DELAWARE STATE SENATE

145th General Assembly

SENATE RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION TO SHOW ELIGIBITY OF A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Whereas, James Madison (1751-1836) who attended the college of New Jersy which
would become Princeton, graduating in two years. He was studied in subjects ranging from Latin
to geography to philosophy; Whom called for the Constitutional Convention of 1786, Whom
wrote most of the US Constitution at the Constitution Convention in 1787; Whom once the
Convention ended, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers.
Whom became the 4th President of the United States and is attributed to stating the following
Two (2) quotes, (1) “Every word of the Constitution decides a question between power and
liberty.” (2) “Do not separate text from the historical background. If you do, you will have
perverted and subverted the Constitution which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of
illegitimate government.”

Whereas, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), his scientific achievements helped him earn
respect at home and abroad. While in England, he also received honorary degrees from St.
Andrews and Oxford. Whom attend the Second Continental Congress that met from 1775-1776
where he helped draft and signed the Declaration of Independence. Whom attended the
Constitution Convention of 1787 and signed the Constitution, so ratifying the same the seventh
day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty.Whom in a
letter dated December 9th, 1775 (12 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution) wrote the
following : “I am much obligated by theking present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising stat make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing
one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as
you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,
who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem
for their author. Your manuscript “Indee Sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well
relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces,
which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s`est passe entre la Cour Britannique et
les Colonies” bc. Being a very concise and dear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the
use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very
acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther pubished here, together with a few
newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We
are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.”
 Whereas, John Jay (1745-1829) whom served as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS from
1789-1795, (contributor to Federalist Papers) in a letter dated 25 July, 1787, wrote the following
to George Washington, “Dear Sir, Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable
to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national
government; and to delcare expressly that the command and chief of the American Army shall
not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

Whereas, Fifty-five (55) days after the above cited letter from John Jay to Washington
dated July 25th 1787, the Constitution for the United States was ratified containing Article I § 8
CL. 10, “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses
against the law of nations”, Also Contained therein, occurs Article II § 1 CL 5, “No person
except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, neither shall any person be eligible to
that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a
resident within the United States.”

Whereas, Vattel‟s the “LAW OF NAITONS”, which Franklin stated in 1775 “has been
in the hands of the members of Congress now sitting,” and also stating, “when the circumstances
of a rising stat make it necessary frequently t consult the law of nations”, contains Book I, Ch.
8@ 212 and natives, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives
or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As
the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens those
children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The
society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it
is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the
children, and THESE BECOME TRUE CITIZENS merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon
see whether, on their own coming of to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right,
and what they owe the society in which they were born. I say that, IN ORDER TO BE OF THE
COUNRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A
CITIZEN, FOR IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE
PLACE OF HIS BIRTH AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.”

Whereas, there appears no other “strong check against the admission of a foriegner‟ as to
the Commander in Chief of the Army within the Constitution beynd the Article II § I CL 5
requirements, it is surely the original intent that only that specific type of citizen the “natural
born citizen” described by Vattel and well understood by the Framers of the Constitution, as is
demonstrated within this resolution by citation of historical record, is to lawfully hold the
position.

Whereas, John Binham 1815-1900) served as US Representative from Ohio from 1855-
1863 and again from 1865-1873 was appointed judge-advocate. Mr. Bingham on 9 March, 1866,
speaking on the House floor stated‟ “[I} find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born
within the jurisdiction of the United State of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Whereas, John Marshall (1755- 1835) whm attended the ratification convention in
Virginia and spoke on the new constitution, was appointed secretary of state by Adams in 1801,
became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court until 1835, whom in 1814, serving the SCOTUS in
that year along with Bushrod Washington (1762-1829) William Johnson (1771-1826) Gabriel
Duvall (1752- 1844) and Joseph Story (1779-1845), descided The Venus, 12 USC 9 Cranch 253
253 (1814). Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or there fathers
did. These men being men who were intimately associated with the American revolution
Bushrod Washington was George Washington‟s nephew and heir. William Johnson‟s father,
mother and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/
assistance to the line of troops, respectfully. Henry Brockholst Livingston, during the
Revolutionary War, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to
General Benedict Arnold, before the latter‟s defection to the British. Thomas Todd served 6
months in the Army against the British and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from
1784-1792. Joseph Story‟s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Being witnesses
and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the
entire § 212 paragraphs from the French edition, using his own English, on p 12 of the ruling:
“Vattel, who though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than
any other whose work has fallen into my hands says; “The citizens are the members of the civil
society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents
who are citizens. Society not being than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound t this society by certain duties, and
subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are
those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subject and to
perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens are strangers who are permitted to settle
and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of
the state while they reside there, and they are obligated to defend it because of its grants ~ p 12
US 290
“them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. Then enjoy only the
advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have
received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizen of an inferior order, and are
united and subject to the society, without participation in all its advantages.

Whereas, in the majority opinion delivered by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett,
88 US. 162 (1875) it is stated: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born
citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature
of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children
born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens
also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without
reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
 Whereas, on p 168-9 of the record within US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 (1898),
Justice Gray states: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution where familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents
who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Whereas, on 30 April 2008, the United States Senate (in toto), the 110th Congress
unanimously agreed with Senate Res. 511( one of those which sponsored the resolution was the
now sitting President of the United States, Mr Obama from Illinois). The sole purpose of Senate
Resolution 511 is to apply the set of birth requirements which give interpretation of “natural born
citizen” s applied to the United States Constituton Article II § I CL 5.
Within that Resolution, at the last paragraph and the statement of the resolution is the
following: “Whereas John Sidney McCain III, was born to American Citizens on an American
military base in the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936; Now, therefore, be it Resolved. That John
Sidney McCain, III is an „natural born Citizen‟ under Article II § I, of the Constitution of the
United States.”.

Whereas, it is clear from the forgoing paragraph that the statements “Wereas John
Sidney McCain III, who ws born to American citizens…” offered the 110th Congress (in toto)
within SR 511 agrees with the historical background provided withing this instant Resolution
that one requirement for “natural born citizen” status of citizenship is to have been born of two
(2) American citizens. Furhtermore, it is apparent from the same 110th Congress that there pose
is that John Sidney McCain III was born under the jurisdiction of the United States agrees with
historical background tat a second birth requirement is that a “natural born citizen” status
citizenship requires the birth to take place at a place where the jurisdiction of the United States
by the completion of the statement “… on an American military base in Panama Canal Zone in
1936“.

Resolved, That the United States Constitution Article II § 1 Cl 5 “natural born citizen” is any
human being born (A) within the country of the United States, or on soil which is under the sole
and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and also (B) born of “Two (2) biological parents,
who at the time of birth, are both legal United States citizens andnot owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty.