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.]
Question for Mario Apuzzo (5)
(Not authentic image)
I notice that you from time to time cite favorably from the US Supreme Court Decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and you have said that the US Supreme Court Decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “bad law”.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts?
If you chose to respond, could you begin your comments with “Yes.” or “No.” before launching into the explanation?
[Mr. Apuzzo, flinging abuse, declined to answer this question and hereby wins the inaugural Obama Conspiracy Theories Shoe Bang Award.]
Another Look
We believe in recycling here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. It was last April when my article In re LOOK TIN SING appeared. Here, I cite more extensively from the decision of the Circuit Court in California in 1884. This case is a precursor to United States v. Wonk Kim Ark, with a similar Chinese citizen barred from re-entry into the United States. This case was decided in the same month as the law review article by George D. Collins was published, claiming that Chinese should never be citizens, that they must always be foreigners. These are the facts of the case as stated by the Court:
The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month, (September, 1884,) and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It is admitted by an agreed statement of facts that his parents are now residing in Mendocino, in California, and have resided there for the last 20 years; that they are of the Chinese race, and have always been subjects of the emperor of China; that his father sent the petitioner to China, but with the intention that he should return to this country; that the father is a merchant at Mendocino, and is not here in Any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.
In response to these facts, the Court said: (more…)
Donofrio misfires
In a recent article, Leo Donofrio takes aim, it looks like, at this blog.
Long-time readers here know that I have taken up the defense of President Chester A. Arthur after he was most unjustly maligned by innuendo from Mr. Donofrio. While he published a picture of the cover of Arthur foe A. P. Hinman’s book How a British subject became president of the United States, I got a real copy through interlibrary loan, scanned, and published it in its entirety, uncovering an interesting letter, that is the starting point of Donofrio’s latest essay. But Donofrio must have read what I wrote sloppily, because he misrepresents what I said (or perhaps some other person publishing the same rare book and letter) rather badly. Here’s the relevant bit from Donofrio:
Thomas F. Bayard was a US Senator from Delaware between 1869 and 1885, which includes the Chester Arthur administration. From 1885 to 1889, Bayard was Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland. This is the same Bayard mentioned in Hinman’s book on Chester Arthur. Hinman wrote to Bayard and Bayard’s response has been erroneously cited by those who support Obama’s eligibility. For some reason I have yet to comprehend, they argue Bayard was aware of Chester Arthur having been born a British subject.
But nothing in Bayard’s letter to Hinman supports that position.
I daresay Mr. Donofrio has a hard time comprehending this view, because no one I know of has ever made such a claim. My article in which I present Bayard’s letter, Chester A. Arthur: Rest in Peace, claims that it is likely that Hinman (not Bayard) knew about Arthur’s father’s naturalization status based on the letter. But I never said, nor do I have any reason to believe one way or the other, what Senator Bayard believes. (more…)
When will the Birthers be happy?
Once again, we read a long discussion, with a rational-sounding style, laying out the facts, so it appears, about citizenship in the United States. Is it reasonable and is it true?
Our guest commentator has doubts, and responds to When will the Birthers be happy?
ARTICLE SAYS: World Net Daily, has actively covered many of these issues relating to Obama’s eligibil[i]ty over the last 8 months and have a collection of all eligib[i]lity related articles. See http://bit.ly/147bkD
RESPONSE: Interesting to note that, before the issue seemed such a potential publicity boon, WND reported that its own experts determined the COLB to be authentic:
“OBAMA’S CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH UTILIZING FORGERY EXPERTS ALSO FOUND THE DOCUMENT TO BE AUTHENTIC. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
WND also reported that the claims that Obama lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child is not supported by US citizenship law:
“In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child [ITALICS IN ORIGINAL(Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)END ITALICS]; may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. ….
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)
US Supreme Court
A visitor to Obama Conspiracy Theories left this comment:
The Supreme Court clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” in the case Minor v. Happersett (1874). Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case. The Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being a person born in the United States to “citizen parents” — this definition does not include Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., because his father was not a United States Citizen.
It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen’” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). It would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark that would definitively answer this question in 1898. (more…)
