• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 23 other followers

  • March 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb   Apr »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Comments

    URL on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    FBI Rewrites Federal… on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    The Grey Enigma on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    The Grey Enigma on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    vernon on the deportation of Obama
  • Categories

  • Blog Stats

    • 3,398 hits
  • Blogs I Follow

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible naturalborncitizen

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2696466/posts

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^

 | 03/29/2011 | Leo Donofrio Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:58:13 AM by rxsid

 “Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.

 Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

 “Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

 A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“. (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)

 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.

” 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))

 According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

” QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States? ANSWER: It’s not possible. Such a person is born with divided allegiance. Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

 According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.

“ Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER

But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House. Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment. Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.

As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:

 – foreigners

– aliens

 – families of ambassadors or ministers

The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

 Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States.

Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:

 “To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States.” – Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))

 The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

 Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument. They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US. But this is clearly false. In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.

If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. This was always our law. It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today. Nothing has changed.

 Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.

Read the quote from his web site again:

 “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

” I will finish this report with a question:

 Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

Hat tip to reader Linda for Attorney General Black’s quote.

Hat tip to my infamous anonymous researcher for the Duncan v. Louisiana quote.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq. ” From: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-duncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Natural Born Citizen

Respecting the Constitution?

drkatesview

Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic

Friends of Citizen Wells

A place for discussion of just about anything.

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d bloggers like this: