Thursday, April 05, 2012

With Natural Born Citizen Controversy Still Brewing, Duncan v. Louisiana brought to me attention


One of the students in my Constitution Class in Temecula on Thursday Nights brought this to my attention:

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 aconcurring 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.” (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))

Finish Reading at "Natural Born Citizen"

Very Good Stuff. . . 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/an-open-letter-to-helen-tansey-director-of-article-ii-super-pac-on-the-views-of-rep-john-bingham-and-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

kris said...

Dear Diary

Doug is a case law convert and believes SCOTUS has the power of judicial review of legislation.

My work here is done.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Not at all, Kris, but every once in a while the courts get it right. They are entitled to their opinion, but Article I, Section 1 grants all legislative powers to Congress, which disallows the striking down of laws by the courts. I would go deeper into it, but you are so conditioned by the lies, I don't think you can understand.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Anonymous, we are not under British common law, and in fact, the whole point of the revolution was to get us out from under its thumb. The rest of your comment deserves a response that I just don't have the time and patience to give. I am figuring the first sentence of my response still has you running in circles in confusion.