very good that you have cited the alleged NY Times (alleged because I have not done further research as to the veracity of this citation) article. Does that mean, though, that no one complained, that no one contacted their Representative, that no one took any measures to change it?? "Things" were at a much slower pace back then--there was no instantaneous exchange of information like today. Telephones were not even a common household item. Also, the article says his father emigrated here at the age of 18. It does not say he NEVER became a citizen. If he became a citizen and Arthur was born in Vermont, as stated, AFTER his father became a citizen (assuming his mother who is not mentioned was a citizen), would that not make Arthur a natural born citizen?? It seems to me that there is not enough information in that article to ascertain one way or the other--further research would be necessary (what year did his father emigrate here, was the mother a citizen, did the father ever become a citizen, was his father a citizen when Arthur was born, etc.) And just how slow a process was 'doing further research' back then, huh?
I have clear opinions about Supreme Court rulings from the 19th century because I have read MANY articles concerning the matter (both pro and con), not because I was there. I have not read articles concerning the alleged widespread notification that Arthur was ineligible to be POTUS...and the (alleged) one you cited is too vague, imo.
Anyway, I don't know if you're an attorney, Atkinson, but Mr. Apuzzo is, and I agree with his stance on the natural born citizen controversy. Then we have the Law of Nations, of which our founders were well aware.
O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: