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

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))

“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.

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…)

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—

1st. That the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States in office on the last day of the last session of any Congress, shall remain in office until the organization of the House of Representatives of the succeeding Congress.
2d. That it shall be the duty of the Clerk to receive and file all certificates of election transmitted by the Executives of the several States.
3d. That it shall be the duty of said Clerk to make a roll of the members who, from such certificates, or, when no certificates are returned, from credentials from the Executive of the State, presented by persons claiming to be members of such Congress, appear to have been elected members of said Congress.
4th. That the said Clerk shall, at twelve o'clock, meridian, on the day appointed for the meeting of such Congress, call the members so enrolled to order, who shall then proceed to elect a Speaker and Clerk for the time being.
5th. Providing for the mode of taking testimony in case of contested elections, and that the same be filed with the Clerk on or before the second Monday of the session.

6th. That said House, when so organized, shall appoint a Committee of Elections, by ballot, or viva voce, as a majority shall determine, to consist of thirteen members, who shall be sworn to be faithful discharge of their duty.
7th. That said committee forthwith proceed to examine and report on all contested elections, and that the persons contesting may be heard before the House by themselves and counsel; and which shall decide thereon without further debate.
8th. That, after the decision of all the cases of contested elections, the House shall proceed to elect a Speaker, Clerk, and other officers of the House for the Congress.
9th. That, if the election of Speaker shall result in the choice of another person, the standing committees shall be appointed anew.

Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:

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.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate [Annals of Congress, Sixth Congress, 129—139]

March 28, 1800.

It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, the disposal of all the honors and offices of your Government, the management of your foreign concerns, and the revision of your laws. Invested with these important powers, it was easily to be seen that the honor and interest of your Government required he should execute them with firmness and impartiality; that, to do this, he must be independent of the Legislature; that they must have no control over his election; that the only mode to prevent this was to give the exclusive direction to the State Legislatures in the mode of choosing Electors, who should be obliged to vote secretly; and that the vote should be taken in such manner, and on the same day, as to make it impossible for the different States to know who the Electors are for, or for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere; that by doing this the President would really hold his office independent of the Legislature; that instead of being the creature, he would be the man of the people; that he would have to look to them, and to the confidence which he felt his own meritorious actions would inspire, for applause or subsequent appointments....

Knowing that it was the intention of the Constitution to make the President completely independent of the Federal Legislature, I well remember it was the object, as it is at present not only the spirit but the letter of that instrument, to give to Congress no interference in, or control over the election of a President. It is made their duty to count over the votes in a convention of both Houses, and for the President of the Senate to declare who has the majority of the votes of the Electors so transmitted. It never was intended, nor could it have been safe, in the Constitution, to have given to Congress thus assembled in convention, the right to object to any vote, or even to question whether they were constitutionally or properly given. This right of determining on the manner in which the Electors shall vote; the inquiry into the qualifications, and the guards necessary to prevent disqualified or improper men voting, and to insure the votes being legally given, rests and is exclusively vested in the State Legislatures. If it is necessary to have guards against improper elections of Electors, and to institute tribunals to inquire into their qualifications, with the State Legislatures, and with them alone, rests the power to institute them, and they must exercise it. To give to Congress, even when assembled in convention, a right to reject or admit the votes of States, would have been so gross and dangerous an absurdity, as the framers of the Constitution never could have been guilty of. How could they expect, that in deciding on the election of a President, particularly where such election was strongly contested, that party spirit would not prevail, and govern every decision? Did they not know how easy it was to raise objections against the votes of particular elections, and that in determining upon these, it was more than probable, the members would recollect their sides, their favorite candidate, and sometimes their own interests? Or must they not have supposed, that, in putting the ultimate and final decision of the Electors in Congress, who were to decide irrevocably and without appeal, they would render the President their creature, and prevent his assuming and exercising that independence in the performance of his duties upon which the safety and honor of the Government must forever rest?...

The disqualifications against any citizen being an Elector, are very few indeed; they are two. The first, that no officer of the United States shall be an Elector; and the other, that no member of Congress shall. The first, an indispensable one, because every officer of the United States is nominated by the President, and (except Judges) removable at his pleasure. The latter, that no member of Congress shall, is a provision which goes unanswerably to prove the solidity of my objections to this bill, and to show how extremely guarded the Constitution is in preventing the members of Congress from having any agency in the election, except merely in counting the votes.

They well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....

I was not a Muslim, not raised by a Muslim. And in my town and among my associates I have a solid and earned reputation for honesty.

Obama was a Muslim as a child, his school’s enrollment ledger notes that he was. Obama was raised by a Muslim, that being his adopted Dad, Lolo Soetoro. There in Indonesia, Obama was a Muslim in a Muslim country. Obama’s purported birth Dad, Barack Sr. was a Muslim from a Muslim family — although he claimed to have fallen away from that religion and become a Marxist. Obama has admitted his love for the sound of Muslim prayer, and has engaged in Muslim outreach more than any of the Presidents before him, including asking NASA to add Muslim outreach to its mission. Obama’s sister Maya and his Kenyan relations are all Muslim.

Is Obama Muslim? There’s plenty of real indicators that he is or may be.

Further, Obama’s life and career are full of deceptions and lies, each to achieve a political goal or career goal. This goes far beyond the level of inflated facts in a resume. It goes far beyond the level of deception and lies engaged in by most politicians — although there are too many politicians, well-known, at a same or worse level (e.g. Bill Clinton).

Thus even if Obama is, by his own true volition, not longer a Muslim, he applies Taqiyya-like deceptions politically all the time, and would, as raised a Muslim by family and pervasive culture in his youth, and by at least intellectual studies in adulthood, be familiar with and appreciate the practice. Obviously so, because he employs Taqiyya in all but name, throughout the daily practice of his political career.

Maybe you should run for President in 2012 and see if you can get 69,456,897 votes like Barry Soetoro did.

I will point out that members of the “loyal opposition” to Obama still serve in his cabinet, like Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.

Admiral Mike Mullen is still willing to serve as Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General David Petraeus is still serving as Commandant of Central Command International Force, Afghanistan.

Those are just a few honorable Christian (or in the case of Bernanke, Jewish) folk who work for Obama.

Governor Sarah Palin speaks on Obama’s faith and birthplace:
“Do you question his faith and citizenship?” Palin was asked during an onstage interview hosted by the Long Island Association.

“I don’t, and those are distractions,” she said. “What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”

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.