Birthers Not a New Controversy

Dave Kopel looks back at the controversy that surrounded Chester A. Arthur, and whether or not he was a natural born citizen of the United States.

4 Responses to “Birthers Not a New Controversy”

  1. Bitter says:

    I guess this just goes to show that nothing in politics is ever really new.

  2. FatWhiteMan says:

    I also seem to recall reading about a similar argument about Andrew Jackson that involved a fistfight in Boonesborough, Ky.

    Bitter is probably right. Nothing really does change where politics are concerned.

  3. DirtCrashr says:

    I had to get Naturalization papers after we returned from India in 1959. It wasn’t an automatic thing since us kids were not born on an Army base or anything like that. My political ambitions have always been zero-to-none anyhow.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    I actually find this instance of the Birther nonsense to be a very dangerous precedent. Logical conclusion of the argument is that you *must* have a birth certificate. If it were otherwise, the burden of proof would be on the Birthers – and it wouldn’t matter if the One showed his papers or not. I don’t like anything in the .gov that requires an otherwise free person to show “papers please.”