John A. Bingham, primary framer of the 14th Amendment, states- “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.” Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom of Colonies (Kenya). Thus, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Excerpt from this article-
“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Thus, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Good article.
Also, here:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/articles-on-constitutions-natural-born.html
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Just realized that Birthers failed to exploit a rare, sparkling, political opportunity....
Why didn't we rancorously demand that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ask Sotomayor to define “Natural Born Citizen?”
This was posted on Citizen Wells and and Natural Born Citizen.
>>>You Article II s.1′er guys are just going to love this………THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!! Greg Goss wrote: The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm ————
US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment. Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.
This is lengthy, but includes the pertinent passages from Blackstone, Vattel, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. Otherwise, you would have to get it off the ‘Net yourselves ...
In order to understand the concept of “Natural Born” citizenship, it is necessary to understand NOT ONLY who is a “Natural Born” citizen, but ALSO the traits and characteristics of a “Natural Born” citizen …
FIRST:
We look at the question of the applicability of English Common Law to the United States Constitution, vis-à-vis SCOTUS.
From Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898):
Although SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States, it has ALSO ruled that Common Law ought to be consulted in cases where original intent necessarily needs to be construed.
SECOND:
We now look at the question of a “Natural Born” subject in English Common Law vis-à-vis Blackstone.
From Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
“… Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth … Natural allegiance … cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, … the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own … put off or discharge his natural allegiance … and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince …
… Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien … for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only …
… An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord …
… And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once …
… The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such …
… A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject … A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them … And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.
… Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable … of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. …”.
THIRD:
We now look at the question of whether a person may sever ties with his Sovreign (more on this later in the “CONCLUSIONS” section).
From Law Of Nations
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
“ … 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it …”.
FOURTH:
We now look at the question of a “Natural Born” subject in English Common Law vis-à-vis The British Nationality Act of 1948.
From Part II, Section V:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
CONCLUSIONS:
What does this ALL mean ???
1. The Founding Fathers DID NOT consider English Common Law to be the controlling law in the Colonies. For if they DID, as “Natural Born” English subjects, they NEVER could have severed ties with England without the Sovreign’s consent (per Blackstone).
2. The Founding Fathers seem to have borrowed from Vattell as justification for the severance. This seems to verify that the Founding Fathers DID NOT ENTIRELY rely on English Common Law when founding the United States.
3. Blackstone states that the children of foreigners born on English soil are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, “Natural Born” subjects.
4. HOWEVER, Blackstone ALSO declares that a “Natural Born” subject CANNOT serve two masters.
5. Therefore, per Blackstone, a child of a foreigner appears to be a Denizen rather than a “Natural Born” subject – assuming that the foreign father’s country recognizes the child as one of its citizens (dual nationality).
6. Per Blackstone, a Denizen enjoys MOST of the rights of a “Natural Born” subject – except that he CANNOT hold high office.
7. The British Nationality Act of 1948 recognizes OBAMA as a British subject AND the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes him as a United States citizen (dual nationality), IF he was born in Hawaii.
8. As a dual national, OBAMA COULD NOT have fit the definition of “Natural Born” as the Founding Fathers knew it.