allowed them to naturalize. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/pot0824.htm And the following naturalization records for Kansas Potawatomie for the years covering 1865-1877...http://www.archives.gov/central-plains/kansas-city/finding-aids/naturalization-kansas-indians.html But since Curtis was born in 1860, none of it could have applied to Ellen.]
The Encyclopedia of North American Indians, by Frederick E. Hoxie, in 1996, picks up some of the Osage blood, asserting that it puts Charles’s blood quantum up over 1/8th, at a minimum, but while I think the conclusion is right, the reasoning seems wrong.
In looking closely at the genealogy set forth by vpcharlescurtis.net, I can see his being 5/16ths Native American, with 3/16ths Potawatomie, and 1/16th Osage and 1/16th Kaw. I think the author of the site just can’t do adding of fractions! And even if we grant Answer.com’s 1/4 Potawatomie, Ellen is still 9/16ths NA and still not a citizen under the 1855 act, nor when her son was born.
[Ed. You've relied heavily on this page but there are various sources which contradict your conclusion. Answers.com says Charles Curtis was also a little more than 1/8 Indian so if that's true Ellen Pappan would have been less than 1/2 Indian and therefore covered as a Citizen under the Act of 1855. The geneology I provided also backed up this proposition.]
Entertainingly, in terms Charles Curtis’s heritage is this:
“Even after he was elected to the House in 1892 and to the Senate in 1906, Curtis was listed on the rolls of the Interior Department as an Indian ward of the government.”
In 1910 Laban J. Miles said: “In 1878, when I assumed charge of the Osage Agency, I found the names of two young people on the Haw rolls; they were not on the reservation, and I dropped their names from the rolls. They never moved to or resided on the reservation. Their names were placed back on the rolls in 1889, I think it was. One of these persons was Senator Curtis.”
From Osage Enrollment, Hearings before Subcommittee on H. 17819 and 21199, p. 91.
I sincerely believe that Vice President Charles Curtis was not born of two United States citizens. It is very clear that his background was known
[Ed. Now, with statements like that, "it is very clear that his background was known", you muddy a very good discussion which provided strong evidence against your theory. It's certainly not "clear". If it were clear there wouldn't be all this evidence against your position. In fact, the evidence weighs against your position. Ellen Pappan married a Protestant, was French-Catholic, baptized her son Charles a Catholic and was never accused of not being a citizen in any research I can find. Therefore, the Act of 1855 would more likely than not have covered her and made her a Citizen.]
, as well, unlike Mr. Arthur’s:
“Should Senator Curtis ever enter the White House, it would round off a unique legend. In Kansas, they used to call “Charlie” Curtis names like “The Injun,” “the Noble Red Man of the Forest” and “Lo!” ”
From Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1927.
********
I realize what today represents for you (and us all), and do not expect you to get back to me anytime soon, if at all. Again, thank you for your time and thoughts.
[Ed. It's just another day for me. If this is over today, I'll be playing poker tonight. I've done my best to get to the truth. If the SCOTUS denies my case I will wish Mr. Obama all the best and hope that he will respect me as a Citizen who was concerned for the Constitution. It's not personal for me and I've tried to remove all insulting language from this blog so that it could be an intelligent discourse. I think our debate on Ellen Pappan is a good example of the kind of discussion I was hoping to have here. Thank you for all of your hard work and research. I have respect for you.]
December 8, 2008 at 5:51 AM
Leo,
Thank you for your response vis-a-vis Curtis & Pappan. (And thank you, Sally, for your kind words.)
I am a bit distrustful of the genealogy you have found in that it has Wyhesee married to her father! Otherwise, it is similar to a couple others in that it has no information about the wives of Louis Gonville or Louis Pappan (the elder).
[Ed. Do you think the geneology people who wrote it are somehow unaware of the allegations you make as to the gaps in that geneology? Perhaps they don't consider the sources which fill those gaps as reliable. You could write to them and ask questions I suppose. I would be happy to print any answers you may receive.]
I see the Answer.com line about Louis Gonville’s being 1/4 Potawatomi, though no explanation. They have no information on Louis Pappan’s background.
Here are a few of my sources on this:
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/cctimeline.html
[Ed. This site here that you rely on tells us Pappan was Catholic. "Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist) Kansas pioneer who married (Catholic) Ellen Pappan..." That sight also says about Curtis, "He was the son of Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist). Charles Curtis was baptized Catholic four months after his birth in St. Mary, Kansas."
Seeing as how his father was Protestant-Methodist, his mother must have been a very serious Catholic to have him baptized Catholic. This leads me to believe that since she was Catholic, the sources which put her at more French than Indian are more likely to be correct.
"He was the son of Oren Arms (Captain Jack) Curtis, a (Protestant- Methodist) Kansas pioneer who married (Catholic) Ellen Pappan whose mother was Royal Kansa(1/2)-Osage(1/2), and and her father Louis Pappan of French (1/2) and Potawatomie Indians descent (1/2), which made Charles Curtis, an 1/8th Kansa Indian, 1/8th Osage Indian, (1/8) Potawatomie Indians with 1/8th French and 50 percent American-English."
This is the genealogy page:
http://www.vpcharlescurtis.net/ksstudies/ccfamily.html
[Ed. That page has many white people listed at various stages of the family tree and quite a few gaps.]
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/032303/our_curtis.shtml
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FH17&CISOPTR=34325&REC=7
“Their son, Orren Curtis had remarried in 1859 to the daughter of Louis and Julie Gonville Pappan (DeLaPepin was French, anglicized to Pappin). Her name was Helen or Ellen, a French-Kansa woman who had been sent away earlier to school in St. Louis by her parents, as many of the half-bloods were.”
[Ed. This part of your research calls her a "half blood". Not 3/4.]
I think what may be confusing is that Ellen is often mentioned as “1/4 Kansa (or Kaw).” But the genealogy page, above, shows where the Osage and Potawatomie sides come in, as well.
Charles Harvey’s “The Indian of To-day and To-morrow” makes note of Curtis’s Potawatomie heritage, for a change, rather than the better known Kaw lineage. (This is in the Jan. – June 1906 American Monthly Review of Reviews and World’s Work: An International Magazine.)
William E. Unrau’s 1989 book represents that Curtis had only 1/8th “blood quantum,” though, again, I think he was only looking at the Kaw/Osage side.
[Ed. I truly respect you for pointing out that the resource contradicts your conclusion. This is very interesting stuff. History, it's amazing how it keeps having such relevance. On the same note, I have found that the Potawatomie signed a treaty in 1861 which allowed them to naturalize. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/pot0824.htm And the following naturalization records for Kansas Potawatomie for the years covering 1865-1877...http://www.archives.gov/central-plains/kansas-city/finding-aids/naturalization-kansas-indians.html But since Curtis was born in 1860, none of it could have applied to Ellen.]
The Encyclopedia of North American Indians, by Frederick E. Hoxie, in 1996, picks up some of the Osage blood, asserting that it puts Charles’s blood quantum up over 1/8th, at a minimum, but while I think the conclusion is right, the reasoning seems wrong.
In looking closely at the genealogy set forth by vpcharlescurtis.net, I can see his being 5/16ths Native American, with 3/16ths Potawatomie, and 1/16th Osage and 1/16th Kaw. I think the author of the site just can’t do adding of fractions! And even if we grant Answer.com’s 1/4 Potawatomie, Ellen is still 9/16ths NA and still not a citizen under the 1855 act, nor when her son was born.
[Ed. You've relied heavily on this page but there are various sources which contradict your conclusion. Answers.com says Charles Curtis was also a little more than 1/8 Indian so if that's true Ellen Pappan would have been less than 1/2 Indian and therefore covered as a Citizen under the Act of 1855. The geneology I provided also backed up this proposition.]
Entertainingly, in terms Charles Curtis’s heritage is this:
“Even after he was elected to the House in 1892 and to the Senate in 1906, Curtis was listed on the rolls of the Interior Department as an Indian ward of the government.”
In 1910 Laban J. Miles said: “In 1878, when I assumed charge of the Osage Agency, I found the names of two young people on the Haw rolls; they were not on the reservation, and I dropped their names from the rolls. They never moved to or resided on the reservation. Their names were placed back on the rolls in 1889, I think it was. One of these persons was Senator Curtis.”
From Osage Enrollment, Hearings before Subcommittee on H. 17819 and 21199, p. 91.
I sincerely believe that Vice President Charles Curtis was not born of two United States citizens. It is very clear that his background was known
[Ed. Now, with statements like that, "it is very clear that his background was known", you muddy a very good discussion which provided strong evidence against your theory. It's certainly not "clear". If it were clear there wouldn't be all this evidence against your position. In fact, the evidence weighs against your position. Ellen Pappan married a Protestant, was French-Catholic, baptized her son Charles a Catholic and was never accused of not being a citizen in any research I can find. Therefore, the Act of 1855 would more likely than not have covered her and made her a Citizen.]
, as well, unlike Mr. Arthur’s:
“Should Senator Curtis ever enter the White House, it would round off a unique legend. In Kansas, they used to call “Charlie” Curtis names like “The Injun,” “the Noble Red Man of the Forest” and “Lo!” ”
From Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1927.
********
I realize what today represents for you (and us all), and do not expect you to get back to me anytime soon, if at all. Again, thank you for your time and thoughts.
[Ed. It's just another day for me. If this is over today, I'll be playing poker tonight. I've done my best to get to the truth. If the SCOTUS denies my case I will wish Mr. Obama all the best and hope that he will respect me as a Citizen who was concerned for the Constitution. It's not personal for me and I've tried to remove all insulting language from this blog so that it could be an intelligent discourse. I think our debate on Ellen Pappan is a good example of the kind of discussion I was hoping to have here. Thank you for all of your hard work and research. I have respect for you.]
December 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I have a question via my hubby – After Ellan and Orren were married where did they reside – on or off the reservation? Just curious if you happened to read anything in your research to this effect. I find the Catholic baptism very interesting and a very compelling argument in favor of Ellen’s citizenship – can’t wait to read him this post and discuss this with him.
Thanks.
This has been a great discussion and fascinating reading – thanks to you both for your time and efforts!
December 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Ed. Excellent research once again. Feel free to post whatever you find. Thanks.]
Leo -
You asked:
Do you think the geneology people who wrote it are somehow unaware of the allegations you make as to the gaps in that geneology?
I don’t know, but the subject of the lineage from White Plume through Wyhesee is probably the single best documented part of Curtis’s lineage, hence my skepticism of the site. Wyhesee was White Plume’s daughter. White Plume’s wife’s name seems unknown, though White Plume’s father-in-law is oddly well established!
The “half-blood” reference is merely what anybody who was not pure blood was called. When the land was spilt up, most of it went to the pure bloods, a small part to the half-bloods:
“The Kansa Half Breed Tracts. When a treaty was negotiated with the Kansa Indians on the Lower Missouri, in the 1840s, land was set aside separately for their Half Breed relations near Topeka, Kansas. Julie Gonville-Pappin received Half-Breed Reservation No. Four under this arrangement. The land was located directly across the river from the Kansas capital, where she and her husband ran a profitable ferry business.”
http://www.mmf.mb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=135 (among many sources for this information)
I’ve written to the creator of the genealogy I cite to see if she can provide me with her sources for Louis Pappan’s and Louis Gonville’s mothers’ being Potawatomie, as I am finding no direct evidence otherwise, only the one source, cited above, that suggested Gonville had a Potawatomie grandparent (or two great grandparents or some such).
I’m sorry for my verbiage on his background. What I meant by “It is clear that his background was known” was that it was widely known and acknowledged in the politicla world that he had Native American blood, as evidenced in multiple Time Magazine articles and other sources. I did not mean to suggest that everybody knew his “blood quantum,” as it isn’t even entirely clear that HE knew it accurately!
Ellen (Elena, Helen) did have him baptized. One of the engaging stories I have tripped across while exploring this is how he learned of it by accident one day, having been raised as a Methodist! That Ellen was, herself, Catholic is not surprising to me given her father’s presence in her life. Whether he was a ‘half-breed’ himself, or not, he seems to have presented himself consistently as French, and, again, had at least a French father.
