The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.

bingham 1872

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House.  If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested.  However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”.  It simply clarified who was a “citizen”.  Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment.  But they didn’t.

Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as “Vattel’s definition”.  Challenge that tactic every time.  Vattel didn’t make it up.  His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law.  Vattel was not a legislator.

It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham.  And this definition was never opposed on the floor.  And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the House floor.  And when an issue this important comes before the nation on the floor of  “the people’s House”, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people, then it’s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives, as a whole, agreed with that definition.  After all, our nation is governed by debate on the floor of the House.  But there never was debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional law.

The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.  It’s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other’s mistakes.  Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of “natural born citizen”, and no Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today.  If the House wants to change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and properly debate it.

Until then, call it the House of Representatives definition as offered by the father of the 14th Amendment who was never challenged upon it.

Don’t let history be rewritten by propagandists.  The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.  You have a voice.  You have freedom of speech.  You have access to your federal and state representatives.

The courts don’t want to hear from you.

So find someone who must to listen to you and be heard.  The Constitution cannot survive unless you breath life into it. We are responsible to future generations.  Do something with that responsibility.  Use the law.  Obey the law.  Respect the law.  Fight for the law.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.  (hat tip to my main researcher who shall remain anonymous for now…)

About these ads

73 Responses to “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.”

  1. Daniel Moutray Says:

    So,if I read this right,Barrack Obamma is NOT a natural born citizen of The United States of America.So why is this Muslim President of the United States.

    ed. please, let’s not bring religion into this… there are forums which discuss that issue, this is not one of them. This is a legal blog. Please keep your comments to the legal issues. Thank you. – leo

  2. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    Leo! This is key! Anyone who debates the issue of Obama’s eligibleness must use this post! MUST use it! There is no room for doubt! NONE! Said by Bingham, the Framer of the 14th Amendment, himself! Whoever the “researcher” is, if it was them that found this, you are to be commended with the highest respect! Alex Jones would talk this up for weeks un-end.

    How about this next part though from your post? Isn’t this what I stated in my response to your post? I haven’t re-read Ark, but have you switched your position?

    “Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define ‘natural born citizen.’ It simply clarified who was a ‘citizen.’ Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.” (periods don’t go outside quotes)

    Good job. GREAT job!

  3. “[C]urrently, as of the date and time of this Notice, there is no ‘legally acknowledged definition’ of the Constitutional idiom of ‘natural born Citizen’ as found in the Executive qualification Clause at Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution of the United States, not in any specific words within the Constitution, not in any promulgated Legislation Codified to Statutes, not in any of the various Amendments to the Constitution, not in any Declaratory Statement and/or Judgment emanating from any level of the Constitutionally authorized Judiciary, notwithstanding the ‘Act to make uniform the laws of naturalization’ of the 1st Congress of 1790, repealed by the 3rd Congress of 1795 and within various dicta found in the various Federal Court Opinions.”

    USCA 10th 11-9501 (Motion)

    It is ALL the fault of the Congress

    The fact stated above can be laid at the feet of the 1st Congress and, like a snowball, the accumulation of ‘confusion’ in understanding the nature of American Citizenship has continued grow ever since.

    The real tragedy of the 14th Amendment is that the Congress FAILED again to take the opportunity to clarify the nature of American Citizenship.

    Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 makes plain how the Congress was meant to exercise its ‘plenary power’ over both ‘naturalization’ and ‘bankruptcy’ and it is there where the FAILING begun.

    The construction of the Section and Clause makes obvious the intent and use of ‘PRECISE LANGUAGE”;

    “[T]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;…”

    Precise Language means using the right word or phrase to convey exactly the right idea. Words that share the same definition may have widely different connotations (shades of meaning).

    Rule; usually refers to standards for activities;

    Laws; is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions.

    Many will say that I am splitting hairs but take a moment to consider. Commerce was the business of the newly formed States now united by the Constitution and the continued stability of that commerce was of great concern. The RULES of BANKRUPTCY had long been established within the various States and the Congress was mandated to make the LAWS uniform among the States.

    There was NO history of naturalization, or citizenship for that matter, under the auspices of the newly formed United States, hence the need for an uniform Rule from which to have a basis for whatever necessary Laws and Regulations the Congress might find appropriate thereafter.

    But they did not express a ‘standard’ for the basis of their activities. The Law stating that a child born abroad to Citizen Parents could be taken as expressing the doctrine of jus Sanguinis controlling U.S. Citizenship, however, in that it was not expressed as such it too was left ambiguous to contrary minds.

    There are sufficient pronouncements and dictums’ supporting what WE all know is the correct and proper definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. But the unfortunate fact is that only a ‘declaration’ from a controlling legal authority will satisfy the needs of closing the ‘legal loop-hole’ caused by the conflicting assertions of the nature of the American Rules of Citizenship.

    ed. I took the caps out. please no caps… those are reserved for me :) – leo

  4. Sallyven Says:

    In the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flores-villar-v-united-states/

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.authcheckdam.pdf

    ed. Gold star, Sally. – leo

  5. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (1790-91):

    English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems…

    …You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

    fast forward to 1868: US State Dept & US House documents, otherwise publ. as Executive documents…By United States Congress House

  6. Larry Miller Says:

    You’ve got him now, Leo! Keep up the great work!

  7. Excellent post.
    Two thumbs up. I posted it on anther forum.
    Congrat’s!!!!

  8. Please take a look

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30812FC385F1A7493C7A9178BD95F418784F9

    Published: October 5, 1875
    UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.; WOMAN SUFFRAGE UNDER THE NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION–OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

    ed. link didnt work for me. – Leo

  9. Bill Cutting Says:

    Leo
    Another Great Post! Thanks
    Sent you an NBC article from Boston Globe 1896 the other day. Did you receive?

    ed. no. I did not. Please resend or post link. thanks. – leo

  10. Patriot galore Says:

    What an exciting post!!! Long past due and I cannot even imagine how much time and hard work it took to uncover what our forefathers intended. But, those who will suffer the most from this truth knew. They knew and were just biding their dishonest evil lives until they were uncovered and discovered. What a travesty happening upon our great country!!

    Well done, anonymous researcher, very, very well done.

    And no offense intended ~ hubby and I will use this as foreplay tonight.

  11. Thank you for posting this. Many on the left have taken the 14th Amendment (though most Democrats voted against this admendment) and tried to revise it to fit their agenda of protecting Obama. The 14th Amendment was brought forth because of slavery. Those on the left have attempted to use this amendment to grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants (anchor babies). Again, thank you for posting this information. It will be helpful when I debate the next lefty on the 14th amendment :)

  12. JinOhio Says:

    to slcraig, who wrote, “The real tragedy of the 14th Amendment is that the Congress FAILED again to take the opportunity to clarify the nature of American Citizenship.”

    The 14th defines citizenship, as it intended, to bring slaves who at that time were recently freed, to equal citizenship with the rest of the population, doesn’t it? WKA distorted the intention of the 14th. Or, am I way off in outer space?

  13. Out of the courts and back to the ballot box, the only place where the people are allowed to clearly exercise control.

    The primary elections may be the most appropriate time for an eligibility challenge. Find when a potential primary ballot/caucus candidate must file in your state. Find out if, when, and how you could challenge his/her eligibility through the Office of your Secretary of State. Then do it!

  14. Patriotny Says:

    Leo, I’m in your corner, been in your corner for over 2 years now. I’m still in your corner and I’ll always be there. But just as you pointed out about 2 years ago, DeVattel’s definition as understood by the Founding Fathers is not American “Law”, just as the House of Representatives definition as quoted above is not American “Law”. And therein lies the problem.

    For over 2 centuries noble men were honest enough to understand & accept the true meaning of “natural born citizen”. But in their honesty they didn’t anticipate a deception of the American people on a scale that is now becoming overwhelming. They relied on truth and honesty, they should have backed that up and put their beliefs, a final definition on this subject in writing, in a documented law.

    The question now is this, today…are there enough noble men & women in positions of political power, are there enough men & women who are ordinary citizens like you & me that will stand up and put politics aside to put the true meaning of “natural born citizen” back in it’s rightful place? Are there enough Leo?

    I pray that there are, because if there aren’t enough of us, the United States of America as the world has come to know it, will cease to exist in the next 5 years. Stay the course, keep the faith, the Founders were right.

  15. I believe Obama wrote in his book that his father was a non-citizen. Therefore, under the above difinition Obama is admiting that he is not a “natural born citizen.”

    Doesnt matter where Obama was born. Hawaii birth certificate was a red herring all along.

    What are the chances of us citizens actually declaring that the Presidential ticket of Obama/Biden was unconstitutional; And actually demanding a constitutional election to fill the very real vacancy in the white house. Everything Obama has done is actually invalid, null and void.

    Our next president can start over and nominate two surpreme court justices, fire all czars, replace each and every Executive Order, etc.

  16. And the Congress people said “take it to the courts” and the courts say “no standing, take it to congress”. Hmmm…. I feel like I am walking up an Escher staircase… IMHO only Congress can unravel the Constitutional crisis that Barry has most likely reigned upon our Republic. Unfortunately, too many culpable Congress people with kick the can down the road mentality still occupy the halls of Congress. Maybe some of the new guys…

    BTW Great piece, Leo…

  17. Checkmate!….It’s settled once and for all….Obama is declared an ineligible usurper by the father of the Obot’s beloved 14th Amendment.

    They can’t spin their way out of this one!

  18. keymanjim Says:

    This will give you a laugh.
    I just had someone on a website tell me that I shouldn’t quote the writers of the 14th Amendment because they all lived in the 19th century and their views don’t reflect modern society.
    Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t the 14th Amendment the current law of the land? Doesn’t it remain so until another Amendment cancels it?
    I tell you, the lunkheads you meet on the internet these days. It’s no wonder that obama is allowed to keep that office.

    ed. the arguments are getting more desperate and demented as the evidence grows stronger every day and there’s more coming. The dude is not eligible. It’s not even close. – leo

  19. throwshoesatobama Says:

    No objections were heard because this was the common definition. The fact that NBC is used once, for the sole purpose of qualifying a person for the highest office in the land, speaks to the importance the founders put in keeping all citizens equal.

  20. JinOhio Says:

    March 9, 2011 at 9:47 PM
    to slcraig, who wrote, “The real tragedy of the 14th Amendment is that the Congress FAILED again to take the opportunity to clarify the nature of American Citizenship.”

    The 14th defines citizenship, as it intended, to bring slaves who at that time were recently freed, to equal citizenship with the rest of the population, doesn’t it? WKA distorted the intention of the 14th. Or, am I way off in outer space?

    I do not think you are way out there, but the point I was trying to make in my less than lucid manner is that the ‘Precise Language’ of the A1S8C4 enumerated power of the Congress specified to ‘establish an uniform RULE of naturalization’, which then could be used when promulgating future laws and regulations.

    I posit that in following the ‘rules’ of ‘precise language’ Congress could have/should have ‘defined’ natural born Citizen as the STANDARD upon which all ‘created’ forms of American citizenship should aspire too and that would, with the passing of generations of those who would be newly made citizens, naturally become by the natural laws which bind a civil society together.

    It could have/should have been done in 1790 and 1795 and so on including within the 14th Amendment and it now falls on the SCOTUS to do, SOON.

  21. DrJim77 Says:

    March 10, 2011 at 1:49 AM
    And the Congress people said “take it to the courts” and the courts say “no standing, take it to congress”. Hmmm…. I feel like I am walking up an Escher staircase… IMHO only Congress can unravel the Constitutional crisis that Barry has most likely reigned upon our Republic. Unfortunately, too many culpable Congress people with kick the can down the road mentality still occupy the halls of Congress. Maybe some of the new guys…

    It is my understanding that “only” the SCOTUS posses the ability to “Declare” the definition, meaning and intent” of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen at this “late date”.

    As I mentioned in a previous post the Congress has missed its opportunity to ‘express’ their determination.

    But my logic is this.

    Any ‘expression’ by the Congress now would be subject to Constitutional challenge taken to the SCOTUS, just as any State definitions contemplated in the various State Federal Election laws will face such challenges. (A consequence devoutly to be wished)

    Even an Amendment would be subject to Constitutional challenge on any definition that might be expressed, sans a “prior ruling” from SCOTUS.

    The point is, it is that the “Original Definition” must 1st be determined before any “enlargements, abridgments and or other modifications’ are made to it and that requires a SCOTUS determination in the 1st instant.

    Of course, it is also my position that the question of an acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is in the 1st instant a “Citizenship Question” and that the “transien Political aspects” are only incidental to the “after the fact” intents of the Constitutional usage.

  22. Leo, wondering what you make of this:

    Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, MONDAY, January 28, 1839 Volume 33 pg 397-98

    Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law—…

    Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=033/llhj033.db&recNum=396&itemLink=?%230330397&linkText=1

    ed. it’s not exactly written in a manner which leads to simple understanding. :) – leo

  23. Have it on my blog at

    http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2011/03/01060-woman-suffrage-under-the-new-amendments-court-explains-natural-born.html

    Please read second image, explains again the meaning of natural born
    and both parents. This was in 1875.
    ——————-
    Miriam Says:
    March 9, 2011 at 8:26 PM

    Please take a look

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30812FC385F1A7493C7A9178BD95F418784F9

    Published: October 5, 1875
    UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.; WOMAN SUFFRAGE UNDER THE NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION–OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

    ed. link didnt work for me. – Leo

  24. Linda Says:

    March 10, 2011 at 12:14 PM
    Re; Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, MONDAY, January 28, 1839 Volume 33 pg 397-98

    This goes directly to the heart of the proposition I assert that the Congress has “failed” to establish an uniform “Rule” of naturalization” leading to one unintended consequence after another.

    I have always asserted that “naturalization” under the laws that have been promulgated and as they now exist, is a “conditional citizenship” subject to ‘laws of removal’ upon circumstances specified.

    The Journal entry you cite would appear to be correcting an oversight that would leave a child born as an NBC even when being taken before the age of majority to the home country of their parents because of the parents going afoul of some naturalization ‘condition’ that caused their ‘removal’, (and assumed loss of the citizenship grant they had obtained through the naturalization.)

    It may be along the lines of the 1790 Act that carved out the exception of those whose fathers never resided in the U.S. where a child born to citizen parents abroad could have spent their entire lives aboard, taken a U.S.Citizen as a wife and, without the exception, given birth to a U.S. natural born Citizen having never set foot in any of the various States. (A period of time as little as 22 years taking the age of 21 yrs old as the age of majority.)

    Treason stripped Benedict Arnold of whatever claim he may have had on U.S. Citizenship, but the general Rule under the Articles of Confederacy was ‘in continued good behavior’. That is the general premise of those who are naturalized today but by the specific interpretations of the various Statutes make only the most grievous offenses subject to ‘removal’ in most instances.

    The example serves to support the proposition that the question of an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is in the 1st instant a ‘citizenship question’.

  25. @ slcraig I concur that the definition of Natural Born Citizen needs to be clarified by SCOTUS as to it’s actual definition. But what will happen to all the laws, treaties and appointments made by an illegal POTUS if SCOTUS declares Obama as illegitimate ? Who on earth can unravel such a mess???

    ed. It wouldn’t be that hard to unravel. – leo

  26. @ slcraig & DrJim, It was clarified in the Naturalization Act of 1802:

    28th Congress, 2nd Session
    page 129

    MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

    First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

    It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

    An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
    Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

    SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/

    If one reads the entire section of the debates, it is very clear the intent of the 1802 Naturalization Act and that it had to do with the states that had kept feudal birthright subjectship law in place. Therefore, they declared that even though the child might be a citizen of the state in which he was born, the child does not become a citizen of the US until the parents are naturalized & gained their US citizenship.

    Leo, I did a cut and paste from my website, so please forgive me if some bold font came across.

  27. DrJim77 Says:

    March 10, 2011 at 2:56 PM
    @ slcraig I concur that the definition of Natural Born Citizen needs to be clarified by SCOTUS as to it’s actual definition. But what will happen to all the laws, treaties and appointments made by an illegal POTUS if SCOTUS declares Obama as illegitimate ? Who on earth can unravel such a mess???

    ed. It wouldn’t be that hard to unravel. – leo

    And I concur with ‘ed.’.

    It’s one of those things I do to cheer myself up, speculate and contemplate what the political ramifications will be when I get an answer to the question of the definition of natural born Citizen, insofar as ‘citizenship’ is concerned.

    My preferred scenario goes like this;

    It being obvious that the sitting Officer in the Executive does not conform to the required circumstances of birth condition the Congress convenes and Votes to write up Articles of “Removal” as provided for under the Constitution and Art 25, an Impeachment be moot in that the determination of eligibility had already been determined in the ‘Citizenship Question’ decision. The Trial in the Senate would also be moot and the Vote there would be perfunctory with the Chief Justice presiding.

    The Articles of Removal would include the Nullification of all signed Acts requiring new Votes for those items along with provisions to Remove the ‘Term in Office” from the Record.

    The percentage of what will actually happen is probably relative the the length and intensity of the riots in the streets of certain cities.

  28. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    (I suggested you for an Alex Jones interview… email was sent to writers@infowars.com… look out for a response… good luck)

    Will everyone who stops here and reads or comments send a request to Alex Jones to interview Leo for a radio interview. Alex Jones’s site is infowars.com or prisonplanet.com, and you can send your request to writers@infowars.com.

    Thank you.

    P.s.: If you’ve sent a request to Alex please say so in your post so we can determine Leo’s chances at an interview.

  29. bob strauss Says:

    The house version, definition of natural born Citizen is identical to the senate version as stated in Senate resolution 511.

  30. Philip N. Says:

    My 2 cents:

    Webster defines natural as Fixed or determined by nature.

    Obama’s citizenship at birth was not fixed, it was split.


    ed. The poster wished to correct his comment as follows:

    “Webster defines natural as Fixed or determined by Nature.

    At birth Obama’s citizenship was not fixed.
    Nature tells us that we follow our father’s Heritage.”

    -leo

  31. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Leo and researcher deserve Bravos and standing ovation!!! Just sent email to Alex Jones writers@infowars.com .

  32. Bob Weber Says:

    Context, Leo , context! Bingham wasn’t arguing a definition of NBC any more than SR 511 was arguing that to be an NBC, you have to be named John McCain and be born in 1936 on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone to an American navy father and an American mother.

    Bingham was arguing for U.S. intervention on behalf of John Emile (Juan Emilio) Houard, an American expatriate.

    Bingham was simply citing Houard’s background, same as SR 511 did re McCain. Houard, though an American citizen of Spanish Cuban ancestry, had relocated some thirty years before to the land of his parents’homeland. Subsequently, he became involved in Cuban revolutionary activity and was arrested by the Spanish Cuban government.

    The interventionist argument hinged on Houard’s being an American citizen. The anti-interventionists argued that American citizen or not, Houard had long ago expatriated himself and was living under the jurisdiction and allegiance of Spain, and the matter was no concern of the U.S. (It’d be a worthwhile project to see if Spain considered him to be a Spanish subject by ancestry, irrespective of his U.S. citizenship.)

    ed. Context includes all of Bingham’s statements. Obviously, having citizen parents and being born in the US made Houard’s citizenship beyond doubt…because, unlike others who, according to the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, were subject to doubt, a natural born citizen is not since he is born in the US to parents who are citizens. Perhaps you can explain to me, because nobody else has been able to, how the framers would have allowed a British subject to be President? Especially in light of the monarchy’s rule of perpetual allegiance… which the framers were VERY aware of. How exactly would the framers have allowed someone with perpetual allegiance to the King become President? Go on, you have the floor.- Leo

  33. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “DrJim77 Says: @ slcraig I concur that the definition of Natural Born Citizen needs to be clarified by SCOTUS as to it’s actual definition. But what will happen to all the laws, treaties and appointments made by an illegal POTUS if SCOTUS declares Obama as illegitimate ? Who on earth can unravel such a mess??? ed. It wouldn’t be that hard to unravel. – leo”

    Agree, however, it is unlikely that SCOTUS will “declare O as illegitimate”. This is a legal forum, and most of you assume that if a well researched and convincing argument is presented to SCOTUS, they will define nbc. SCOTUS hammered the last nails in the coffin of such expectation, by not hearing Hollister v. Soetoro a few days ago. Even Standing was not a problem.

    It is easy for them to do so, they don’t even have to give reasons. No one ever can hold them responsible. It is obvious that they all know that O is not eligible. It is equally obvious that they pretend that this is not a major constitutional issue. SCOTUS and the lower court judges also know full well, as slcraig correctly pointed out, that only SCOTUS can define nbc. Yet many of them are pretending that it is Congress’ function.

    It looks as if O will be reelected. No GOP candidate can match the $1 B that the regime will easily raise. The GOP leadership believes that bringing up the eligibility issue would hurt the 2012-GOP candidates. Even Sarah, who is not part of the old guard, said that the issue is “distracting”. Strange that she is following McCain’s faulty line of thinking, proved wrong by the election. But Huckabee and the rest of them are not any smarter.

