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 can be only so many characters long
I knew or assumed that but didn’t know the length in characters. I thought maybe you knew the number.
Not a trick question, and no they do not all do so. Afraid to face the natural consequences of what an honest answer would mean, eh?
It is true, that like Clinton, Obama, lies with no concern for the truth, only for the political impact of the lie.
We know Clinton wasn’t Muslim. But with Obama, we know he was a Muslim, the records show it. Is he still a Muslim?
His policy of convenient lies is so much like Taqiyya.
To: heysean; BuckeyeTexan
“To make an analogy, the house is on fire, and the birthers are focusing on how the matches got in the house and how they shouldn’t be there, while everyone else is calling the fire department and gathering water and hoses to put it out.”
I like that analogy
67 posted on Wed Jan 26 12:00:57 2011 by El Sordo
To: heysean; El Sordo
That’s about right. I would add to that “Becauses the matches shouldn’t have been there, the birthers deem the house fire illegitimate. Since the house isn’t legitimately on fire, they refuse to call the fire department.”
68 posted on Wed Jan 26 12:13:00 2011 by BuckeyeTexan
Or....they are wanting to prevent the tragedy from happening again (to prevent Barry from setting a precedent), all the while trying to fight the fire. Wouldn't part of the post fire investigation be to determine "how" the fire started in the first place?
birthright citizenship to children of aliens and legal foreigners on US soil IS on the agenda for the current Congress and I plan on gaining all the historical knowledge I can while continuing to pass it on to my representatives in DC. So to quote the Supreme Courts of the past, including Justice Gray:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect in place at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Therefore, allegiance to but one nation either at birth or upon renunciation of all foreign allegiances per naturalization laws is what constitutes who the citizens are unless further laws are adopted by statute in which those are citizens who also fall under the laws of naturalization.
“Title of Thread must be between 4 and 100 characters (letters, numbers, symbols, and spaces)”
... is the error message I receive when I try to post a title that is too long.
What Birthers are doing is trying to mitigate and prevent further damage to the constitution.
Furthermore, they are pointing out HOW Obama corrupted the system and made use of American IGNORANCE to gain his position, which if the population had been educated, he COULD NEVER HAVE ATTAINED.
The house is on fire, oh yes indeed. And Birthers are trying to prevent another one from going up in flames in the future.
Everyone has a role to play. I am not a firefighter, I would get in the way of those whos professional job that is! My role lay in Lessons Learned and public communication.
Ever seen too many fire departments respond to a fire? Its a Cluster F**k and the house burns to the ground while the pissing contest rages on as to who has jurisdictional control and command authority.
Nope. Not a real good analogy after all.
no more than 100 characters
Good come back :-)
Thanks. I’ve never had that happen so wasn’t sure of the length.
Thanks.
Good. I'm glad to know that. Next question: Do you also realize that Obama is the sitting POTUS regardless of whether or not he obtained the office legitimately?
Thank you for summing up the birther nonsense.
Too many people are arguing about a Swiss author’s definitions and unlikely secret trips to Kenya, while Obama runs the country like drunk teenagers in a Corvette...
I’d rather actually defeat him in 2012, it’s a much better use of our time.
As a Muslim, the Obummer doesn’t receive ashes.
If he isn’t muslim, then he is a lying agnostic sob fraud ....in that case, he doesn’t do ashes either.
Case is pretty well closed, jes sayin...
The Big Boo
Absolutely! But the time to perform that investigation is not while the house is burning down around us. Let's focus on putting out the fire. Then we can talk about how it started and what we can do to keep it from happening again.
Instead, half (not all) of you (birthers) flat out refuse to recognize that the house is actually engulfed in fire because you're focusing on where the matches were manufactured and how they got into the house.
When the Electoral College voted and Congress certified it and Chief Justice John Roberts swore Obama into office (twice), that was it. He became the sitting POTUS. The SCOTUS does not have the authority to remove a sitting POTUS. So all the time, money, and effort spent on the eligibility lawsuits after Obama took office was a waste.
BTW, Donofrio agrees:
All of the eligibility law suits – brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress – sought to challenge the qualifications of candidate Obama to be President. Once he graduated from “candidate Obama” to “President-elect Obama” and later “President Obama”, every single eligibility law suit pending before SCOTUS became moot Those actions are moot because SCOTUS has no authority to act on the relief requested in those law suits. And SCOTUS knows this better than anybody else.
You and I know that, but a large portion of the birther crowd doesn't. As evidenced by such nonsensical claims as:
E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.
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.