Questions for Mario Apuzzo (6)
Dred Scott
Here’s a natural born thought experiment. Consider two hypothetical persons, both born on January 1, 1799 in Charleston, South Carolina.
Ezekiel Crowe was born a slave and the son of slaves. Both he and his Charleston-born parents were owned by John Rutledge, a Framer of the Constitution of the United States. Young Crowe was raised listening to anecdotes about the great Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Crowe was freed from slavery by the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when he was 64 years old. He served in the reconstruction legislature in South Carolina, and received a law degree from the University of South Carolina.
Otto Shicklegruber was born the son of German immigrants who arrived from Germany in 1793 and had become naturalized US Citizens. Otto’s father died of yellow fever before Otto was born and his mother died in childbirth. Because both of his parents were dead, the newborn Shicklegruber was sent back to Germany to live with grandparents. In 1857 he returned to the United States and established residence in a German speaking community in Wisconsin (Shicklegruber did not speak any English), where he lived as a loan shark.
Questions:
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1856? (Before the Dred Scott decision)
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1862? (After Dred Scott, but before the Emancipation Proclamation))
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1865? (After the Emancipation Proclamation, but before the 14th Amendment
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1870? (After the 14th Amendment)
- Which of the two were eligible to run against President Grant in 1872? (after Shicklegruber had lived in the US for 14 years)
Obots in HISTORY! William Rawle (1759 – 1836)
William Rawle
Today I announce a new series of articles here at Obama Conspiracy Theories: Obots in HISTORY! The opening honors go to Dr. William Rawle, Lawyer, District Attorney, Judge, Legislator, Abolitionist, Historian, Federalist and Obot!
Rawle was a personal acquaintance and correspondent of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and other framers of our country. He was a founder and first president of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. This is from his biography from the University of Pennsylvania where he served as a trustee:
…He was admitted to the Philadelphia Bar soon after his arrival in 1783, and that same year married Sarah Coates Burge….
Young Rawle quickly gained a reputation as an able attorney, eventually serving as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death. As a Federalist he served a term in the Assembly, but found that politics were not to his liking. After his 1791 appointment by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania, Rawle handled the prosecutions stemming from the whiskey riots in the western part of Pennsylvania. He stepped down from this office in 1799. (more…)
A librarian and a judge on “native born”
Continuing the steady drip of historical bits related to the natural born citizen question, I present a citation from the State Librarian of Kentucky, Emma Guy Cromwell, who in 1920 wrote a book on how to be a good citizen for the voters of her state, CITIZENSHIP: A MANUAL for VOTERS.
I present her comments, not as a legal expert or a constitutional scholar, but as a voice of an educated person from the early part of the 20th century, providing a window on the general understanding of things. Certain propagandists are attempting to create a false history of citizenship, a fiction that there was some consensus that never really existed. In 1844, Justice Sandford (Lynch v Clarke) declared a universal opinion, adding:
The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
My reading shows that the terms “natural born” and “native born” appear interchangeably in the literature, as we have just seen. Here is what Ms. Cromwell had to say:
There are two classes of citizens; native born, and naturalized. Persons born in the United States and children born of American parents while abroad are native born. Naturalized citizens are aliens who through the process of naturalization have attained citizenship.
Burden of proof (Vermont 1907)
It is an established principle that the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution lies on the prosecution. A defendant may remain silent and be acquitted if the case against him is insufficient.
There is something a reversal of burden, however, in a quo warranto case, one in which the government, after meeting a threshold of likelihood, challenges the right of someone to hold office; the burden of proof lies with the office holder. Courts have ruled, however, that only the government may bring a quo warranto suit, and those made by private individuals have been summarily rejected by the courts.
That said, should some part of the government bring a quo warranto action against President Obama, would he be obliged to prove his eligibility? Perhaps not. I refer here to a case of the State of Vermont v. S. Hollister Jackson from the Supreme Court of Vermont in 1907, where the eligibility of the states attorney of Washington County was challenged because, it was claimed, he was not a citizen at the time of his election to office.
This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto to test the right of the respondent to hold the office of state’s attorney of Washington county. As the case is presented, the only question for our determination is: Was Mr. Jackson a citizen of the United States at the time of his election to the office in 1904? It is said that we were not in harmony with the authorities when we held, in State ex rel. Danforth v. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594. that in these proceedings persons in possession of an office are presumed to be regularly elected and entitled to hold until the contrary appears; and that the true rule is that in such cases the burden is on the respondent to show legal title to the office [see source for citations]…
However this may be, we regard it of no importance in this case as the citizenship of the respondent is presumed. This presumption arises from the mere fact of his residence here [see source for citations]… It was this rule which Judge Redfield had in mind when he said in Blood v Crandall 28 Vt at page 400 that the general presumption is in favor of citizenship.
The details of the case (which was dismissed) are not of particular interest to the Obama question since Mr. Jackson was not born in the United States.
Calais v Marshfield
The a US Circuit Court in the case of US v. Rhodes defined natural born citizenship as birth within the allegiance of the United States [cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark]. Some have said that because President Obama, through his father, was born also a Citizen of the UK and Colonies, that he has a dual allegiance to Britain, and that this defect renders him not a natural born citizen of the United States.
It has always seemed to me profoundly unfair that some second country could impose an allegiance upon someone against their will, or that somehow a second country could dictate who could and who could not be President of the United States. Apparently, the court agreed with me in this decision from the case of Calais v. Marshfield (1844):
“Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.” Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520. [As cited in Field Int. Code.]
You can’t tell a book…
This blog is about Obama Conspiracy Theories–but you knew that. With some web sites, it’s not so obvious. For example:
The Federalists were founders of our country like George Washington, and John Marshall. The were in favor of a larger role for the federal government compared to the Republicans (or Democrat-Republicans) such as Thomas Jefferson who was an ardent supporter of states rights. However, The Federalist Blog is anything but Federalist, arguing for example that the Federal government lacks the power of eminent domain within a state. I mention this blog because it’s principal author (and I guess owner) P. A. Madison argues against natural born citizenship for the children of non-citizen immigrants like President Obama.
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers
One might think this was a web site akin to Yahoo Answers, or Ask.com. But it is actually a web site devoted publicizing the views of the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit. While opinion may vary, I think this is not the place to get the right answers on the topics it covers.
Rather than being related to defense of freedom, this web site collects and publishes articles critical of President Obama.
This web site is not really the web site of a grand jury, but another birther site.
One might think this related to personal and family security, how to keep burglars out of your house. It’s not. It is a right-wing web site that publishes birther information. It’s more about linking Obama to Bill Ayers than anything to do with security.
More accurately, this might be God Save America from President Obama. It’s a front for the “citizen grand jury movement”.
I contrast these web sites with ones whose titles leave no question as to their content: Obama Crimes, Stop-Obama, Obama Waffles, and Nigger Obama. Links to these web sites on my bookmarks page.
Supreme Court Justice Scalia believes natural born citizenship is jus soli
Justice Scalia
Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage. In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).
Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
The transcript is fascinating listening.
Thanks to NBC for the link! We have such GREAT commenters here!
