Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,802 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,322,136
Pageviews Today: 1,777,890Threads Today: 406Posts Today: 6,711
12:09 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The Boston Globe, November 9, 1896: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

 
"Birthers" from 1896
User ID: 1371040
United States
05/05/2011 08:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
The Boston Globe, November 9, 1896: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.
Use the links to see the scans from the old newspapers.

The Boston Globe, November 9, 1896: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President. Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune. These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.

Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“. (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Bridgham further states:

“A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution. The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,”…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning.” (Link to full article.)

So, The People’s Lawyer (and the Boston Globe) can now be listed as “birthers”.

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]


New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS

The issue of which I write on this blog – whether a person born with dual allegiance is eligible to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces – has been discussed at numerous times in our nation’s history. It’s not like it was just made up by people who do not support Obama.

HISTORY LESSONS

Back in 1896, the issue of whether a citizen – who was not born of US citizen parents – could be President of the United States was discussed in the Tribune (aka New York Tribune) during that Presidential campaign. Here is the full text of the story (see pg. 131 at link):

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1368935
United States
05/05/2011 08:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Boston Globe, November 9, 1896: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.
It is legally quite clear, regardless of what a lawyer named Percy opined in 1896; if you're 'native' born, i.e. born ON U.S. territory, or registered at birth by American parents, you are a 'native' or 'natural' born American and legally entitled to be president. Doesn't matter legally if your parents are naturalized [foreign-born] citizens. Percy was arguing the difference between two words, native and natural. He wrote an amusing, fun article meant for non-professionals of the legal profession. But he was wrong and the courts wouldn't back up his premise.

Laws regarding automatic citizenship to all births that occur on U.S. territory is the issue. If Americans are dissatisfied with this, this Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment has to be altered/changed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27249705
United States
11/26/2012 01:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Boston Globe, November 9, 1896: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.
it is very clear


but deception is quite common in the taking over of the world uder the one world beast system...and they will force their aness on the ot of survivors

News