Replies

Congressman Bingham is stating his opinion that parents must not owe allegiance to a foreign government in order for their offspring to be considered natural born citizens. It would have strengthened his argument if that position was codified in statute at some point in time.
I would further say that Congressman Bingham and six justices of the Supreme Court were in disagreement on that point, along with the vast majority of judges, be they local, state or federal who have ruled on the issue since 1898. Two Justices on the Wong Court obviously agreed with Congressman Bingham.
The Supreme Court ruled that simply being in the United States as an alien when one’s child is born is good enough to confer allegiance for the purposes of US citizenship at birth as long as the alien is under the jurisdiction of the US at the time of the child’s birth.
And of course, Barack Obama has a parent born in Kansas and the courts have ruled on numerous occasions that he qualifies as a natural born citizen while no court and no action of Congress or any state has ruled that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court ruled that simply being in the United States as an alien when one’s child is born is good enough to confer allegiance for the purposes of US citizenship at birth as long as the alien is under the jurisdiction of the US at the time of the child’s birth.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that that specific requirement is met when the child's parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever.

Obama isn't even a legal U.S. citizen unless he naturalized as one at some point. He certainly wasn't born a U.S. citizen. The circumstances of his birth don't meet the 14th Amendment's requirements for birthright citizenship.

Congressman Bingham is stating his opinion that parents must not owe allegiance to a foreign government in order for their offspring to be considered natural born citizens.

So you are giving me Bingham. Very good.

It would have strengthened his argument if that position was codified in statute at some point in time.

I am going to hold you to that statement. As a matter of fact, it WAS codified in statute. Quite an important one in fact. This was the immediate predecessor of the 14th amendment.

Civil Rights Act of 1866
14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

So it was codified into law. I regard this as having met the condition you specified.

I would further say that Congressman Bingham and six justices of the Supreme Court were in disagreement on that point, along with the vast majority of judges, be they local, state or federal who have ruled on the issue since 1898.

Well, if you are going to be fair about it, you have to admit that all those "local, state, or federal" judges "who have ruled on the issue since 1898" were following the 1898 guidance of the Gray court. It's hardly reasonable to suggest their opinions were derived independently of those six judges you mentioned. In effect, THEIR opinions are simply a parroting of the Gray court's opinion.

In terms of intellectual honesty, the dispute is really between those six judges of the Gray court and John Bingham. (The Author of the Amendment.) Additionally, the dispute is between those six judges of the Gray court, and several other lawmakers who have explicitly stated their opinions on the issue. It's not just Bingham.

Now I have a silly question for you. Who knows more about the meaning of a law? A court which sits 30 years later, or the men who wrote the law?

Yes they did. The question here is, was their ruling correct? I would suggest that when a court is ruling counter to the authors of a piece of legislation's stated intent, it is the court which is deviating from applying the law correctly. As I mentioned before, it's not just Rep John Bingham who opined on his understanding of the legislation. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Sen. W. Williams, Rep. James Wilson, and Sen. Jacob Howard also clarified what was their intentions regarding this legislation. So now we have Five Congressmen v Six Judges.

The difference here is that the Congressmen know what they intended when they created the law.