I think the key question is whether Lous Pappan was, as Andrews suggests on the genealogy, half-French, half-Potawatomie, or if (s)he has mistaken something.
Part of the problem with tracing these questions is that Louis Gonville is also Louis Gonvil and may have arrived in St. Louis as Louis de Gonneville; and Louis and Joseph Pappan in Kansas are also referred to as Papan, but arrived in St. Louis as Papin and historically de la Papin in France (and Montreal?).
I had not tripped across the Potawatomie Treaty – I’d read about various Kansa and Osage treaties incuding that which gave the Pappan’s their land. I appreciate the observation and link. Treaties sure were fast and furious in their creation and replacement!
Well, back to the digging! Thank you, again, and you have earned my respect as well. When/if I find more, I will share – here, if that is best, elsewhere if you prefer. wayfaringstranger@giftedconferenceplanners.org should do the job.
December 9, 2008 at 2:11 AM
[Ed. Damn good stuff again. Thanks. I appreciate the hard work. ]
On Catholicism, Helen (this time) Papin (this time), and Catholicism:
ST MARY’S OF THE POTAWATOMI was the name of the church where Helen (Ellen) had her son baptized. They had opened a school expressly for the Potawatomi, and it is written that “In the spring of 1848 the question of schools on the new reserve was debated in lively fashion in the Potawatomi councils According to an official census taken at this time, the tribe now numbered 3,235 members. Of these, not quite one half were Catholics, the rest, apart from small knots of Baptist and Methodist converts, being still pagans, or, as they were called, Prairie Indians.”
http://www.jesuits-mis.org/files/Midwest%20Jesuit%20Archives/VirtuallyGarraghan/chap28.htm
(as an aside, I just noticed one of the ways to see that Wyhesee should not be shown as being married to White Plume in the geocities genealogy – according to it, they got “married” when she was 2!)
So, the French element combined with the Indian element to make this a logical place for her to take him in 1860.
I already whined about the last names. So, now, the first names. We have Louis and Lewis – they are both the sons of Louis. We have Joseph who ran the ferry (and later a toll bridge?) with Louis/Lewis, though in one place the traveler thought it was Auguste Papin running the ferry.
And then we have Louis’s/Lewis’s granddaughter, Ellen Pappan. Ellen Papin. Helen Papin. Elena Pappan. And many more permutations.
And finally, we have one more last name – is it a typo? If so, it is a persistent one! Instead of Gonvil, Gonville, or de Gonneville, we have GOUVILLE.
*******
The 1898 Kansas Agora has an article about Primeval Heroes, Patriots, and Priests that suggests Louis Gonvil was a political exile from France who came directly from there to St. Louis, prior to meeting and marrying Wyhesee (whom the article does not name). It also talks about his 4 daughters as if they all came from the same mother, which they did not.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rNYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=Papan+Gonvil&source=bl&ots=Ts1WMZvEPT&sig=kqA1kra6oHuKL2QsjZHZDTlryvY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA319,M1
This would contradict many different sources about his origins, vague though those be. Given the other inaccuracies, I’m skeptical, but will wait and see what else I find.
December 9, 2008 at 7:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL08s5uH8as
Anybody know who this guys is??? I don’t seem to recognize him.
December 9, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Please send the above link to every person and media outlet you know. More people need to asking these questions.
Thanks
December 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
[...] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%8... [...]
December 11, 2008 at 8:34 AM
[...] Another issue is the Natural Born Citizen clause where it appears that President Chester Arthur did not meet the constitutional requirements to become president. [...]
December 11, 2008 at 10:00 PM
In regard to the first Conclusion of your Supplemental Brief (that Chester Arthur’s presidency does not create ‘historical precedent’), is it not the case that Arthur’s presidency, while not establishing precedent for an openly and notoriously other than naturally born citizen serving as President of the United States, does affirmatively establish historical precedent for a citizen not officially interrogated on the nature of his citizenship serving as President?
In other words, Chester Arthur’s presidency establishes that so long as the individual elected by the Electoral College isn’t proven to be and/or doesn’t proactively establish himself to be an other than naturally born citizen, he may serve in the office to which he is elected. Is that not a precedent the Court can mercifully hang it’s timidity on?
