Civil Rights in the days of Lincoln: even they understood “natural born”
[Thanks, SeizetheCarp.]
Posted on 01/10/2010 12:35:31 PM PST by Man50D
American Grand Jury constantly receives letters from the Obots trying to explain away the “natural born” clause in the Constitution. These folks spend hours upon hours trying to validate Obama’s citizenship. The problem with their letters is no historical evidence, laws or rulings exist that support the claim that “any” citizen can serve as the President. The fact of the matter is the law of the land is very precise.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that clearly states:
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
By the way, for those of you that would suggest the “or a Citizen of the United States” part makes Obama eligible, think again. This is the “grandfather clause” that made it possible for George Washington to be President, not Barry Soetoro.
By far, the biggest claim by the Obots is that Barry is a “citizen” who was born in the United States and that alone makes him qualified. These folks NEVER admit to the fact that “natural born” citizenship requires the person to be born of two US citizen parents.. “parents” as in plural. Obama has admitted in public and in his writings that his father was NOT a United States citizen. The 19 year old mother of Obama who disclosed that the father was a foreign national could NEVER under any circumstances convey “natural born” status upon her son at birth. It didn’t matter where she lived at the time of birth, what her citizenship status was, where the child was born or how many Birth Certificate documents she applied for. Obama simply did not qualify as a “natural born” citizen because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British citizen, not a United States citizen.
Maybe this historical information will help you to better understand the meaning of “natural born.” During the post Civil War years many folks were concerned about citizenship and how it applied to their status.
Even the folks back in the days of Lincoln had it right:
Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), stated:
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test.
Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.”Vattel’s law: EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, &212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “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” (emphasis supplied).
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866
Why the mystery?
Why the obfuscation?
0 0bi0usly has s0mething t0 hide!
I know what the motivations of the Obamabots are concerning this. But, other-wise regular people, who seem to be rational about other subjects, do not get this.
For instance, both of my parents were British Subjects, living here, at the time of my birth.
They owed their allegiences to the British Crown.
And more than that, my mother worked for the British Army.
Obviously, my parents were not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States of America.
They did not have all the rights of citizens, and were not under obligation to the duties of it’s citizens.
Hence, I’m not a “Natural-born Citizen”.
Key point: It matters not where Obama was born. The only issue is whether or not he qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” There is no evidence at all that he does, and much strong evidence that he does not. The matter is well beyond any reasonable doubt.
( no Obama trolls yet...Amazing!)
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, to date there is no proff of that claim.
My blog covers the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/
also Obama’s Forged COLB
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/obama-birth-certifcation-forgery/
ping...
Civil Rights in the days of Lincoln: even they understood “natural born”
[Thanks, SeizetheCarp.]
All that’s needed is one state to require verification to be on their Presidential ballot.
Just one.
Imagine the fodder provided when a candidate cannot run in that one state!
Other folks NEVER explain where that requirement is enshrined in the Constitution.
They'll arrive by post #11.
Geesh, you have no reading ability? The essay explains what you deny and does so clearly.
Ignorance is a rapidly escalating condition. It takes valiant persistent effort to stop its deadly progression. Are you too far gone? Perhaps the great intellectual Hospice that is ObaameLove aka the Democratic Party will welcome you.
Like Mulder used to say, "I want to believe," but this statement does not, from the preceding statements, follow; it is the inference of the writer of the article, and has no supporting historical underpinning quoted in the article.
Everything that follows, therefore, is opinion, and you know what they say about those...
You almost provided a complete and lucid explanation.
But "almost" only counts in horseshoes.
If not a "natural born citizen," what are you? And what conclusive documentation do you have for that explanation.
Being modest, I'll agree that you are the superior reader. Perhaps not-so-clearly.
Just humor me and point out exactly where the "essay" explains that, and we'll go from there.
Warning. I happen to know the difference, in any given paragraph, between the quoted and unquoted segments.
Ignorance is a rapidly escalating condition. It takes valiant persistent effort to stop its deadly progression.
Not there, (yet)!!
The leaches must still be on somebody else body still sucking blood!!!
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.