House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, "The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government." It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.
Fourteenth Amendment
Whatever might have been the correct understanding of "natural-born citizen" prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization.
Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined as "Not owing allegiance to anybody else," which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word "jurisdiction" under the Fourteenth Amendment "must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment." He added, "Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else."
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means "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))
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word "parents" but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed.
This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.
The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed "to insure … attachment to the country." President Washington warned a "passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils," and goes on to say:
Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to
the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.
Conclusion
Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?).
Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: "We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born.
It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
Replies
Bill and many others are sowing seeds of truth regarding "natural birth citizen" but unfortunately all three branches of the federal government are in a conspiracy and cowardly unwilling to honor, protect, and defend the United States Constitution.
Not one member of the United States Congress (to my knowledge) has taken any formal action to hold Barack Obama accountable for his perjury, betrayal, and falsely accepting the position of president when he fails to meet Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
It's all layed out in the above post by Bill Reade......who can reject the truth? The corrupt politicians and their minions in Washington, D.C. are worshiping at the alter of greed and throwing the United States Constitution under the bus.
Darn clear to me, funny I know they use to teach this stuff in Elementry School or am I just getting old and think everything was way better back then even in the turbulent 60's.
I say...they all gotta go. Period.
And at this point I don't care how it happens.
Think about that.
Very interesting but I worry --don't mean nuthin. The enemy has already got the camels nose under the tent . I can't imagine any Court that would find Obama -should he choose to run for a second term might be disallowed --having served a full term --on qualification that should have prevented his first term. Especially as Congress never got off their thumb or quit their circle jerk to IMPEACH the fraud.But I am no expert just a jaded ol'crazy freaking foul smellin' dude.
The only allegiance children have is to their parents (and/or ALL) who Love them, and that obviously includes their Mother, unless she's just another rib!... By design The Constitution is clear to anyone who can read and comprehend what they read. The fourteenth amendment is just another layer of bureaucracy which in this case can be twisted in our favor.
How about we focus on one individual for a start in elections that we choose to get to stand and file against this conspiracy, by this I am suggesting that individual be backed by all of us no matter what state they are in, too many candidates is what has the mass confused and know that we all have flaws.
I do not know who this candidate is but we must get one in somewhere to move forward so if we have access thru the Patriots Union or the Veteran Defenders of America or the Oath Keepers. If we do not have anyone in office to trust then we must focus quickly to get someone in office. We need STANDIND!
Does anyone know if an organization is trying to get a case to the Supreme court on JUST the lawful meaning of natural born citizenship. It doesn't mention Obama but instead the meaning. If the courts will take this case instead of denying we will see. Who does the certification of the candidate. I have heard it is ur own party. In this case the Democratic National Party certified Obama. If this case comes to the court and found to be parents born in the United States can we the people SUE the National Democratic Party??? First the case must go forward, we will see what the courts will do.
Parents must be Citizens. May be born here or Naturalized.
Gary..........I don't get the "may be born here or "naturalized"...... again. A natural born citizen is a child born to two US citizen parents who are citizens at the time of the birth. Some say only the father must be a US citizen but the best definition I have read comes from US Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett 1875 which states parents (plural) must be US citizens,
I don't know Old Glory, but with all the Patriotic web sites out there you'd think there'd be so real lawyers, who have studied the Constitution, and are Patriots, and would be willing to take this and all the other legal acts he's perpetrating against the Constitution and the Citizens of this Republic. I'm no lawyer, but I can see the wrongs and illegal acts being done. I'd be willing to help in anyway they would need me to do, I can do legal research if they can provide the books or software for it. Anything to get him gone before it's too late for any other way but war. If something isn't done soon, or if he illegally gets elected for a 2nd term, I see no way but war. Saying is "fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me!!! " I wasn't fooled 1st time and didn't vote for him nor did I believe he'd be anything but bad for all of us, and I was right. But there were and still are those who when it comes to him "see no evil hear no evil, speak no evil" blind, deaf, and dumb!! All suggestions appreciated.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next