Posted on 03/09/2011 2:50:25 PM PST by jzlouis
Leo Donofrio and friend uncover a definitive statement of the definition of the term "natural born citizen" on the House Floor in 1872 by John Bingham the principal framer of the 14th amendment.
“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…)
Wasn’t Chester Alan Arthur’s father a British Citizen at the time of his son’s birth?
Here is the direct link to the Congressional Globe entry cited in the article.
keep in mind many in DC will no longer want to listen this issue they feel it is a closed matter. i am just saying even sympathetic ears are not wanting to hear it all. I agree the issue is not closed, but the politicians will start hanging up on calls, and turning away letters. They will not address the issue.
You call to many times to DC your number comes up on caller id(yes they use it to) and they amke note and the next time you are automatically forwarded to the comments. your comment will be avoided at all costs. Do not believe me try telling John Boehner 202-225-0600 and watch what happens to your phone calls.
So McCain is disqualified? Absolute bull shit.
Are you illiterate ?? Can you read English ?
This matter is NOT bullshit but then it does suppose the reader can interpret the words used, correctly.
To have disqualified McLame would have been a preferred outcome but not from this material/position.
Oh, where is the McClain clause in Article II found? Why do you deny the words of Mr. Bingham?
Have you no respect for our American History, sir?
The founding fathers were not concerned about place of birth, but the allegiance of your parents !!! obama does not have full and complete allegiance , therefore is not the President of the United States.
The founding fathers were not concerned about place of birth, but the allegiance of your parents !!! obama does not have full and complete allegiance , therefore is not the President of the United States.
And your point is what? We all know Chester was not an NBC and so did he, that’s why he burned his papers....so again what’s your point?
Where does it provide that a citizen born of American citizen parents outside of the United States is NOT “natural born?”
Obama was not born of two American citizens unless the paternity of record is false.
Who cares if McCain is eligible for president anymore anyway?
It doesn’t effect his eligibility as senator.
Correct me if I am wrong, please.
The difference between Natural Law and Statutory is that it is not man-made. “Natural Born Citizen” has never been defined in a law because it doesn’t have to be. It is a given and known to all.
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.