    It seems they all forgot the adage that if you can not stand the heat get out of the kitchen. From their high horses, they advocate the noble notion that they can win on political issues alone. Of course that is impractical and will lead to their defeat.

    Consequently, the GOP can not get into the White House without embracing the eligibility, regardless whom they nominate. So O’s second term is pretty secure. At the end of his second term the transformation of the country will be completed, so SCOTUS will be even less likely to define nbc. The issue will be swept under the carpet forever.

    Nevertheless, if somehow one of the GOP candidates can be convinced to use the eligibility issue, he/she may beat O, and SCOTUS would be forced to rule. The question is how can any candidate be convinced?

  34. Bill Cutting Says:

    Leo, I sent this article to your Yahoo email. Looks like you did not receive. Here is the link to the original http://tinyurl.com/4k4hnkk

    I you want me to send you a copy, send me an email. It is copyrighted, so I can’t post to scribd.

  35. Linda Says:

    March 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM
    @ slcraig & DrJim, It was clarified ….;
    If one reads the entire section of the debates, it is very clear the intent of the 1802 Naturalization Act and that it had to do with the states that had kept feudal birthright subjectship law in place. …;

    I have read all of the State Constitutions I could find that were adopted ‘post’ the Declaration of Independence, while under the Articles of Confederation, up to the Adoption of the Constitution.

    I find NO jus soli premise of Citizenship absent a Citizen parent, (father).

    It was a time of WAR and acknowledged as such. Every State had a ‘system’ of ‘registering’ for the right of suffrage, i.e., verifying ‘freeman’ status, which in essence invested the acknowledgment of being a ‘citizen’ of the State as opposed to being only an ‘inhabitant’. Just as the Constitution extends its protections to all within its jurisdiction, so did the States. But, being included in ‘protection’ is NOT the same as being invested with “Rights”, (see Scott v Sanford)

    But my question is, which States did you find ‘automatic’ jus soli grants of citizenship benefits sans consideration of the parents, (fathers), citizenship status during the period between the Declaration up to the adoption of the Constitution…?

    ed. please do not use bold print… that’s reserved for my comments. – leo

  36. Leo, heads up…NY Times, March 30, 1874 : Citizenship: A Bill To Carry into Execution the 14th Amendment to the Constitution Concerning Citizenship

    original post at freepers: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2686190/posts?page=118#118

    direct link to the PDF file: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10E16F93B5D1A7493C2AA1788D85F408784F9

  37. Glad your back !!!! Excellent post and Kudo’s to your researcher !!!!! Hope you will keep on keeping on!!!!!!!!! Look forward to what you have to say!!!!!!!

  38. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    @Bob Weber

    I agree. Bingham wasn’t arguing for or against a certain definition of “natural born Citizen.” Bingham was using the definition of “natural born Citizen” to prove Houard’s level of U.S. citizenship. According to the following text of Bingham’s oration, it sounds like the politicians back then clearly agreed on a constitutional definition for “natural born Citizen.”

    “That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

    Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t naturalizing yourself to become a citizen of a country other than your homeland alleviate the ties of citizenship to your homeland?

    I found this definition for “naturalized citizen” on a site called The Lectric Law Library (lectlaw.com). I’m not really sure the clout of the site, but here’s the definition it provided:

    “One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.

    “He has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States. In foreign countries he has a right to be treated as such, and will be so considered even in the country of his birth, at least for most purposes.”

    In other words, if a naturalized citizen of the United States is considered to be that even in their homeland, then that means Houard’s parents would’ve been considered naturalized U.S. citizens in Spain, according to that definition.

    Here is one of Spain’s loss of citizenship rule:

    “Spanish nationality is lost by emancipated people who while habitually living abroad:
    – Voluntarily acquire another nationality”

    That tells me that Houard’s parents would’ve lost their Spanish citizenship, and since they only held their naturalized U.S. citizenship status when they conceived Dr. Houard, then Dr. Houard would’ve been only a U.S. natural born Citizen (holding no ties to Spain).

  39. Voco Indubium Says:
    “Agree, however, it is unlikely that SCOTUS will “declare O as illegitimate”. This is a legal forum, and most of you assume that if a well researched and convincing argument is presented to SCOTUS, they will define nbc. SCOTUS hammered the last nails in the coffin of such expectation, by not hearing Hollister v. Soetoro a few days ago. Even Standing was not a problem.
    It is easy for them to do so, they don’t even have to give reasons. No one ever can hold them responsible. It is obvious that they all know that O is not eligible. It is equally obvious that they pretend that this is not a major constitutional issue. SCOTUS and the lower court judges also know full well, as slcraig correctly pointed out, that only SCOTUS can define nbc. Yet many of them are pretending that it is Congress’ function.
    Nevertheless, if somehow one of the GOP candidates can be convinced to use the eligibility issue, he/she may beat O, and SCOTUS would be forced to rule. The question is how can any candidate be convinced?”

    All these gut-less politicians think that it is political suicide to address obama’s eligibility issues. As at least 50% of the population now thinks a problem exists with Obama’s vitals, NOT addressing the issue may actually facilitate their political suicide. Perhaps, i am a minority, but nothing makes me more angry as being labeled a racist or the Alinski derived made-up word of “birther”.

    Is main stream America so easily manipulated by the liberal left tactics of attacking the messenger while ignoring or misrepresenting the actual issue??? If so, we deserve to lose the Constitutional Republic, which the Founders blessed us with….

    BTW nice to see all the old cast of thoughtful characters beginning to show up and commenting on Leo’s most important blog…

  40. Perhaps my propensity to be an optimistic, half cup full, kind of guy, I think perhaps a plan may exist by some in the GOP to go after Obama’s eligibility problems. Timing is everything in politics, and in order to get the maximum effect and create the most damage to obama and company, the time to start an aggressive campaign against Obama’s probable lack of eligibility needs to be initiated closer to the 2012 election after Obama is “all in” for 2012.

    Recently, the leftist MSM have aggressively attempted to make Bohnoer, Bachman, and Palin to denounce the “birthers” and declare obama a “citizen”. These politicians have carefully replied that they take obama and the State of Hawaii’s word on the “citizenship” matter, thus possibly hedging any future developments in regards to the out of control situation in Hawaii and avoiding addressing the citizen vs. natural born citizen misinformation.

    Still, every member of the 111th congress and senate is culpable to some degree, so my optimistic hopes may be just a pipe dream as they all just want to continue the coverup to save their own butts. Another troubling development is how all the current State legislative attempts of enforcing POTUS requirements in the future are playing out. If not one State corrects the lack of enforcement necessary to fix what went wrong in 2008, I am afraid that Obama may have successfully pulled off one of the greatest acts of fraud in US history…

    One last thought…Even if Obama manages to squirrel himself on all the State ballots again, he definitely will NOT be a shoe-in to win as many are hip to his treachery, no matter what the MSM spouts…

  41. Philip N. Says:

    Leo,

    My last post gave websters definition of the word ‘natural’.

    Since no court to date has ruled on ‘natural’ as it concerns with citizenship shouldn’t we follow the common definition?

    It’s unbelievable that Congress cannot comprehend this.

    ed. see my next blog. – Leo

  42. New York Times – Jun 15, 1878

    The summary views of the judiciary will indicate also, that the fourteenth amendment does not change the status of Indians in the tribes. Its language may seem to do so: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” But Indians in the tribes will not be deemed born subject to the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction here does not mean territory, but authority, political sway.

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70F1EF93C5A137B93C7A8178DD85F4C8784F9

    ed. good find, Linda. – leo

  43. Leo, some time ago, in a post, you described how Obama, while a candidate, could have filed some type of legal request to the Supreme Court asking for a clarification of his Constitutional qualifications. What was the name of this legal request?

    ed. declaratory judgment. but he might have needed to file it with the DC District Court first. -leo

  44. BillCutting Says:

    3 cheers for Linda!!!

  45. Bill Cutting Says:

    The Alantic Monthly 1916

    Our Country Divided

    BY HENRY J. FLETCHER

    “Our country furnishes many examples of that curious phenomenon, double allegiance. All persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are declared by the Constitution to be citizens. This is true of the children of non-naturalized aliens domiciled here. But the children of aliens have the same nationality as their parents, according to the laws of nearly all foreign countries, and such children are therefore subject to a double allegiance. In this way, if a German living in this country chooses not to accept the citizenship which we so generously urge upon him, his children born here may, when they grow up, disclaim their American citizenship. A young man born here of alien parents may, if he goes to Europe for study, be forced into the army, and the United States will be powerless to protect him, even though he intends to return and reside here. Even if the alien father be naturalized here, the minor son born here before the father’s naturalization, if he returns to his father’s native country, is liable to be seized and compelled to perform military service, and his American citizenship will prove to be a mere fiction. If a German domiciled here is so attached to the memories of the fatherland as to refuse the proffer of American citizenship, and his children while growing up are diligently nurtured in the same sentiments of loyalty, they cannot be relied on by the United States in time of war as Germany and France are now relying on their subjects at home. If in addition to this consciousness of divided allegiance, there are family ties and expectations of inheritance in the old country, it is clear that the Americanism of such persons, considered as an asset in time of war with Germany, must be charged off as worthless, if it be not an actual liability.”

    http://tinyurl.com/2faub9p

  46. DrJim77 Says:

    March 11, 2011 at 3:58 PM
    Voco Indubium Says:
    “Agree, however, it is unlikely that SCOTUS will “declare O as illegitimate”. This is a legal forum, and most of you assume that if a well researched and convincing argument is presented to SCOTUS, they will define nbc. SCOTUS hammered the last nails in the coffin of such expectation, by not hearing Hollister v. Soetoro a few days ago. Even Standing was not a problem.
    It is easy for them to do so, they don’t even have to give reasons. No one ever can hold them responsible. It is obvious that they all know that O is not eligible. It is equally obvious that they pretend that this is not a major constitutional issue. SCOTUS and the lower court judges also know full well, as slcraig correctly pointed out, that only SCOTUS can define nbc. Yet many of them are pretending that it is Congress’ function.
    Nevertheless, if somehow one of the GOP candidates can be convinced to use the eligibility issue, he/she may beat O, and SCOTUS would be forced to rule. The question is how can any candidate be convinced?”

    Not to cause dissension among anyones views it has long been my position, largely formed from the works of our host, that it is the ‘Political Question’ aspects of all eligibility cases that has thwarted SCOTUS intervention in the matter.

    I also posit that the question of who is or is not a natural born Citizen must be considered as a “Citizenship Question” in the 1st instant, leaving the “transient political aspects” to the consequences of the political ramifications in the 2nd instant.

    In other words, in order for the SCOTUS to accept jurisdiction over the question of definition of natural born Citizen they must be presented with a Bona Fide case and controversy where the relief and remedy its-self is the ‘Declaratory Judgment’ of the nature, definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as the Citizenship of the actual Petitioner is concerned, leaving the ramifications of the ‘transient Political aspects’ to the processes of the Political arena.

  47. Bob Weber Says:

    Leo wrote:
    Context includes all of Bingham’s statements. Obviously, having citizen parents and being born in the US made Houard’s citizenship beyond doubt…because, unlike others who, according to the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, were subject to doubt, a natural born citizen is not since he is born in the US to parents who are citizens. Perhaps you can explain to me, because nobody else has been able to, how the framers would have allowed a British subject to be President? Especially in light of the monarchy’s rule of perpetual allegiance… which the framers were VERY aware of. How exactly would the framers have allowed someone with perpetual allegiance to the King become President? Go on, you have the floor.- Leo

    *********************************

    Thanks, Leo! So before we get to the Founders and the British Question, can we both stipulate that the Houard case did not hinge in any way on any definition of NBC?

    Did the founders intend to prevent an American citizen by right of birth on American soil from being eligible for the presidency, 35 +years after the ratification, simply because by accident of birth and foreign British law, he happened to also be eligible to be recognized as a British subject? And which, BTW, neither the U.S. nor the American citizen have any control over, and of which the citizen might not even be aware? I don’t think so! The founders were sophisticated men, and recognized that nations have their quarrels, but also patch up their quarrels. They all had had the experience of being at war with France 1756-1763, having France as an ally during the Revolution, and again being in a state of limited war with France during the “Quasi-War” 1798-1800, when Thomas Jefferson, who had freely and willingly accepted French citizenship, was Vice-president! Why do you suppose that were no frantic attempts to amend the Constitution to forbid a person like Jefferson from ever being President, who had acquired his foreign citizenship as an adult, if they were so deathly afraid of a person who had a lapsed eligibility to be recognized as a foreign citizen, as is Obama?

    ed. Jefferson was exempted by the GF clause so he was eligible regardless France gave him “honorary” citizenship and that’s not jus soli or sus sanguinis. Your comment is a joke, right? Here is what John Adams said about foreign influence:

    “My worthy fellow-citizens! Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations.”

    “The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English and the French have been employed for centuries in every court and country of Europe.”

    The framers distrusted England. Furthermore, none of us have a decision in who we are born to (at least as far as I can tell)… how the hell does that come to matter in the law? If your point of view was correct than what is the need for stopping naturalized citizens from being President? What’s the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen to you? And why did Obama require two citizen parents of McCain? The answer to both questions is obvious – citizen parents adds a generation of loyalty to this nation. There is no other answer. And in case you missed this report it states that being born to an alien father means you can be forced into military duty – even against the US – and there the State Department won’t be able to prevent it. It all hinges on whether your parents were naturalized before you were born. That’s the State Department talking. – leo

  48. I am so tired of asking from any person to show me where jus soli provided automatic citizenship to any person sans a jus sanguinis relationship to a citizen prior to the 14th Amendment by any statute.

    The various States under the Articles of Confederation provided for citizenship of ‘free white men’ and the various courts of the States administered “acknowledgement” of citizenship.

    It was a time of war and a sorting out of the populations between active Patriots and Loyalists. Properties were being seized and confiscated by both sides in various places and times.

    Births do not happen in a vacuum any more than naturalization does.

    The Constitution gave mandate to the Congress to make an uniform Rule of naturalization among the various States. Show me the promulgated Rule that establishes jus soli sans jus sanguinis relationship in any Act of the Congress prior to the 14th.

    The Constitution makes no provision to simply assume a foreign law as the law of the land when there is an absence of a promulgated law by the Congress.

    Being declared as if a citizen by birth from a Court is a judicial naturalization and in the case of little wong kim ark, being declared a citizen as if from bith, being contrary to the terms of the Burlingame Treaty, was a form of judicial kidnapping from both wongs parents and the sovereign nation of China.

  49. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “DrJim77 Says: BTW nice to see all the old cast of thoughtful characters beginning to show up and commenting on Leo’s most important blog…”

    Indeed. Leo is providing a truly valuable service to most of us who believe that the US Constitution is most important and successful political document produced by mankind. As results of his efforts the “two citizen parents” and the “dual citizen” issues have gained foothold, whereas two years ago they were unorthodox concepts.

  50. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “DrJim77 Says All these gut-less politicians think that it is political suicide to address obama’s eligibility issues. As at least 50% of the population now thinks a problem exists with Obama’s vitals, NOT addressing the issue may actually facilitate their political suicide. Perhaps, i am a minority, but nothing makes me more angry as being labeled a racist or the Alinski derived made-up word of “birther”. Is main stream America so easily manipulated by the liberal left tactics of attacking the messenger while ignoring or misrepresenting the actual issue??? If so, we deserve to lose the Constitutional Republic, which the Founders blessed us with….”

    There is not much to add to your comment. It reflects the frustration of many. It was difficult to understand why the GOP, starting in 2008 by McCain, has not used the eligibility as a God-given political tool, until the interview with Ted Frank, in connection with the Wiki scandal; the Washington lawyer, who was, and probably is, a top insider of the GOP.

    He said that the GOP made a definite decision not to use eligibility in 2008. Also, he said he was not involved in the 2008-decision, but he agrees that using it would hurt the 2012-GOP candidates.

    So much about the integrity of the GOP. The (wrongly) perceived political gain trumps the constitution. Like it or not, we have a two-party system with an incompetent GOP who can be motivated by the prospects of the next election only. No GOP candidate can beat O on policy issues alone, given that the regime can easily raise $1 B for the campaign. Therefore the GOP should be made to understand that without the eligibility issue they will lose the White House again, just like McCain lost it. Perhaps that will motivate them.

    There is no other avenue at this time. Any hope in Congress, the Judiciary Branch and the media (including its right wing) is futile. Four more years like this – and the Constitutional Republic will be gone from the face of this planet.

  51. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “slcraig Says: Not to cause dissension among anyones views it has long been my position, largely formed from the works of our host, that it is the ‘Political Question’ aspects of all eligibility cases that has thwarted SCOTUS intervention in the matter….”

    It seems to me that the Standing Doctrine has been the first obstacle, and the Political Question (“PQ”) was the second. The interpretation of the “injury in fact” of the Standing can be very flexible and had been traditionally used by courts to avoid ruling. Most of the eligibility cases never cleared the subjective “injury in fact hurdle”.

    The Holister v. Soetoro did not have that problem, consequently the PQ was the block, one would assume.

    Quote:
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm

    “The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly.

    Read narrowly, the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the Court is one that “has been textually committed to another branch of government.” That is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected.

    More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch. ”

    Which of these criteria do you think SCOTUS used?

    And are they justified to use them, in creating an unenforceable constitution as Hemmenway correctly pointed out, given the fact that they all took oaths to protect and uphold the Constitution?

  52. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “slcraig said: ……I also posit that the question of who is or is not a natural born Citizen must be considered as a “Citizenship Question” in the 1st instant, leaving the “transient political aspects” to the consequences of the political ramifications in the 2nd instant…..”

    If I understand you correctly, you are right to approach it in this manner, that way the Political Question should not be used as an excuse. You used that approach in your second suit – right? Where is that now in the process?

    Of course, I and many others, wish you success. We just don’t trust SCOTUS. Alen Keyes said two years ago that they practice “dereliction of duty”. They still do.

  53. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “DrJim77 Says: Perhaps my propensity to be an optimistic… perhaps a plan may exist by some in the GOP to go after Obama’s eligibility problems. Timing is everything in politics…”

    Hope you are right – but don’t bet on it. As you said, they keep referring to HI’s confirmation – what confirmation?

    Not one of them is using the Abercrombie-statement, confirming Tim Adams, that the bc does not exist.

  54. I’m sorry, but that’s just not what this says.

    Saying that because “he was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” there is “no shadow of a doubt” only suggests that being born in this manner is beyond qualified; beyond any question. That just means that he meets or exceeds the requirements; that his manner of birth is within the guidelines, not that these ARE the guidelines.

    He doesn’t say Houard is NBC because this is exactly and only what NBC is, AND he’s a citizen at birth according to the constitution. If that were the case, there would be no point at all in stating the latter.

    Instead, he states the manner of birth in connection to “by the express words of the Constitution…a citizen of the United States by birth” in elaborating on how his manner of birth is beyond question.

    This suggests that the broad definition Houard falls under, which unquestionably qualifies him as NBC, is simply being a citizen at birth, which is dictated by the constitution.

    He is X and the constitution says you must at least be Y, which includes X, thus he is NBC. Not he is X, and NBC is X, and irrelevantly the constitution says that X is also Y.

    ed. You’re just looking at the one quote… when you read all of his quotes together, it’s more than obvious that Obama is not nbc according to Bingham. – leo

  55. Also, regarding founders intentions in allowing Brits to become president, you have to consider the logic of drawing a line somewhere.

    The founders wouldn’t want those born and raised at just Brits being naturalized and taking office. But that’s a far cry from being born in US to a US citizen, raised and educated in the US, but due to the laws of another nation, having dual citizenship which is replaced by a different dual citizenship, which is then revoked due to allegiance to the US.

    Suppose that Britain, or any nation, one day just decides that they love the US so much that they automatically grant us citizenship to their country. In that, by your logic, another country would have the power to instantly prevent another US president from being elected.

    ed. this argument was pronounced DOA last week… get the memo here. – Leo

  56. My first post was in regards to the quotation in the picture. I didn’t really have time to read and respond beyond that at that time, but I’ll respond to the other two Bingham quotes now.

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Just a little further back on the same page, Bingham also says “Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural-born citizens.” This says that citizens by birth are natural-born citizens. I don’t suppose this definition was ever argued or discounted by the house either. So which is right if neither are argued to be wrong?

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    This one is simply snipped out of context. It begins by saying, “I find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being…”

    So here, Bingham is not citing a definition. He’s stating that he agrees with the language contained in the bill which they are discussing. What’s most interesting about this actually, is that the language to which he’s referring does not say “natural-born” but merely “citizens”. So here he is using natural-born and citizen by birth interchangeably.

    Also, his references to the constitution support this, as he is referring to citizens at birth as natural-born citizens, claiming it to be as defined in the Constitution, while the Constitution says nothing about who is natural-born but does mention who is citizen by birth.

    ed. Nice try, but your snipping the relevant parts doesnt help you. Bingham did not feel that persons born to foreign parents were even citizens, let alone nbc. – leo

  57. Voco Indubium Asks:

    “…Which of these criteria do you think SCOTUS used?

    …”

    I have concluded that it is a combination of both emanating from the “fact” that the is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    This creates an insurmountable conflict in any case questioning “eligibility” based on the Constitutional prerequisite imperative.

    It leaves “any” case being without a “statutory basis” upon which to claim, assert, that any given person is or is not a NBC because there is no “legally defined” standard with which to demonstrate non-conformity.

    And, it presents a Court with the question of who is or is not and NBC in a purely ‘political context’ which would make any “definition” attempted by a Court as a “purely” Political definition/decision breaching the wall of Separation of Powers.

    Therefore ‘standing’ is lacking in any and every way when challenging eligibility based on the undefined standard.

    In every aspect of looking for a solution to the circumstance of there being no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen it is found that the horse is tied securely to the back of the cart. In order to make any progress it is necessary to unfetter the horse and walk it to the front of the cart and then coax the SCOTUS to hitch it properly.

    I am continually reminded of the “risk” of presenting the “question” of what is the “legal” definition of natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned to the SCOTUS given the liberal history of judicial naturalization and citizenship grants based on jus soli interpretations.

    But I have concluded that even the “wrong” interpreted definition is more useful than “no” definition at this point of Political WAR in which we are engaged.

    In wars it is often better to battle certain issues with a line drawn in the sands than to try and win hearts and minds when the issue is not fully understood and the opposing camp remains intermingled among us.

    IMO.

  58. “Nice try, but your snipping the relevant parts doesnt help you. Bingham did not feel that persons born to foreign parents were even citizens, let alone nbc. – leo”

    Actually, I believe I included previously snipped relevance. I didn’t leave out anything in including additional information in direct response to what was presented.

    What Bingham felt regarding being born to foreign parents is actually what’s irrelevant. I’m sure there were many at the time who disagreed with calling black people nbc, or suggesting women could be equals.

    These debates took place before the adoption of the the 14th amendment, or woman’s suffrage, and obviously a host of 20th century civil issues.

    He may have not considered Obama nbc in his time, and I’m sure they wouldn’t have taken too kindly to a black president. But saying that he didn’t consider domestic birth to foreign parents to be citizen by birth doesn’t change the fact that today we would, and what he DID consider is that citizen by birth is nbc.

    ed. Bingham is known as the father of the 14th Amendment. He knew what that law meant since he helped write it. Furthermore, what you “would” consider today is irrelevant. All that maters is what the law is. If you dont like the law, too bad. The law takes precedence over what you would like it to be. -leo

  59. “Bingham is known as the father of the 14th Amendment. He knew what that law meant since he helped write it. Furthermore, what you “would” consider today is irrelevant. All that maters is what the law is. If you dont like the law, too bad. The law takes precedence over what you would like it to be. -leo”

    You were the one who brought up what he would consider, as a point in support of what you were saying. What I mentioned about what we would consider today, I wasn’t speaking my personal opinion about what is considered, but rather mentioning the FACT that you do not require 2 citizen parents to attain citizenship at birth in this country.

    ed. We are not talking about citizenship… we are talking about presidential eligibility. If the requirement to be POTUS was “citizen”, as it is for Representatives and Senators, then one citizen parent would be fine, but the Constitution requires one to be a “natural born Citizen” for POTUS. So two citizen parents are required according to the greater weight of evidence. – leo

    So now you’re just breaking your own argument. Previously, you falsely accused me of snipping relevance when I actually added relevance which you or your copy/pasted source had snipped. And now you argue that law trumps what is considered, even tho the whole basis for this argument is that you claim that what he considers (or at least the half of the 2 different statements he made which agrees with you) is the law, simply because it wasn’t contested (in either case as far as I know).

    So in other words, what you presume about what was considered yesterday and why is irrelevant. All that maters is what the law is. If you dont like the law, too bad. The law takes precedence over what you would like it to be.

    There is still nothing in any law which defines NBC, and the Constitution which Bingham suggests defines NBC only defines citizen at birth, which he also referred to as NBC. Now I’m no whiz, but I’m decent with basic math.

    ed. Bingham states quite clearly that the 14th Amendment requires a person to be born not subject to any foreign power, and like Secretary of State Lansing in his letter to Senator Dodge, Bingham emphasizes the need for the parents to be citizens so that the child owes no fealty to another nation. For if the child does owes such fealty, as Secretary Lansing also emphasized, that child may be brought to bear arms against the US. There is NOTHING natural about that as to a US citizen. Both Bingham and Howard (another father of the 14th Amendment) made it very clear that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to only those persons born on US soil to parents owing no allegiance to any foreign power. Therefore, when Bingham states that a natural born citizen is one born of parents who are citizens on US soil, that clearly excludes all persons who were born owing allegiance to a foreign power. Those persons who are subject to foreign powers owe direct allegiance thereto according to both our laws and that foreign nation’s law.

    But do stay tuned for more history lessons. The research team has uncovered some more gems coming in the days ahead. Obama is not eligible since he admits to owing direct allegiance to the monarchy at the time of his birth. – Leo

  60. Mark D Says:

    March 19, 2011 at 8:39 AM

    “There is still nothing in any law which defines NBC,…..”

    Which raises a couple of interesting questions I struggle with, i.e., given that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen then;

    1] Is any and/or all of the “Certificates of Eligibility” in fact null and voidable in that NO candidate can ‘PROVE’ conformity to an un-defined citizenship standard…?

    2] Is the Executive Offices in fact un-fillable given that NO ONE can conform to an un-defined citizenship standard…?

    3] And given that the Constitutional constraints on eligibility is NOT provable due to the lack of definition of the citizenship standard isn’t any and every occupant seated unconstitutionally.*

    * The argument the the Certification of Electoral College Votes fails when it is acknowledged that the Congress has NO authority over citizenship except that authority of immigration and naturalization and therefore can not define ‘citizenship’ beyond that authority,(having failed to provide ‘an uniform Rule’ in the 1st instant.)

  61. “ed. We are not talking about citizenship… we are talking about presidential eligibility. If the requirement to be POTUS was “citizen”, as it is for Representatives and Senators, then one citizen parent would be fine, but the Constitution requires one to be a “natural born Citizen” for POTUS. So two citizen parents are required according to the greater weight of evidence. – leo”

    I don’t have a problem understanding what we are talking about. I wonder why you would think that I do, unless you do yourself. We ARE in fact talking about citizen, in regards to the NBC argument. YOU mentioned citizen in your comment of consideration to which that part of my post was referring. Also, I mentioned citizen in pointing out that on the very same page from which the first quotation of Bingham was taken, he equated citizen-at-birth to NBC clear as day.

    You try to tell me what we’re talking about as if I don’t know, totally ignoring proper context and content, as far as what’s referring to what and how. But then you go on to tell me about what Bingham says about the 14th amendment, which at the time of these quotations did not exist. We’re discussing the contents of debates concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

    A child being raised in our country by a citizen parent cannot be sent to war against our country. That’s silly.

    ed. You are completely ignorant of the law. The State Department has made it very clear that a “person” (not a child) who was raised in this country but whose father was not a US citiZen when the child was born can be sent to war against this country… because the parents (plural) when the child was born were not both citizens. This is because such a child is not natural born. Read this Discuss this decision before attempting to post new comments. – leo

    As far as being in other countries, hell other people could try to send anyone they want to war against us. That’s not as big of a concern for a child, nor at all within their control, and not much of an issue for an adult who was raised in the US by US citizens shouldn’t matter if allegiance is singular early in adulthood.

    That doesn’t erase the logic I presented earlier which you simply dismissed as “pronounced DOA.” If UK suggests tomorrow that they consider any citizen of the US to be a citizen of the UK, with full benefits to citizenship, then next year, there’s no eligible candidate for president. And they certainly didn’t intend for Britain to have the power to decide who is or isn’t eligible for us.

    ed. Again, that argument has been utterly debunked by Secretary Lansing’s explanation letter to Senator Dodge. Read the link above and discuss in context of this issue. – leo

    I can understand not wanting foreign interests to control our government. That’s painfully obvious. But there are situations, such as this one, where that’s clearly not the case. There are guidelines for citizenship, but there is nothing Constitutional which suggests what the definition of NBC is. Bingham, who you’re trying to suggest proves definition, states at different times both of our definitions. But no claim by any one person can define that for the Constitution, so it doesn’t exactly present any factual support to the argument of defining NBC either way.

    ed. It’s not just Bingham… and I have a groundbreaking post coming out that will educate you further on this issue. – Leo

  62. Beware ignoring the “fact” at the heart of the issue that has been debated for the past 2 plus years.

    The vacuum that “is” the “legal loop-hole” sucks people in with blinding and disorienting whirlpool of obfuscation’s, distortions and distractions of “red herrings & wild geese circling a mulberry bush”.

    Just as important as determining if a person is or is not a natural born Citizen for Constitutional purposes is “how” that determination is made.

    Is the question a “Political Question”, or is it a “Citizenship Question”.

    Consider that if the Birth Certificate of the occupant of the Executive Office was released today showing that he was foreign born to an underage US Citizen mother and Foreign National father.

    The “Political” will is gathered in the Congress to write up Articles of Impeachment following the logic of S.R. 511, being forced to acknowledge that there is no “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. It is voted out along Party lines with a sufficient majority to send it to the Senate.

    “Plausible Deny-ability” is the defense offered asserting that the Constitution does not say in words who is or is not a natural born Citizen, in fact does not even specify that such a person needs to be a U.S. Citizen. The absurdities laid upon the top of the “fact” that there is no “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen becomes a comical farce akin to what the definition of “is is”.

    And, being tried in the Senate becomes a wholly ‘Political” process without the imprimatur of the Rule of Law “legality” which conceivably could cause the Chief Justice to “recuse” his-self in light of the fact that the Congressional actions may well prove to be subject to “Review on Appeal”. [*]

    There is no “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and until there is any and all considerations of who is or is not a natural born Citizen for Constitutional purposes is a wholly Political determination that carries with it all of the baggage of the Political process and distorts the historic and natural definition, meaning and intent of the “nature” of a natural born Citizen.

    There is only one question that needs to be asked and answered and that “is” the “Citizenship Question”;

    “What is the “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    [*] (Apply any scenario you might conceive and sans a “legal” definition of an NBC apriori you arrive at the same end)

  63. OH MY GOSH LEO!!! your Back!! …. Terrific!

  64. Q: How many times has Congress addressed the issue of “natural born citizen”?

    Q: Has any agency of the Federal Government defined the term “natural born citizen”.

    Q: What were the determinations?

    Q: Absent a definitive definition, would not “original intent” be the necessary standard?

  65. lunaursus Says:

    I believe the Supreme Court knows Obama is not eligible but is sitting on this, not willing to even consider hearing any case because of the extreme result if Obama was found ineligible.

    Think of it a moment. Everything he did would be null and void and illegal. And I mean everything, from the decision to attack Afghanistan on down to the healthcare bill. What a mess! His signature on everything would be null. The entire election voided. A plethora of unimaginable problems!……and so this will never be brought to any determination and if it even is, it would be in his favor, so authorities dont have to deal with a big mess.

  66. lunaursus Says:

    In addition, ….if Obama were found ineligible, would impeachment be the solution? How can you impeach what isn’t? If he isn’t president in the first place, no impeachment needed. Just have security take him out,….like an unwanted guest in a hotel……….lol!

    ed. Like in the Senate when a person is not eligible, the remedy is not expulsion (Constitutional equivalent of impeachment for Senators)… instead the person’s seat is void and there is no record of that person ever having been senator. – Leo

  67. How do you respond to the decision of the judge in this case:
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Citing U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

    I would be interested in your analysis. You may have already written about it. The case is Ankeny v. Governor

    ed. WKA clearly stated that the person was NOT nbc. The court said he had the same rights as a person who was NBC. – Leo

  68. StephenWV Says:

    Is it possible that were the SCOTUS to establish a here to for unestablished definition of NBC, would that definition be applied to all future Presidents but all past actions would be allowed to stand under a “grandfathered” type clause? Perhaps if Obama were still in office would the VP then take over at the time of the ruling? Perhaps a decision after he is voted out in 2012, would not apply to all past legislation. His not being a NBC, and the lack of allegiance the Founding Fathers feared, explains his apparent desire to not solve the US economic problems.

  69. Michelle Says:

    Just had a very frustrating conversation about this very subject. Trying to educate someone on the definition of nbc and using as many primary source documents to do so was futile.

    I am a teacher and have used only the documents and cases you referred to only to be told that I was a poor teacher. That, for them, it is a sad and scary situation to have a teacher spreading lies.

    Love your post. Thank you for keeping the conversation alive.

  70. It is worth pointing out that had the Framers intended that being born to a (1) citizen qualify to be Prez while disqualifying naturalized citizens they would have said something like ->a Prez must be native born to a citizen or used words similar to that. The very fact that they chose to use the term natural born is proof positive that they had rejected being born to 1 citizen as a qualifier. Had their intent been to allow a child born to 1 citizen ascend to the Presidency there would have been no need whatsoever to use the term natural born.

  71. Under the LAWS, customs and traditions of the time there was ‘no such circumstance’ of ‘dual-citizenship’ of the parents of a child born within the jurisdiction of any of the various States.When the father was an ‘un-naturaliszed foreigner’ the ‘wife/mother’ was ‘assumed’ to be of the citizenship of the husband/father and any controversy to the contrary was necessarily resolved by judicial action upon the facts of the specific case.

    Ergo, births occuring to unnaturalized-wed mothers produced a bastard of suspect civil status and births occurring to married couples produced a child of the civil status owing to the father.<Period

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: