Evidence Broadens Obama Natural Born Conspiracy
“ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN END THIS CRISIS”
by JB Williams, ©2011
Who is Barack Hussein Obama II? Where does he come from?
(Jun. 7, 2011) — Evidence that we have a fraud and a usurper currently residing in the people’s White House is overwhelming, despite the overt lack of journalistic investigating on the part of the American press. But now new evidence indicates that the conspiracy to carry out that fraud was much broader than originally thought.
The story of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama II really is – is a forty-year story that requires a book, not a column, to tell. Strong evidence suggests that he was being groomed from a very young age for the moment in history that would end American supremacy in the world, and usher in a new era of Global Marxist Governance.
But there was a major hurdle that had to be overcome – the U.S. Constitution, in this case, Article II – Section I – Clause V specifically, which requires that “no person except a natural-born citizen of the United States” can hold the office of President. – Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States…and may not even be a legal citizen of the United States. So, how can he be President?
This column focuses upon the period 2003-2008 and the political maneuvers that took place in order to make way for America’s first unconstitutional resident of the White House.
Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)
Proving that the players involved knew the correct definition of natural born citizen borrowed from the Law of Nations by our founders – 1) those born in the country, of parents who are citizens; 2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights; 3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen. – that they knew Barack Hussein Obama II did not meet that definition as a foreign or dual citizen via his father’s British citizenship and that they worked feverishly to find a way around this constitutional requirement for office, as Obama was about to become president…
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108thCongress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 –“Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress –“Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passingS.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memosdistributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president.
Evidence of What?
- Barack Obama is an unconstitutional resident of the people’s White House
- He did not become America’s first unconstitutional president alone, he had help
- While most of the criminal cabal are Democrats, some are Republicans
- Every member of congress knew Obama was ineligible for the office of president
- Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows that Obama is unconstitutional
- Every intelligent member of the press knows the truth, but won’t dare tell this story
- Numerous people tried to remove natural born citizen from the constitution
- They all know the correct definition of natural born citizen and applied it to John McCain
- None of these people wants to apply the same definition to Barack Obama
- Nobody in the Federal Government is going to do anything about the greatest constitutional crisis in American history, because all of them are complicit on one level or another
As a result, the DNC was forced to remove the “constitutionally eligible” language from the 2008 DNC certification of the Obama-Biden ticket, omitting from the certification the following language –
“and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
Instead, the DNC only certified that the Obama-Biden ticket was duly nominated for the offices of President and Vice President, using the following language –
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:” (Note that the word “through” is misspelled in both DNC versions, indicating that it is an alteration from the same document.)
Later, adding insult to injury, responding to endless public demands for documentation that would prove Obama eligible for the office he currently holds, the Obama White House issued not one but at least two (2) blatant forgeries, the first in the form of a Hawaiian COLB (Certification of Live Birth – not to be confused with a common birth certificate), and then a forged (so-called long form) Birth Certificate, otherwise known as an actual birth certificate.
Meanwhile, the entire U.S. Press has been blatantly complicit or terminally derelict in their total lack of interest in investigating or reporting these facts. The fourth estate had become a fifth column.
The Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated
The Obama conspiracy to seat an unconstitutional president is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and it has drastically altered the American system of self-governance from a constitutional republic to a corrupt democracy of frauds elected by fools.
Obama did not do this alone – he had a lot of help, including from an ignorant electorate.
But these wheels were set in motion in the late ‘90s and placed in overdrive in 2003. Numerous government officials were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the American people out of their government, including key Republicans like Darrell Issa and Tom Coburn. Every member of congress, the courts and the press, have been given the cover-up talking points by the Congressional Research Service and so far, not one individual has the honor or decency to break from those talking points and tell the American people the truth. Their government had been stolen…
Where was Obama while the Path was being cleared?
1992
- Barack Obama begins working at the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard as a junior lawyer, hoping to work on civil rights cases.
- Barack Obama is teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
- 1992 is an election year. Barack Obama becomes the director of Illinois Project Vote, an organization focused on registering minority voters. Obama registers approximately 100,000 new voters, primarily in the African-American community.
1995
- Before achieving a single significant accomplishment in life, Barack Obama releases his first memoire, Dreams from My Father. The creation of the Barack Hussein Obama II story begins.
- November 7, 1995 – Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, dies of ovarian cancer.
1996
- Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination for the seat, and is elected to the Illinois State Senate.
1998
- After failing to accomplish anything in the Illinois Senate for two years, Barack is re-elected to the Illinois Senate.
1999
- Barack Obama runs for U.S. Congress and loses due to his record of not showing up for key votes in Illinois.
2002
- Barack Obama is re-elected to the Illinois Senate. Politically, his stock is rising, not due to a record of accomplishments, but rather due to his increasing circle of influential friends including Rev. Wright and William Ayers.
2003
- Despite the title of Illinois most absent Senator, Barack Obama becomes chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee.
- In January 2003, Barack Obama formally enters the race for the United States Senate. Team Obama destroys Democratic rival, Blair Hull, by exposing his domestic abuse allegations.
2004
- Barack Obama wins the Illinois primaries with 53 percent of the vote. In the general election, Barack Obama faces Republican candidate Jack Ryan.
- Team Obama pushes Jack Ryan out of the race with reports of a sex scandal.
- July 7, 2004 – Boston, Massachusetts: The Democratic National Convention introduced the new messiah of the Democrat Party to the world when 42 year old Barack Obama, who had yet to accomplish anything, becomes the hit of the John Kerry convention by the handy work of Sen. Ted Kennedy. [MA]
- November 2, 2004 – Barack Obama, 43, is elected for the U.S. Senate.
2005
- January 4, 2005 – Barack Obama is sworn in as a U.S. senator.
- Barack’s first law is passed with Republican Tom Coburn.
2007
- February 10, 2007 – Barack Obama announces his candidacy for President of the United States in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
2008
- June 3, 2008 – After defeating Senator Hillary Clinton in the primaries, Barack Obama becomes the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 presidential election.
- November 3, 2008 – Barack Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, age 86, dies of cancer, just one day before the Presidential Election.
- November 5, 2008 – Barack Obama wins the US Presidential Election and becomes the first UNCONSTITUTIONAL President of the United States
In short, as Obama was rising through the ranks of Democrat Party power and being systematically groomed as the new messiah of the party, friends of the movement were busy making way by trying repeatedly to remove Article II – Section I – Clause V from the U.S. Constitution. When they failed to do it legitimately, they did it via setting precedent.
Despite a total lack of significant accomplishment, Obama was clearly fast-tracked by Democrat Party powers and even the massive Clinton War Machine was no match for the people behind Obama’s unparalleled rise to power.
Now you know how this nobody from nowhere came to power in almost no time at all with a completely blank résumé, and if you follow the names attached to the flood of initiatives to eliminate natural born citizenship as a requirement for the office, you can see some of the folks behind that effort.
Since many of the key figures in the three branches of the Federal government were involved in this conspiracy, we know that we cannot rely on anyone at the Federal level to address this crisis, and since we have watched the U.S. press run cover for it, we know not to expect any help from them in returning America to her people.
Only the People Can End this Crisis
From 2003 through 2008, member of congress worked to eliminate Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution, requiring that all presidential candidates be natural born citizens of the United States.
In 2008, fifty state Secretaries allowed the name Barrack Hussein Obama to appear on their state ballot for the president, despite the known fact that Barrack Hussein Obama did not meet the constitutional conditions for the office sought, and that the Democrat Party had intentionally failed to certify Barrack Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
On January 20, 2009, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to an individual and every member of the Supreme Court had knowledge that Barrack Hussein Obama failed to meet constitutional requirements for the office he was about to take.
The Chief Law enforcement officer in our country is head of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder. A long-time leftist comrade of Barrack Obama who uses the power of the office to silence the vice of American dissenters, while protecting all who intend America harm.
The voting fraud is so prevalent in America today that it is almost impossible to rely upon the election system as a means of correcting anything and even if you could rely on the system, decent honest qualified leaders do not run for political office in this cesspool we call a country today.
Only 25% of the nation strongly supports this White House resident, which means 75% have great doubts, with more than 35% strongly opposed.
Only the people can put this nation back on track to freedom and liberty, the rule of law and our beloved constitutional republic and they cannot do it in the election booth.
The people must rise up, stand together and hold these criminal actors accountable for the theft of our government which has become the greatest threat to the American way of life in history.
The people must wake up, stand up, come together and put this evil down and they must do it while they still have the power to do so. TAKE ACTION TODAY!
The name Barrack Hussein Obama II cannot appear on the 2012 President ballot and neither can the name of any co-conspirator. Every citizen who wants to live in freedom tomorrow must contact the appropriate officials today!
1) CLICK HERE to demand that your State Officials take immediate action to investigate the crimes of the 2008 Election, and make certain that this can never happen again by holding those responsible fully accountable. Barrack Obama should not have been on the ballot in 2008 and he cannot be allowed to appear on the ballot again in 2012.
2) CLICK HERE to send a letter to editor notifying the press of the most serious constitutional crisis in American history!
3) A list of co-conspirators will be served for their direct involvement in the effort to subvert and remove Article II of the U.S. Constitution. (More information on this effort will be forthcoming)
Government Communication software is made available to the general public at no charge, by The United States Patriots Union of Sheridan Wyoming. It’s up to the American people to demand proper solutions,
Test...
ReplyDeleteTest...
ReplyDeleteTest...
ReplyDeleteOne part of a few that follow:
ReplyDeleteTake the time to read this, as it shows that 'of the parents' (jus sanguinis) is essential to being a 'natural born Citizen'as distinct to 'of the place'(jus soli)
This case demonstrates the US Supreme court's acknowledgement of the difference between these two principles.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html
["The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney's suggestion, was entitled "An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof," and read as follows:
"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."
"Sec. 2. . . . That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen."
The part of the Act of 1855 we are interested in was embodied in the Revised Statutes as § 1993.
ReplyDeleteIt is very clear that the proviso in § 1993 has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective, as it was in the Act of 1802, while, in the Act of 1855, it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective. What was the source of the peculiar words of the proviso there seems to be no way of finding out, as the report of the discussion of the subject is not contained in any publication brought to our attention. It is evident, however,
Page 274 U. S. 665
from the discussion in the First Congress, already referred to, that there was a strong feeling in favor of the encouragement of naturalization. There were some congressmen, although they did not prevail, who were in favor of naturalization by the mere application and taking of the oath. The time required for residence to obtain naturalization was finally limited to two years. In the Act of 1795, this was increased to five years, with three years for declaration of intention. Congress must have thought that the questions of naturalization and of the conferring of citizenship on sons of American citizens born abroad were related.
Congress had before it the Act of George III of 1773, which conferred British Nationality not only on the children, but also on the grandchildren of British-born citizens who were born abroad. Congress was not willing to make so liberal a provision. It was natural that it should wish to restrict the English provision, because, at the time that this phrase was adopted, there were doubtless many foreign-born children of persons who were citizens of the seceding colonies, with respect to whose fathers there was a natural doubt whether they intended to claim or enjoy American citizenship, or indeed were entitled to it. The last provision of the Act of 1790 manifested this disposition to exclude from the operation of the act those who were citizens or subjects in the states during the Revolution, and had been proscribed by their legislatures. It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,
ReplyDelete"The heritable blood of citizenship
ReplyDeletePage 274 U. S. 666
was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship."
Foreign Relations of the United States, pt. 1, 1873, p. 259. It is in such an atmosphere that we are to interpret the meaning of this peculiarly worded proviso.
Only two constructions seem to us possible, and we must adopt one or the other.
The one is that the descent of citizenship shall be regarded as taking place at the birth of the person to whom it is to be transmitted, and that the words "have never been resident in the United States" refer in point of time to the birth of the person of whom the citizenship is to descend.
This is the adoption of the rule of jus sanguinis in respect to citizenship, and that emphasizes the fact and time of birth as the basis of it.
We think the words "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" are equivalent to saying that fathers may not have the power of transmitting by descent the right of citizenship until they shall become residents in the United States.
------------------------------------
The other view,/strong> is that the words "have never been resident in the United States" have reference to the whole life of the father until his death, and therefore that grandchildren of native-born citizens, even after they, having been born abroad, have lived abroad to middle age and without residing at all in the United States, will become citizens if their fathers, born abroad and living until old age abroad, shall adopt a residence in the United States just before death.
ReplyDeleteWe are thus to have two generations of citizens who have been born abroad, lived abroad, the first coming to old age, and the second to maturity, and bringing up of a family without any relation to the United States at all until the father shall in his last days adopt a new residence. We do not think that such a construction accords with the probable attitude of Congress at the time of the adoption of this proviso into the statute. Its construction
Page 274 U. S. 667
extends citizenship to a generation whose birth, minority, and majority, whose education, and whose family life have all been out of the United States and naturally within the civilization and environment of an alien country. The beneficiaries would have evaded the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship. They might be persons likely to become public charges or afflicted with disease; yet they would be entitled to enter as citizens of the United States. Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, p. 34.
As between the two interpretations, we feel confident that the first one was more in accord with the views of the First Congress. We think that the proviso has been so construed by a subsequent Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, c. 2534, § 6, 34 Stat. 1229, which provides:
ReplyDelete"That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the United of this government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States, and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority."
Now if this Congress had construed § 1993 to permit the residence prescribed to occur after the birth of such children, we think that it would have employed appropriate words to express such meaning, as for example, "all children born who are or may become citizens." The present tense is used, however, indicating that citizenship is determined at the time of birth. Moreover, such foreign-born citizens are required, upon reaching the age of eighteen years, to record their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and take
Page 274 U. S. 668
the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority.
If the residence prescribed for the parent may occur after the birth of the children, the father may remain abroad and not reside in the United States until long after such children attain their majority. Thus, they could not register or take the oath of allegiance, because the rights of citizenship could not descend to them until their fathers had resided in the United States. This class of foreign-born children of American citizens could not, then, possibly comply with the provisions of the Act of 1907. Nor could such children "remain citizens," since they are expressly denied the rights of citizenship. We may treat the Act of 1907 as being in pari materia with the original act, and as a legislative declaration of what Congress in 1907 thought was its meaning in 1790. 44 U. S. 564, et seq.; Cope v. Cope,@ 137 U. S. 682, 137 U. S. 688.
ReplyDeleteCounsel for the respondent insist that the Act of 1907 is not an act that reflects on the construction to be placed on § 1993; that there is a distinction between citizenship and the enjoyment of it in this country, on the one hand, and the rules that should limit the protection of it abroad by our government, on the other. This may well be conceded. It is illustrated in the opinion of Attorney General Hoar, 13 Op. Attys.Gen. 90, in which he advised that, even if applicants were citizens, they were not entitled to the protection of passports under the circumstances of that case. But we do not think that this distinction detracts from the argumentative weight of the Act of 1907 as a Congressional interpretation of the proviso of 1855, 1802, and 1790.
In answer to the reasons which influence us to the conclusion already indicated, counsel for the respondent say, first, that the hypothesis that the foreign-born fathers and sons may all live abroad from birth to middle age and
ReplyDeletePage 274 U. S. 669
bring up families without any association with the United States, and that the sons may then become citizens by the ultimate residence of their fathers in the United States, is not a possible one, because such children must have signified their intention to become citizens when they reached eighteen years of age, or at majority, at any rate. But these provisions with respect to election of citizenship by those coming to majority were not in the statute when the proviso was enacted, and we must construe it as of 1790, with reference to the views that Congress may be thought to have have at that time.
Then it is urged that the State Department has held that § 1993 refers only to children, and not to adults. This would be a narrow construction of the proviso as it was intended to operate in 1790, when the act was passed, and, although this was suggested as a possible view by Secretary of State Bayard, it would limit too much the meaning of the word "children" at a time when no provision had been made by law for election of citizenship by those coming of age. Nor does it seem to be in accord with Attorney General Gregory's opinion already referred to. 30 Op. Attys.Gen. 529.
It is said that it would be illogical and unnatural to provide that the father, having begotten children abroad before he lived in the United States at all, and then having gone to the United States and resided there and returned and had more children abroad, should have a family part aliens and part citizens. As this is entirely within the choice of the father, there would seem to be no reason why such a situation should be anomalous. As the father may exercise his option in accordance with the law, so citizenship will follow that option.
Counsel for the respondent, in their learned and thorough brief, have sought to sustain their conclusion in favor of the latitudinarian view of the proviso by many references, all of which we have examined. They point
ReplyDeletePage 274 U. S. 670
to the language of Mr. Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment. The attitude of Chief Justice Fulley and Mr. Justice Harlan was that, at common law, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government, and that, to that extent, the jus sanguinis obtained here; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located here who might themselves become citizens, nor, on the other hand, did it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of adults who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens. Section 1993 is referred to both in the majority opinion and in the minority opinion. Speaking of the Act of 1855, the majority opinion says (p. 169 U. S. 674):
"It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the Act of 1802, and that the Act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory
Page 274 U. S. 671
that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty."]
Ergo: ‘natural born Citizen’ means jus sanguinis, but does not negate jus soli as a means birthright ‘citizen’.
That was the last.
ReplyDeleteIt may seem boring to some, but any legal eagles here might find some merit in that this case demonstrates that the SCOTUS acknowledged and made the distinction between 'natural born Citizen' per jus sanguinis (of the parent)& 'citizen'per jus soli (of the place)