Posted on 03/29/2011 10:58:13 AM PDT by rxsid
"Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.
This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.
Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:
“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)
A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“. (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)
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.”
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))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.
Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
ANSWER: It’s not possible.
Such a person is born with divided allegiance. Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK
According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:
“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “
Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.
Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.
SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER
But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House. Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment. Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.
As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))
Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:
- foreigners
- aliens
- families of ambassadors or ministers
The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:
“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))
Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States.
Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:
“To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States.” – Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))
The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument. They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US. But this is clearly false. In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.
If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. This was always our law. It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today. Nothing has changed.
Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.
Read the quote from his web site again:
“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
I will finish this report with a question:
Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
Hat tip to reader Linda for Attorney General Black’s quote.
Hat tip to my infamous anonymous researcher for the Duncan v. Louisiana quote.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq. "
Leo has pointed out the obvious. That WKA was found to be a "citizen."
If WKA wanted to be a Rep or Senator...he'd be eligible. But not for POTUS.
I would hope that Scalia, being a self described originalist, would look to the writings of Chief Justice Marshall, and the words of Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment....to name a few. Would be a slam dunk.
For those who think this topic is somehow “racism” because Obama is black, then I have a few points for them to ponder first:
When Nobel Prize winning poet Tony Morrison can write an October 1988 New Yorker article titled “Clinton as the first black president”, then what is “black”? When the NAACP calls the black conservative Kenneth Gladney, “not black enough”, and “not a brother” then what is “black”? When Time magazine’s Jack White calls Supreme Court Justice Thomas, “the scariest of all the hobgoblins”, saying “Washington seems to be filled with white men who make black people uneasy”, than what is “black”? And when Obama, a man whose mother is Caucasian, can tell us in a widely read autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity before *deciding* to be black, what is “black”?
When Bill Maher, during a panel discussion on HBO complains that Obama’s policies are “half-assed” “because he’s only half black.” and that “if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.”, and that “there’s a white man in him holding him back”, than what is “black”?
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien writes of a private meeting in 2007 with Jesse Jackson in her book, “The Next Big Story.” During the meeting, Jackson complained to O’Brien, whose mother is a black woman from Cuba, that there weren’t any black anchors on CNN. She wrote, “He looks me in the eye and reaches his fingers over to tap a spot of skin on my right hand. He shakes his head. “You don’t count,” he says.” She closed the section with “[t]he arbiter of blackness had weighed in. I had been measured and found wanting.”
“Black” in all these contexts, as well as Juan Williams’s complaint on Fox News that the extraordinarily lopsided expression of Missouri voter sentiment in August of 2010 rejecting ObamaCare was really about race, is clearly not about “race”. It is about ideology, socialist ideology.
As these expressions of “black” pile up in the mind of the public, more and more will wake up to this truth: socialists will say anything, pull any heart string, evoke any tear and will descend to any dirty trick to advance their favored cause. If we think they have reached bottom with Juan William’s complaint or Bill Maher’s comparison, you haven’t seen anything yet. And that is exactly why these people must be disempowered, defunded and shown to be the frauds they are.
As far as I am concerned, we are all made in the image of God. While we all have the same rights and deserve the same respect, none of us have greater rights or deserve greater respect than anyone else.
With respect to BHO being black: it is not about the race he was born with, it is about the ideology he adopted. It is not what percent black he is, it is about how thoroughly red he is.
” ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. “
WKA case makes it sound like WKA was a natural born citizen ... I do not see any distinction ... they mentioned naturalized citizens and natural born citizens ... not a 3rd category.
Good catch.
Bookmarked.
Not all "citizen's" are "natural born Citizens."
Both are facts.
as I have read the WKA opinion ... I did not see that in it. Please quote the relevant paragraph(s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.