(FOUND) House of Reps Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born Of Citizen Parents

USArmyRetired

Rookie
May 29, 2010
2,601
360
0
That is born of citizen parentS (plural) in the U.S.. A team of researchers (lawyers) has uncovered recorded writings that define what the term natural born citizen is and it turns out to be the 'Father Of The 14th Amendment', John Bingham is the man who defined the definition on the House floor as the evidence shows. This is why this issue needs to be investigated and laid to rest. More evidence from our own U.S. archives is being uncovered by excellent lawyers and teams of researchers and it is not leaning towards Obama's favor when it comes towards his eligibility problem. It looks like the Father of the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling are trouble for Obama and they (White House) know this. This news has gone viral the last few days being sent everywhere to lawmakers who are working on eligibility bills in their states, political blogs, newspapers etc.

Apparently the debate was recorded and here is Binghams words:

bingham-1872.jpg


Please read this excellent article about the find:
The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US. « Natural Born Citizen

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.

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
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
I'm sure President Obama will direct the Attorney General to simply ignore this.
I am anticipating to see what happens here and if the media will touch this. I am listening to talk radio right now and they are discussing this find with the Georgia lawmaker who ripped the media today about not reporting what a NBC is in his bill and distorting the truth:

Co-Sponsor of Georgia Proof-of-Eligibility Law Rep. Sean Jerguson Speaks Out; Slams Media For Spinning & Half-Truths; Got Citizen Parents!? | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
 
Why comment? You ignore every bit of evidence ever presented, or you delude yourself about what the evidence says. Someone shows you a dog, and you keep calling it a cat as if repeating it enough times will make it true.
 
Besides, your image hasn't been verified by any government agency for authenticity and accuracy.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Why comment? You ignore every bit of evidence ever presented, or you delude yourself about what the evidence says. Someone shows you a dog, and you keep calling it a cat as if repeating it enough times will make it true.
How can you argue with this evidence? It's from the 'Father Of The 14TH Amendment' creators own mouth. Natural Born Citizen is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural).
 
]How can you argue with this evidence? It's from the 'Father Of The 14TH Amendment' creators own mouth. Natural Born Citizen is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural).

Is it, really? No government agency has verified the authenticity or accuracy of the picture you've posted.
 
Anyone care to comment on this crucial find?

While I agree with your intentions on this particular issue I think his opinion is legally irrelevant.

Only the opinions of the SCOTUS matter.
Unless they rule ObamaCare unconstitutional, THEN it's irrelevent to Obama.

Concerning citizenship matters, we should only consult the experts: La Raza.
 
Anyone care to comment on this crucial find?

That statement does NOT say both parents MUST be citizens. It says in the case of the person being discussed both parents WERE citizens.

Find a law, a bill or a statute that states both parents must be citizens. Or admit this is another red herring.

By the way? States do NOT get to decide who is a US citizen. They must depend on the Federal Government to establish that.

From what I have read all that is required is one parent be a citizen. And I have seen nothing that precludes a natural born citizen being born out of the Country.
 
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
 
Why comment? You ignore every bit of evidence ever presented, or you delude yourself about what the evidence says. Someone shows you a dog, and you keep calling it a cat as if repeating it enough times will make it true.

WTF does this even mean Ronald?
 
God damn it....


We are gunn a prove that Obama is Kenyan no matter what it takes
 
God damn it....


We are gunn a prove that Obama is Kenyan no matter what it takes

No, it's about proving he was born in Hawaii and not eligible because the masses of voters are not educated on dual citizenship and natural born citizenship. It is about proving him not eligible for Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
 
“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))

The key phrase is "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty". This was the exemption in law regarding children of diplomats and of invading foreign armies. It still applies today.
 
USArmyLiar's long-form birth certificate is actually an apology from a condom factory. :thup:
 
Chap. Ⅲ.—An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.[1]March 26, 1790.


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,Their children residing here, deemed citizens. shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.[2]

Approved, March 26, 1790.


this is what our founding fathers said on the topic...

and it appears that even if obama was born elsewhere, outside of hawaii, WHICH HE WASN'T, that he was considered a natural born citizen...because his mother was a citizen and because his father was residing in the USA...in fact his father continued to live in the USA for at least 5 additional years after his birth.

All of that is moot though, since he was born in Hawaii...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top