Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DaveTesla

I have that already posted on my blog. It still is a great quote. “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”

John Bingham was the authur of the 14th Amendment. Or should we say - straight from the horses mouth. Unlike giggles- the horses butt.

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/

Other Quotes:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
-Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…;

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…;


962 posted on 02/17/2010 12:30:39 AM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies ]


To: syc1959
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

My point was that prior to the 14th and the Federal Takeover the deciding authority was the states.

If one wants to understand Citizenship one must look to the
definition set forth by the states.

963 posted on 02/17/2010 12:43:38 AM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson