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.
What have you done for me lately?
Dr. Conspiracy
I was a little stung by a criticism I read on another blog that “Dr. Conspiracy does no research.” That raised my hackles when I thought about the hundreds of hours in research I have done.
But the fact of the matter is that I rather burned out on research. If you find 50 things that prove your case, what is the marginal value of adding another one? There are 50 articles on this, and 50 on that — about 475 in total already on this blog. So as of late, I’ve been more into publishing “current events” and fluffier pieces. I also question the marginal value of more debunking when the birthers have been caught in so many lies that one more could hardly tarnish their reputation. The courts do not seem to be inclined to believe any of it, and issues of standing render the “natural born citizen” argument moot. With that discussion anyone with sense already knows, and those without sense aren’t going to changed their minds.
Anyway, now you know why I have turned on the valve and published a pile of research, citing some lesser known cases, and things that one will not see on page one of a Google search. What I intend to do for a while is publish one article on one historical source of interest. I’m not attempting to weave it into one epic saga of US legal history; someone else can do that. I’m going to make the source material more accessible.
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.]
Drafting a definition for Natural Born Citizen (update)
I’m working on a definition for Natural Born Citizen to be submitted to the Urban Dictionary. The current definitions there are highly unsatisfactory and have net negative response from those who rate them.
This blog has published definitions before including:
- Defining Natural Born Citizen
- Natural Born Citizen: Defined! (from a legal dictionary)
Unfortunately my original article is far too long to fit the 1500 character limit of the Urban Dictionary, and in any case, I want something short and easy to read. So here is a draft for comment. Keep in mind that the following is just 38 characters under the limit, so I can’t add anything substantial without removing something else.
A US Circuit Court said “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.” US v. Rhodes (1866). This principle has been cited approvingly by subsequent courts including the US Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that said:
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, … The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” (more…)
