Perhaps our greatest abolitionist, judge and congressman John Bingham, who initiated, campaigned for, and authored (coauthor) the 14th Amendment addressed congress on several ocassions, clarifying the meaning of natural born citizenship, since his amendment would address and clarify who were citizens, as provided for in Article 1 Section 8:
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….
Our greatest Chief Justice, a founder and framer, cited in The Venus, 12 US 253, from our nation's first law book, designated by the founder of our first law school at William and Mary,in 1779, Thomas Jefferson. The law book was the most cited legal reference between 1789 and 1821, Vattel’s Law of Nations. Marshall said:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Especially note Vattel's, and Aristotle's, and Cicero's acknowledgment that "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers..." Our justices, and British jurists included both parents in their statement of the natural law that children inherit their allegiance from "parents," and not just the father. Barack Jr. told us from whom his dreams came, and his comrades apparently shared that dream for a Marxist US.
The case which established the Vattel definition as precedent was Minor v. Happersett, a woman's suffrage case from 1874. In it the Marshall/Vattel definition was confirmed by the court, (thanks Leo Donofrio) making it incontrovertible law. The core of the decisions needed a constitutionally defined citizen, and the only such was found in Article II Section 1. Obama’s cohorts at Justia.com understood this, which is why his Harvard supporters edited the original case documents to eliminate references to Minor v. Happersett in October of 2008. Here are the words of Chief Justice Morrison Waite:
“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.”
Finally, every US Senator, along with Obama’s Harvard Law Constitutional Law Professor signed their concurrence with the following statement in the Senate Archives from the hearing led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Remember, every Senator who signed this to try to cloud John McCain's constitutional eligibility issues knew perfectly well that Barack Obama was born a British Subject, thus a naturalized US Citizen, because, among many reasons, Barack told us that himself:
“My assumption and my understanding is thatif you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
There is no doubt that Obama lacks constitutional eligibility, but he doesn't respect The Constitution and told us so, and neither do his comrades. The corruption is such that every US senator is complicit. An honest patriot, doctor and army officer, Dr. Terry Lakin, asked, as his oath required, and spent months in Leavenworth, demonstrating the corruption within the armed forces. An Army judge forbade the doctor the right to defend himself, modifying the army chain of command to do so.
Obama’s ineligibility must not be forgotten. We haven’t the power to enforce our laws with Obama’s corruption of the justice department, and given the reality that federal judges are all political appointees. We must first take back the centers of government power, and then every law passed, and every legislator who failed to have the courage to defend the constitution must be examined. Sadly, some who failed us are both likable and have otherwise solid conservative credentials. We must not be afraid of the Alinsky tactics “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.”, and must know the Constitution in order to defend it.
That is one of the best arguments on this subject that I’ve ever read. Not to detract from Larry’s excellent article in any way, but DUDE! Just. Wow. And brief enough that my (and others’) attention span can maintain a grip throughout.
Thanks for this.
Spaulding wrote: “Colonel Sellin is certainly correct, though I always wonder why people asserting ineligibility use the likelihood of a phony document when, if we still place credibility in our laws, Obama’s ineligibility has been thoroughly confirmed by our greatest constitutional scholars, as well as our current complicit senate”
In case you have not noticed, this crank legal theory gets even less traction than the born-in-Kenya theory, and would require an even bigger conspiracy. That native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long ago. There are no constitutional scholars questioning it, just pretenders such as we see here.
What’s more, none of the wanna-be constitutional scholars advanced this theory until they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. If I’m wrong on that, please cite. None of them were writing essays arguing that /Black’s Law Dictionary/ had the definition of “natural born citizen” wrong. There were no rebuttal’s to: “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).
I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when they don’t like who is winning. But again, if I’m wrong put that on you, just cite yourself advancing this two-citizen-parent theory before Barack Obama ran for president.