[Ed. You're saying that even if he perpetrated a fraud, since he got away with it, then that's precedent for allowing somebody else to. Like I said in my article, that's no precedent -- other than fraud.]
December 11, 2008 at 11:03 PM
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Ironic..isn’t it.
December 12, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Godspeed your efforts! Thank you.
December 12, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I just received a phone call from the office of Congressman John Linder and have it on my machine. He called me to tell me this post is true and that post was by him and he will do it. I picked it up from your BLOG Leo and will need go find it. I have a few folks I want to point to it.
Leo I have sent a fax to my own GA Congressman To: The Honorable Senator Saxby Chambliss, Fax 770-226-8633 while what I have written to him about is nothing I want posted on the BLOG if interested I will post it for your own LOL give me a break moment. All I am saying is if you don’t pull the triger you will not hit anything that is for sure.
As your Constituent a current resident and voter in the state of Georgia I want to ask this.
We appreciate your reply, be well and prosper.
texo@dixhistory.com
http://www.dixhistory.com
—– Original Message —–
From: texo@dixhistory.com
To: Terri Cloud ; Ray Cobb ; Paige Dix ; Linda Dix ; Joyce Poole ; Griffin Daily News, Editor ; gwen dix ; Chad Dix
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: John Linder’s
The below message is said to be true and I have seen it posted on a few BLOGS. I thought at first it was a troll or fake.
I am going to try and verify it with his office. If any of you know if it is true or not please let me know.
Below starts what is being posted on BLOGS
“« on: December 08, 2008, 01:58:59 PM »
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding allegations that U.S. Senator Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen. I appreciate hearing from you.
This story has been percolating in the media for a number of months. Unfortunately, unless Senator Obama produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States. [emphasis mine]
On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes. After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
John Linder
Member of Congress”
Can you tell me if the above letter is from Congressman Linder ?
God Bless him.
December 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Dear Leo,
I have been reading your blog for the past 2 weeks, and I wanted to say thank you for bringing this monumentally important issue to our attention.
I believe that this may be the most important issue before our Supreme Court in the past 50 years. It may well determining the future of our nation for the next 200 years, especially as we become a more globalized society. I believe that all people are created equal, and that our country has been, and should continue to be, a beacon of hope for anyone looking for a better life; an example of good to anyone who doubts the beauty of diversity.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I did not vote in this election, but my fiance’ did. She voted (happily) for Senator Obama. I personally find him to be a brilliant orator, likable, and very encouraging. Moreover, I was genuinely pleased that a black man won the election. The reason I say this is to try and point out that I am not an Obama hater, or racist, just because I am white. I am an average, honest, hard-working, middle-class guy from a large family. I believe in family, democracy, fairness, liberty, and humanity. But regardless of how sobering and sad it may seem, my gut tells me that there are larger, more important issues at stake here, and that we may be at a precarious crossroads in our nation’s history. I believe in my heart that we need to come together, black and white, rich and poor, to decide what is right for our nation, and for our children; for all future Americans who may not yet be born. I offer the following scenario:
If the US Supreme Court decides not to hear this case, and thereby sets the precedent for all future Presidential elections, then, hypothetically, someone such as Hugo Chavez could conceivably fall in love with an American girl, get pregnant, her return home to America, have the baby, and 35 years later he or she run for, and be elected, President of the United States. If by chance Hugo (like Castro) is still in power at this time, is it truly possible that we could have a father AND son as Presidents of both the United States and Venezuela?? It seems to me that it is not a lot for our country to require, at the very least, that our President have 2 parents who are American Citizens, regardless of where they were originally born.
Thank you-
December 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM
**sorry for the typos..
December 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM
One wonders if this event- a challenge to Obama’s presidency , is the ‘event which will test Obama’ that Biden was referring to? I think Biden said it would occur after he took office, not at the congressional confirmations (before), but still, it is worth considering.
December 13, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Leo I commend you for refusing to appear on sites posting the ‘Hitler’ thing and the ‘health issue’ thing.
Let’s leave cheap smears like this to the Obots.
You’re an honorable man and a great American.
December 13, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Since the Congress will have the final word, when they certify the results of the electoral college on Jan. 8th, at which time all objections are heard, I am forwarding letters to my congressman and senators utilizing your arguments and facts regarding Obama not being a Natural Born Citizen. I would recommend others do the same. Our Congress is really the last line of defense as it is their job to make sure that the president-elect is eligible. If Obama is deemed not to be eligible, then the 20th Amendment will prevail, and Biden would be sworn in as the acting President.
Write your congressmen and senators.
December 13, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Leo please keep me informed on what is going on with you and where you’ll be talking about this issue. My email above. Your a great person and a Patriot. I respect your decision re PRN. But your blog & PRN is all I know to follow this issue. So if possible please email me with updates.
THANK YOU & GOD BLESS YOU…
December 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM
I totally agree with you leaving Plains Radio. The reason people think that patriots are “tin foil” wearing kooks is because of people like Ed Hale, getting on the airwves and stating untruths. Please let all of us know where you will be and what is going on. I sincerely pray that Cort’s case will go before the SCOTUS for a full hearing. Thank you for being an honorable patriot.
December 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Leo, I totally supported you when you left Lan’s show and once again I commend you for Leaving Ed’s show. I was on when he made the medical statement and did not agree with him at all. I totally respect you. However, I do pray that you find a new home and will infom me as to where you will be talking so that I once again can follow you and hear you update. You have given me hope and I support your efforts one hundred percent. Please don’t totally leave us, we are counting on you and your guidance. Thank you, Reecie and may God Bless you.
December 14, 2008 at 3:58 AM
I am still on the trail of Charles Curtis’s mother, held up by ice storms and reluctant authors, chary of revealing the details of their sources! (It is hard to verify birth records and marriage records that are not on line while half a continent away!)
However, on the subject of Curtis’s mother’s citizenship, or even, possibly, his own, I bring back to your attention ELK v. WILKINS ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html), but this time as evidence that Curtis’s mother could not have been a citizen, even if she were only 5/16ths or 3/8ths, because she was clearly a member of the tribe, both at birth and later in her life.
[Ed. No, that's legally wrong. Elk v. Wilkins was in 1884. Charles Curtis was born in 1860. You can't apply it retroactively. And if you do, then you have to go to Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which basically overruled the Elk case. Furthermore, your interpretation of the case facts is not accurate. In the Elk case there was no dispute that the person was a full blood Indian:
An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe,
Pappan, if more than one half white by birth, could be naturalized. When she married Curtis, she was automatically naturalized by the Act of 1855. Charles Curtis was a nbc. ]
Separately, I’ve been trying to get a definitive statement on percentage of Indian blood that would make one either Indian or White. In Recovering History, Constructing Race, it’s observed that “In 1849 a person of one-half or more Indian blood was considered Indian Caliornia Statutes, 1850, Chap. 99 Sec. 14, p 230; Chap. 142, Sec. 306, p. 455, cited in Perez v. Sharp, 1948:719; Goodrich 1926:93).” But “In 1851 the bloodd quantumfor being White became more restrictive, as people of one-fourth Indian descent were considdered non-White (California Statutes, 1851, Sec. 394, p. 114).”
I’m not yet sure how or if this applies to Kansas, and will continue looking (and calling). As the saying goes, “the truth is out there.”
Meanwhile, I’ll return to the records search for Louis (Lewis) Pappan and Louis Gonville, to try to verify Ellen Pappan’s “blood quantum.”
December 26, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Sally says: “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”
What historical practice is that? Did you have a particular President/Vice President before Curtis in mind that this was practiced on?
Indeed, people born in US Possessions, who are fully under the jurisdiction of the United States (let’s use Constitutional language please) are not citizens at all if it weren’t for specific acts of Congress that granted it them.
And to Ed. : why cannot Elk v. Wilkins be “applied retroactively”? The Supreme Court isn’t making laws, it is telling us what the existing law already said. If Elk could not be a citizen, how could his ancestors?
December 26, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Ed. Exactly how does United States v. Wong “override” Elk v. Wilkins at least insofar as an Indian practicing member of a tribe and living in Indian territory, such as VP Curtis’ mother? If Wong made all the Indians citizens, then why did we have the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924? The Wikipedia says the mother was 3/4 Indian and 1/4 French. Of course Curtis would later say “I am one-eighth Indian and 100% Republican”.
[Ed. See prior discussions on this blog which went into serious depth looking into Curtis' Mother. It appears Wiki is wrong and she was probably slightly more than 50% white. Regardless, I have the same issues with Wong Kim Ark as you, especially now that we know Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur.]
January 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM
what engaging fascinating material! I m completing A NEW PLAY
‘Reincarnation of
president CHESTER a. ARTHUR” MANY OBAMA PARALLELS
[Ed. I want to read that play.]
February 2, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Hey Leo,
I know you are done with Law. I read your blog, everyone is asking if your story is real. I know it is, only because you said you had a major story to tell about what happened to you on your way to file at SCOTUS. I expressly remember you saying you would post the story when this was all finished. I have a request for you. I know how much work you put into this, and how much research you brought to the table. You have brought so much hope and inspiration to the American people and have enlightened so many of us already. You’re discoveries about Chester Author are amazing. At least we have the history, among other things to thank you for.
I know I mentioned I have a request… I am really scared that you will turn me down too. Let me give you some history about me, and the path I have been on since Nov. 4th.
My name is Michelle Barrenchea(that’s Spanish Basque).I am 28, a student and a mother of a 3 year old little girl. I live in Nevada, close to Reno.
On the night of the election, I went to Berg’s site. I was so depressed. On his site I found a link that led to Lan’s site. so I clicked it, and listened to his show. I don’t recall if you were on it that night or not but I did click to chat. Only to see what the consensus was. I knew our nation was severely divided. I have never been a chatter b4. Have never been that involved in politics. Soon, I was addicted to hearing what you had to say, I was very impressed and hooked when I heard you.
Then the whole mess with Lan, his picture and his ego happened, and I was desperate to hear what you had to say. The next thing I know, people were saying you were going to be on PRN. I had no idea what that was but I had to check it out, I wanted to hear you. A bunch of us went over to PRN in a group expressly to hear you. Then of course Ed and his disinformation and his stunt with the fake medical records happened. I was pretty disapointed by that stunt when he clearly knew how you felt and what you were trying to affiliate yourself with.
There are so many people behind you, and you have so much knowledge you can still share. Please, Please, Please think it over.
We all joined hands in this effort to uncover Obama’s past and learn more about who this man was, and helo out the other Lawyers in their research efforts as well. Well you know pretty much the conclusion to that. We have been researching and trying to educate as many Americans as we can b4 they censor all communications and start controlling the internet thouroughly.
Because of the rantings of Lan and the disinformation of Ed Hale a few of us have put together an internet radio station to try and reach out to as many people as we can. We start broadcasting Monday night at 10 CT. I know you said that you are done with all of this, I know you have been labeled as a “kook” and so will all of us be. We are feeling the squeeze by others. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that darkness has settled over our Nation. We can not give up, we have to resist, if we all lay down, we are as good as dead.
This is why I felt a burden to get behind this and bring people the information that they need and are not gettting. We are makeing a real collective effort to Network and Join hands with all of those who seek to reclaim our country and restore the constitution, which “the collective they” have infiltrated and desecrated piece by piece.
I have no interest in Radio, I have never wanted to be in the spot light. I fear what I have gotten myself into but its a very real need, and not many are stepping up to the plate. That is why I signed on for this. This project is a citizen for citizen effort. People need the TRUTH if we want a real shot at this. We can not rely on people like Rush, Hannity, or Savage to tell the whole truth either. They are doing what they can being governed by the FCC and trying to educate people in the best way they know how without pushing the envelope to hard (honestly I think I am being a little to nice) however, that is my hope. Now it is time for citizens to join hands and get involved. The way I see it is we have 2 years b4 they take down the Internet. We have 2 years to educate.
I was hoping that you would be my guest on my very first show. I’d like to talk to you about your experience, with all things involved, the bulling included. I would like to pick your brain for an hour.
I want you to know, that this site is 100% committed to bringing TRUTH, and information about what is currently being done to our country, and how to restore it
Constitutionally.
Please think it over, and get back to me!
Thank you so much for your time, sacrifice, patriotism, and sharing the knowledge. I hope we can count you in.
Sincerely,
Michelle Barrenchea 775 575 2557 or 775 741 1602
Hope to hear from you soon! : )
February 2, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Oh one more thing i forgot to tell you. My first show will be on Thurday night, Feb. 5th.
Please give me a call. Thanks, Michelle
June 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM
In ref: to Charles Curtis:
His father, Orron Curtis was born in Eugene,Indiana which
became a state in 1816, plus he was a “soldier.”
His Mother was the daughter of Julie Gonville
Pappan who was married three time’s. The
last marriage was to Louis Pappan who was
born in St.Louis, Missouri which became a
state in 1821. Julie became a citizen after
marriage to Louis. Louis was born a citizen and
passed it to his daughter Ellen the mother of
Charles Curtis.
I would say that “both” parent’s of Charles Curtis
were u.s. citizen’s whose father was in the military
and whose child could be born in Kansas as
a “natural born citizen”.
Obama’s father was never a u.s. citizen, and never
in our military……. Dan Smith,NY
August 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Mr. Donofrio, Esq.,
You wrote: “Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.”
[Ed. I think that was a reader, not me who said that.]
When you say “No formal naturalization was needed.” does this mean that ’state citizens’ born in one of the thirteen states respectively, were then also made United States citizens by the Constitution? For clarification, surely you don’t mean they were considered foreigners and then made naturalized citizens, although no formal naturalization was needed?
Mr. Donofrio, as you are a true constitutional scholar, I only ask this to eliminate any credence whatsoever to a desperate contention being promulgated in distant corners as an explanation for the grandfather clause, which assumes that the United States did not officially exist prior to the Constitution and so none could have been U.S. citizens prior to the Constitution.
[Ed. It's a stupid argument. Citizen is used for 3 different qualifications, Senator and Representative...and for President. NBC status was a higher requirement. The distinction between nbc and citizen is not just existent in A2 S1 C5... ]
It is my understanding the nation did exist prior to the Constitution based on both the Declaration of Independence, which served notice that colonial British citizenship and concomitant allegiance to King George III were ended;
as well as Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, which reads in part:
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, … shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;…” and
“If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States,…”.
Furthermore U.S. citizenship must have existed prior the Constitution as Article 2, Section 1, reads in part:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” implies that Citizens of the United States already existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as opposed to being created by it, since the Constitution would not go into force until being ratified.
Mr. Donofrio, clarification of when and how the first U.S. citizens came to be and when the United States officially came into existence would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for all you are doing to protect and defend our Constitution.
Most respectfully,
A vet.
P.S.
It is also interesting to note in regard to the erroneous definition often heard that a natural born citizen is simply one born in the U.S., that when actually applied to Article 2, Section 1, it makes no sense at all.
This is Article 2, Section 1, as is appears in the Constitution.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
If it were true that a ‘natural born citizen’ is equal and interchangeable with a ‘citizen’, this is how it would read.
No person except a citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Obviously such redundancy is beneath the Framers and clearly makes no sense at all.
[Ed. The United States existed prior to the Constitution. Articles of Confederation etc.]
August 21, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Mr. Donofrio, thank you for your timely reply.
The sentence: “No formal naturalization was needed.”, appears as the last line of the third paragraph regarding JAMES BUCHANAN, in the article entitled “PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al – WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
December 5, 2008 – 5:34 am.
[Ed. OK, I thought you making reference to a commenter not that old blog post. It's a good blog post though. Everyone should read it.]
I gather this means that ’state citizens’ born in one of the thirteen states respectively, were then also made United States citizens by the Constitution, as opposed to being considered foreigners and then made naturalized citizens.
Thank you for pointing out that the distinction between nbc and citizen is not just existent in A2 S1 C5; and for clarifying that the Articles of Confederation serve as evidence that the United States existed as a nation prior the the Constitution.
Should you ever find you have the time, any further comment regarding when and how the first U.S. citizens actually became U.S. citizens, would be greatly appreciated.
With continued gratitude and admiration for you efforts to support and defend the Constitution.
Most respectfully,
A vet.