New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS.
The issue of which I write on this blog – whether a person born with dual allegiance is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces – has been discussed at numerous times in our nation’s history. It’s not like it was just made up by people who do not support Obama.
Back in 1896, the issue of whether a citizen – who was not born of US citizen parents – could be President of the United States was discussed in the Tribune (aka New York Tribune) during that Presidential campaign. Here is the full text of the story (see pg. 131 at link):
The question as to whether the Labor candidate for the Presidency would, if chosen by a majority of the electoral vote, be entitled under the Constitution to take his seat is one which since his nomination at Chicago has been frequently and freely discussed, but not satisfactorily disposed of. The facts which are fully admitted by both parties in regard to Mr. Schurmann are these—namely, that his parents, Johannes Schurmann and Barbara, his wife, reached Now York by the sailing ship Hamburg, of the Black Ball Line, on the 18th day of August, 1848, as German immigrants, and that on the following day, in a lodging-house at No. 5 Greenwich Street, the present Labor candidate for the Presidency of the United States was born. Is he, under these circumstances, “a natural-born citizen” in the sense implied by the fifth clause of Art. II. of the Constitution? Various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such, and the State Department has always acted on this presumption in deciding upon questions of this nature brought before it. There is, however, no United States statute containing any provision on the subject, nor have any judicial decisions ever been made in regard to it. It is at best an open question, and one which should have made Mr. Schurmann’s nomination under any circumstances an impossibility. Fortunately, the result of the campaign appears no longer doubtful, yet to the misguided voters of the Labor Party, even when led up to a forlorn hope at the polls, it would no doubt be some consolation to know that they were casting their votes for a candidate concerning whose eligibility no possible question could be afterward raised. [emphasis added]
The Tribune mentions that this issue had been “frequently and freely discussed”. So what does that tell you about President Chester Arthur? It tells you that while the issue was “frequently and freely discussed” as to Schurman, it was not discussed at all as to Chester Arthur.
This is because Arthur concealed the fact that he, like Scurmann, was not born of US citizen parents. Both Schurmann and Arthur were born with dual allegiance. Had the nation been aware of Arthur’s status as a British subject, there would have been no question about Schurmann’s eligibility. Arthur had recently been President in
1895 (typo) 1885.
Had it been known Arthur was a British subject, the Tribune certainly would have mentioned that fact in the article.
If Arthur’s dual allegiance had been known, there would have been no point in writing the article about Schurmann. (This blog first revealed Arthur’s deception to the nation in December 2008.) And since the Tribune stated that the issue had been frequently discussed – while not mentioning Chester Arthur – it gives credibility to the importance of the issue then and now.
Chester Arthur was responsible for appointing Justice Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court. Gray went on to write the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark. That decision appears, perhaps, to have been an attempt to protect Gray’s robe since Gray might have been removed from the bench had Arthur’s status as a British subject become known prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision. (Should this issue ever reach the Supreme Court as to Obama, both Sotomayor and Kagan would have an ethical responsibility to recuse themselves.)
Thank you, Chester Arthur. Good lookin’ out, bro – for yourself that is. Ditto to Gray? That’s an open question. The stench of ineligibility causes big ripples if left to rot the nation’s Constitutional core.
Chester was also responsible for forcing the US military to salute the British flag.
Furthermore, the Tribune article was republished in, “The Presidential Campaign of 1896: A scrap-book chronicle” by George Lynde Catlin, 1925. That book was copied into Google from the Harvard College Library (Obama attended Harvard law). And the reason for the book? The intro is telling (go to pg. 5 in the pg. counter):
“Descended as you are from an ancestry identified with the earliest traditions of our republic, and reared, as you have been, under influences and teachings purely American, every incentive is offered you to improve yourself, in your day and generation, a good and useful citizen of these United States. Assuming integrity of character, fairness of judgment, and unselfishness of purpose to be the prime requisites of good citizenship, I go one step farther to urge upon you the necessity of acquiring a thorough acquaintance with the political history of your country…
In the study of these events you will note the invariable triumph of a living, active American patriotism over the dangers successively arising to confront it. Chief and foremost among these averted dangers I place that one with which we were menaced in 1896 by the combined alien forces of Socialism, Anarchy, and Atheism.”
You think Obama wasn’t aware of the Presidential campaign of 1896? Anyone who answers that question in the affirmative has no respect for Obama’s intelligence.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq. (…with another big hat tip to the research team)