Posted on 03/09/2011 1:39:10 PM PST by patlin
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…)
Title should read HOR not HOS for House of Representatives. Had to shorten title per freeper rules
So Chester Arthur was not eligible for the Presidency. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess.
By the way, the POTUS also claims to be Christian. Did he receive ashes today and if he truly is a Christian, I would like to know the date and place of his baptism and date and place of his 1st communion and/or confirmation. Seems to me that in addition to being ineligible to serve, he is also not of the Christian faith which he professes to be. Will the real Barack Obama please stand up???
I’m not able to partake in the ashes today either due health reasons, does that make me less of a Christian also?
Ash Wednesday discussion can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/religion-forum/index
Not all Christian denominations practice that. Mostly Catholic, Lutheran, some Methodists. I guess you'd have to know what denomination POTUS belongs to.
If that is your attitude, why do you post here?
Donofrio gets it right, again.
He went through considerable effort to perpetrate and conceal this fraud on the American people.
Fortunately no one else has ever attempted a treasonous crime of such proportions since.
Because I believe that telling the truth is a conservative value. Chester Arthur’s Father was an Irish citizen when he was born. That’s a non-disputed fact.
This argument you have is a non-starter. It was defeated in the 1880s.
If you want to keep tilting at windmills, go right ahead, but I will point out your folly when you do so. If you don’t like it, ask Jim to remove me from his house.
That’s his right, not yours.
PING! New Donofrio Article
Obama Ash Wednesday message
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 9, 2011
Statement by the President on Ash Wednesday
Michelle and I join with millions of Christians here and across the world to mark Ash Wednesday. As we observe the season of Lent, we receive with thanksgiving this opportunity for grace and repentance, recommit ourselves to our faith, and remember our obligations to one another.
Arthur never denied that his father was Irish, he just denied the rumors that he was born in Canada.
And there is the big OBOT lie...Chester told everyone his father was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Chester's birth.
You think folks should freak out over something that happened in the 1880s?
Become indignant about it? Stomp their feet?
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies.Falsehoods told to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.
-- edited extract from Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah, Islam Watch
His Father was naturalized in the 1880’s, but he wasn’t when Arthur was born.
That was known even in that day. But Arthur being born on American soil was good enough to be a Natural Born Citizen even back then.
Sorry, this argument was lost then, it will be lost now, and it is a complete waste of time. If the founders had wanted it defined the way Vattel translated Wolfe, then they clearly had the means, opportunity, and intelligence to do so.
But they left it in the parlance of English Common Law, not in the language of Vattel.
That’s the reality you have to deal with.
The issue of Arthur’s father being foreign born was obscured by the Canada issue the same way that Obama’s father citizenship is also being obscured by the ‘born in Hawaii’ issue.
It was not known that Chester Arthur was born to a foreign parent at the time.
Okok, let me go get the Johnny’s Popcorn Salt.
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.