National Constitution Center Rejects Comment about Chester Arthur’s Presidential Eligibility

(Oct. 5, 2019) — On Saturday morning, The Post & Email received an email from reader Robert Laity, who has filed lawsuits and written extensively about the “natural born Citizen” provision contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution relating to presidential eligibility.

DESPITE SCHOLARLY RESEARCH QUESTIONING IT

(Oct. 5, 2019) — On Saturday morning, The Post & Email received an email from reader Robert Laity, who has filed lawsuits and written extensively about the “natural born Citizen” provision contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution relating to presidential eligibility.

He reported that after reading an article on putative 21st President Chester Arthur at the National Constitution Center and attempting to leave a comment in response, he received a message indicating that the comment was considered “spam” and would not be published.

Published October 5 on the anniversary of Arthur’s birth in 1829 or 1830, as his tombstone reportedly states, the article begins, “Arthur was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. (In later years there were claims, never proven, that Arthur was born across the border in Canada, which would have threatened his eligibility to serve as President.)”

An article dated October 14, 2009 by Marquette University Law School Prof. J. Gordon Hylton titled, “President Chester A. Arthur and the Birthers, 1880’s Style” acknowledged questions which had arisen over Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility but deemed Obama “clearly eligible” without explanation.

The article states, in part:

Questions of Arthur’s eligibility for the nation’s highest office surfaced during the 1880 campaign. Arthur was the son of an Irishman who emigrated first to Canada and the then to the United States, and who finally became a naturalized United States citizen in 1843, fifteen years after his son Arthur’s birth in 1829. Arthur’s mother was a United States citizen born in Vermont but whose family emigrated to Canada where she met and married her husband. By the time of Arthur’s birth, his parents had moved back to Vermont.

The controversy over Arthur’s citizenship status centers around the place of Arthur’s actual birth. By one account he was born in his family’s home in Franklin County, Vermont. If this was true, then he was clearly a natural born citizen. On the other hand, the competing account has it that he was born during his pregnant mother’s visit to her family’s home in Canada.

If the latter story is true, then Arthur was technically foreign-born, and in 1829, citizenship in such cases passed to the child only if the father was a United States citizen, and, of course, at this point Arthur’s father was still a citizen of the British Empire.

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, but credible reports issued prior to his seeking the U.S. presidency reported him as born in Indonesia or Kenya.  He claims a foreign-born father who never became a U.S. citizen.

At least one lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility in 2008 by Leo Donofrio claimed that he was ineligible simply because of his father’s non-U.S.-citizen status.

Ironically, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and said he intends to compete for it again in the future, was born in Canada to a foreign-citizen father, yet two former solicitors general claimed that because of his mother’s presumed American citizenship at the time of his birth, Cruz is a “natural born Citizen.”

Some constitutional scholars believe that the “natural born Citizen” clause intended for the president and leader of the nation’s military possess undivided loyalty by birth to two U.S.-citizen parents. In 1868, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio was recorded in the Congressional Globe as having said that a person born in the United States to parents having no other allegiance is “natural born.”

After receiving the “spam” notification, Laity wrote to the website’s manager, copying this writer and another journalist. His message reads:

I wrote an erudite comment about Arthur and Obama being “Imposters in the Oval Office” (read my book by the same name) and my “comment was marked as spam”. You  ought to be ashamed of yourself, Very ashamed. My comment was NOT SPAM!!

Whether you want to admit it or not, Arthur and Obama were FRAUDS.

http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama

http://www.thepostemail.com/11/19/2017/imposters-oval-office

Robert C. Laity
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of our American Republic

In an email responding to The Post & Email’s question about his comment, Laity further provided:

I wrote a comment that explained why Arthur and Obama were not bona-fide Presidents.  I submitted it and then a notice said that comment would appear  after moderation. Several minutes later a notice was written where the coment should have appeared that “Comment was marked as spam”.  Oh well. Some people can’t handle the truth.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *