Founders Dreams

State Challenge Campaign

2011-05-01T20:34:00.001-05:00

State Challenge Campaign at nbcfund.com is seeking participants in all 57 Stat....urr ahhh....50 States to file "Challenges" against any and all Executive Office Candidates registered by the Political Parties under theFederal Election Commission and State Election Laws directly in the State Courts on the Statutory basis that there is "no acknowledged "legal" definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, which is the Art.II Sec.I Cls.V "prerequisite imperative requirement" and Statutory Construction of the Executive Office's Eligibility.

The fact that the Federal Election Commission along with various State Election Laws contain various definitions and criteria of eligibility for Candidates to campaign within the States, those 'eligibility definitions and criteria' MUST be considered as being in ADDITION TO the Constitutional prerequisite imperative requirements of the Constitution at Article II Section I Clause V.

A "Motion for Certification of Constitution Question" from the State Courts to the SCOTUS is the objectives within the various States, providing the SCOTUS the opportunity to take up the Question under its Original Jurisdiction coming from a State dispute.

Without an acknowledged "legal" definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen not only can it be argued that the Executive Office not legally occupied now but, it also can be argued that it is not "legally fillable" by ANY person.

The Constitution deserves respect, support, defense and protection and the question must be answered;

"What is the Constitutional interpretation of the definition, meaning and intent of the Article II idiom of natural born Citizen for legal purposes of identifying a persons conformity insofar as Citizenship and Political needs are concerned"

Follow the links and be part of the solution,

"It's about the Constitution, Patriot...!!!"

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=1073

Hey, Mr. Rove....

2011-04-21T16:28:00.000-05:00

Mr. Rove,

I am a bit concerned about your, as well as the GOP as a whole, unwillingness to use the words of the Constitution that require that a POTUS/V-POTUS be a "natural born Citizen".

When did the 5th Clause of the 2nd Section of the Executive Articles get Amended?

FYI, the 'qualification' language of the Clause has NOT been Amended.

The 1790 1st Congress "enlarged" the definition to include children born abroad of TWO Citizen parents, but the 1795 3rd Congress quickly REPEALED that provision restoring the Clause to its Original condition.

NO person has ever sought to have the definition, meaning and intent "interpreted" by ANY Federal Court and the SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on the question.

I know this because I have been seeking "certification" as being a Constitutional natural born Citizen for the past 2 + years.

In that time I have sufficiently proved that there is no acknowledged "legal" definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that "native born" and "natural born" Citizen are wholly synonymous in the Constitutional sense of meaning and intent.

Please do your homework and while doing so ask yourself if you believe the Framers of the Constitution intended a Dual-Citizen at birth to be synonymous with the Executive qualification Clause usage of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

At the very least please pay the minimum of homage to the Constitution and the Office of the POTUS and SAY THE WORDS as they are expressed in the subject Clause, i.e., NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Are Loopholes Legal…?

2011-04-17T08:43:00.001-05:00

I have described the FACT that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen as a “legal loop-hole”

The attacks on that proposition come from a variety of positions, most of which tries to distract from the implications of the premise rather than explore the truth of it.

Let’s dispense with the linguistic objections over my use of “idiom” and agree that the use of a “term of words” used in a specific manner to achieve a specific purpose within a specific document under a specific heading denoting a specific proscription upon any not meeting the specific criteria of the specific “term of words” fits the linguistic definition of the word “idiom”.

In this instance, natural born Citizen is made a wholly “American Idiom” by its usage in the distinctly American document, the Constitution of the United States.

The more prevalent attack comes from the citations of various ‘dicta’ of Judgment Opinions, speeches, treatises and debates.

To which I am left to advise that the Constitution was only a proposition until Ratification, but upon Ratification it was ‘Adopted” as the Supreme Law of the Land proscribing the intrusion of any other source of Law from intruding upon its Supremacy.

The Congress is advised to perform certain functions, among which is to appropriate monies to populate the Executive and the Judiciary Branches as well as to formulate and promulgate various other Rules, Laws and Regulations.

The point of the instructive is to isolate the premise that if a “law” does not emanate from the authority of the Constitution it is not “legal”.

The specific “law” that is subject here is that “…no person except …. shall be eligible….”, given that the Constitution is “Statutory” in its construction.

The only ‘law’ emanating from the authority of the Constitution laid upon the Congress regarding the subject idiom is found within the 1st Congress’ “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790);

“…[A]nd the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:…”

But the question arises, did the Congress have the authority to “enlarge, abridge or otherwise modify’ the Constitutional idiom by use of its plenary power over naturalization?

It is not necessary to belabor the discussion here over that question given that the Congress of 1795 “repealed” the 1790 Act by substituting that such a child identified in the previous Act would be a “citizen”, thereby re-establishing the distinctive status of natural born Citizen.

Distinctive in the sense that not even two natural parent Citizens can bestow the Constitutional nature of natural born Citizen upon a child born ‘beyond the seas’, (abroad).

It is here that the attacks commence on the grounds of “jus soli”, (of/by the soil).

So I am left to instantly agree that “jus Soli” is an integral element of the combined circumstances requisite to being born a Constitutional natural born Citizen.

Then I grow quite weary advising that there were no LAWS emanating from the Constitution, nor among any of the various States, that conferred State and/or U.S. ‘citizenship’ upon a child of non-citizen parents prior to the “naturalization” of the parents, (father) prior to the 14th Amendment.

Notwithstanding various Judicial Judgements that would seem to contradict that observation prior to the 14th Amendment, each were local in consideration and determined as local opinions with none rising to the level of Constitutional interpretations.

And, too, each of such cases was to determine “citizenship” for one purpose or another and did NOT turn on the determination of the definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

Given that the “local”, (District/Circuit), Courts provided the Governmental imprimatur for processing of “letters of intent” and “applications for naturalization”, the Courts had vested interest in making determinations of “citizenship”.

Even today the various District and Circuit Courts provide vital functions in the administration of immigration and naturalization matters.

But that does not dilute the previous statement of fact that, “Notwithstanding various Judicial Judgements that would seem to contradict that observation prior to the 14th Amendment, each were local in consideration and determined as local opinions with none rising to the level of Constitutional interpretations.”

Which brings us to “post 14th Amendment” considerations.

As the attacks come, most famously the WKA Case, I ask 1st for the words or the words that would require the Amending, enlarging, abridging or otherwise modifying the idiom of natural born Citizen within the language of the 14th Amendment.

The errors in the WKA Opinion and the misinterpretations emanating from it are profound and have been and continue to be a source of great concern, but in the end it ONLY answered the question whether the ‘little’ Wong was or was not a “citizen”.

I posit the WKA decision made the ‘little’ Wong a “judicial citizen by an act of judicial kidnapping”, (tongue in cheek), it being made in contravention of the duly enacted Burlingame Treaty, specifically Article VI of the Treaty.

But the “Post 14th Amendment” Supreme Court Opinion that was also cited in WKA and that is most on point is the Minor v Happersette case brought by a woman claiming the right to Federal Suffrage by virtue of the “born citizen” declaratory language of the Amendment.

Within the orbita dictum of the Opinion Justice Waite opined;

“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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen.”

Notwithstanding the error of Justice Waite in not acknowledging the change made to the 1790 Act by the “repealing” 1795 Act, the points made in these paragraphs paint an accurate depiction of the statutory construction of the laws pertaining to citizenship from the adoption of the Constitution to the date of this Opinion, March 1875.

It also validates and points to the rationalization of the Scott v Sanford, (Dredd Scott), decision that many believe was the “legal basis for the line in the sand” that hastened the War between the States, (American Civil War, North vs South, Union vs Confederacy) .

But two passages of dicta point to the correctness of the Dredd Scott decision, under the Rule of Constitutional Law.

First, the Constitutional confines of the Judiciary;

“It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.”

Second, offering insights into the Constitutional definitions of citizenship, including natural born Citizen;

“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.” ((emphasis added)

Birthright is enlarged above to put a stake in the heart of “jus soli Citizenship” sans a “jus sanguinis relation”.

It did not exist before the 14th Amendment and it does not exist Constitutionally now.

A thorough and intellectually honest analysis of the Title 8 USC reveals that the ONLY persons that acquire the benefits of U.S. Citizenship via the “Declaratory Born Statement” of the 14th Amendment are the children born on U.S. soil to ‘alien foreign nationals’ whether admitted legally or otherwise present.

It is here, in order to close the circle around the circumstances that make a person a natural born Citizen at birth, it is necessary to look to the “Expatriation Act” which expounds the natural law right of any person to expatriate from any country by affirmative actions.

Although it may at first consideration seem counter-intuitive to connect expatriation to allegiance, but in fact allegiance is at the fundamental level of both citizenship and the natural right of expatriation.

When a person possess no allegiance to a “country” there is no positive law that can force it, at the fundamental level, any more than a “country” can force expatriation upon a person who adheres to their allegiance to the “country”.

So what do the concepts of allegiance and expatriation add to the fence around the circumstances of being a natural born Citizen…?

When a person is born to natural parents of differing allegiances that child can not legally choose between them before obtaining the age of majority when they gain the right to expatriate from one or the other. But the act of choosing is not be considered retroactive as if the right to choose never existed or that it ever ceases.

Even though the right to expatriate is extended to any person the person born into that circumstance can only be recognized as what they were at birth, a native born Dual-Citizen.

So how does this answer the question “Are Constitutional Loopholes Legal…?

It doesn’t.

Like nature, the Constitution abhors a vacuum and relied on the Sovereign States and the 4th Estate to maintain the atmospheric pressure necessary for cognizant governance.

The “loop-hole” is NOT “legal”, nor is it real, but rather contrived in the minds of deceptive persons and foisted upon a trusting populace aided by the infiltrated institutions of Government and the machinations of the bought and paid for 4th Estate.

A simple statement from the Supreme Court would plug the loop-hole in an instance, restoring its own legitimacy and paving the way to foreclosing the possibility of the public being duped again by such a deceptions of the devious ambitions of corruptible men.

This post is intended only as a vehicle to clear my thoughts as I continue my effort in plugging the “legal loop-hole” by forcing the Federal Guv’mnt to acknowledge that the “loop-hole” exists and that the Supreme Court is obligated to “close the loop”.

(Credits); I respectfully acknowledge that my thoughts and efforts are guided by the research, analysis and articles of the many Patriots and interested persons that have expended their energy and attention to the myriad of details found in the historical record of this Great Nation and the works that inspired and shaped its Founding.

I have intentionally left off links to the authoritative sources and/or names of authors of works upon which I rely. Any and all are welcome to claim the seeds or dispute the fruit at http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1050

Mr. Trump,

2011-03-28T09:05:00.003-05:00

Sir, I know you to be a thoughtful and intellectually honest person. I have read your books and have found them to be both knowledgeable and inspiring and it is by the projection that a reader of well written book takes away from the reading that I am compelled to reach out to you on the current controversy you have waded into.

You have and are making several profound errors in your approach on the subject of whether the current occupant of the Executive Office is or is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ as the Constitutional ‘prerequisite imperative’ demands.

The first FACT that you need to be aware of is that there is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

Secondly, “native born” and “natural born” are not wholly synonymous for Constitutional purposes. The confusion is derived both from the inappropriate interpretations of the 14th Amendment and from the coordinated misinformation asserted by the “liberal-Progressive-Socialist-Communist-Open Borders-One World’er cabal that is no longer lurking in the shadows.

Returning to the 1st point it is important to note that when you understand the FACT that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen this “legal loop-hole” makes it obvious that the examination of any persons Birth Certificate an exercise in futility.

“Plausible deniability” attaches to any perceived defect in the birth circumstances and conditions to the extent that not even being foreign born to an underage mother who is a U.S. citizen is out of the umbrella of plausibility given the “considerations” provided by the S.R. 511 covering John McCain.

The trap and the possible damage you have stepped in is the possibility of providing cover for an OBVIOUS Dual-Citizen at birth individual should the pressure of media attention force the disclosure of a Bona Fide Birth Certificate that establishes birth in Hawaii.

Please consider that the Founders lived through a period of war with the enemy among them and Framed the Constitution in light of their experiences and their knowledge of world history and the various works said to be of the Age of Enlightenment, compendiums of the laws of nature and natures God as they concerned the affairs of men and nations.

You would be doing your-self and the Country a great service in expressing the FACT that there is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

It is a “legally correct” statement and a bit of information that may wake the Country up by explaining how the Dual Citizen son of an Alien Foreign National British Colonial Kenyan Subject used a ‘legal loop-hole’ to assume the Office of POTUS by a De Facto act of Usurpation.

Respectfully,
Steven Lee Craig [ii]
slcraigre@aol.com
http://nbcfund.com

_______________________________________________
i] See Minor v Happersette [p168] (post 14th Amendment)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 62_ZO.html
ii] Has spent 2 ½ years seeking Certification as an American natural born Citizen though Federal Departments (FEC/DHS/USCIS) and Federal Courts; USDC W OK 09-343 / 11-1345 - USCA 10th 09-6082 / 11-9501 and at the SCOTUS 10-10817 and Pending new Petition for Original Jurisdiction

nbcfund.com

2011-03-26T13:00:00.001-05:00

INDEX PAGE

http://nbcfund.com/

FORUM

http://nbcfund.com/chatforum

WORDPRESS

http://nbcfund.com/wordpress

Blogspot

http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/

ARCHIVES (Under Construction)

http://nbcfund.com/archives

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

2009-07-06T14:00:00.002-05:00

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
.

Statement of Facts and Assertions Relevant to Issues Presented for Review.
.

On or about March 12th, 2009 Representative Bill Posey (FL-15) entered a Bill for congressional consideration designated as H.R. 1503 and Titled;
.

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
.

It becomes immediately obvious to any who are familiar with the status of the ‘legal definition of natural born citizen’ that the proposed Bill does absolutely nothing to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitutional requirement of the ‘eligibility’ of a candidate for an executive office except as for age and length of residency of the candidate
.　
Although with numerous request have been made to Senate and Congressional Representatives, both State and Federal, as of yet not a single Representative has expressed their understanding of the ‘legal definition of natural born citizen’ for the record except as may be found expressed in S. Res. 511.
.

Apparently, like pornography, one only knows one when one sees one?
.

So the question must be asked, what then is H.R. 1503 seeking to verify with its requirements;
.

"…birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." (?)
.

Is it only to verify the candidates age is at least 35 years old and that the candidate has been ‘fourteen years a resident within the United States’?
.

It is clear from the text of the Bill H.R. 1503 that there is no effort is to identify the definition of a natural born citizen, in that there are no words that specifically say so. But then the Congressional Finding is clear in the understanding that being a natural born citizen is a significant requirement of eligibility;
.

SECTION 1. FINDING.
Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.
.

Many of the facts that H.R. 1503 seeks to verify are ascertainable from analyzing the birth certificates issued under the authority of and in compliance with the Federal Security Agency - U. S. Public Health Service, ("Reorganization Act of 1939" (P.L. 19, 76th Cong., 1st sess.), and/or its successor agencies. These Birth Certificates provides for the birthplace of the parents, father and mother, as well as the child’s, providing citizenship status of each of them by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, under its current authority, at the minimum.
.

However, when looking at historical records, the status of a child born within the jurisdiction of the United States to two citizen parents, father and mother, that child’s birth right citizenship has not been subject of dispute nor considered anything other than a natural born citizen [88 U.S. 162, 168], just as the Senate concluded in S.Res.511, although there is some lingering uncertainty regarding ‘Jurisdiction’ in Senator McCain’s birth circumstance.
.

It appears, when reviewing the historical considerations of American citizenship found in the Legislation of Acts, Bills, Amendments and Judicial Opinions, that the uncertainties in defining of the nature of American citizenship, in general, and an American natural born citizen, specifically, turns on the interpretations of;
.

"…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…",
.

and;
.

"…allegiance…"
.

But that uncertainty would be resolved when the full import of "The Preamble to the Constitution" is viewed with it’s apparent investment and assignment of both Jurisdiction and Allegiance into the Constitution its self and the derived Citizenship of "We, the People of the United States" from it;
.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.

The poetic clarity is too plain to ignore and word by word parsing does nothing to diminish the obvious, that the Constitution IS the United States of America, that which, with It’s (the Constitutions) words, defines the extent of Jurisdictions of the United States of America, that being to We the People.
.

In whatever measure we secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity, it is from It (the Constitution) and therefore we owe our Allegiance to It (the Constitution). From that Allegiance is found both the constraining and expansive limits of Jurisdiction to be determined by the contemplative Laws of the Constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government guaranteed and provided to all accepted into It’s (the Constitution’s) Jurisdiction with, then, Allegiance to be owed to It (the Constitution).
.

The Preamble is Positive Declaratory Statement of the collective, stating who they were and what was being set about for their selves and the generations which would spring from their endeavors with the binding propositions,
.

The Preamble explains the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
.

Although this short descriptive offers little more than a dictionary definition it contains all of the dispositive elements supporting the ‘investment and assignment of allegiance and jurisdiction’ to the Constitution in and of its-self with both the Land and the Peoples thereof being the beneficiaries of it’s adoption and establishment.
.

Given that, after 222 years, the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ has not been codified it would be poetic Justice now for this Court, now, to rely on the Preamble to the Constitution to find the meaning and vision of the Framers when contemplating the nature and Constitutional Vision of the American Citizens. That New Nation was founded upon their ‘allegiance’ to a ‘new purpose of government’, mixed with their spilled ‘blood’ in the conflict to secure the soil, the foothold and beachhead, of the new form of Jurisdiction, the New Constitution, of the People, by the People and for the People, endeavoring to ‘establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare by and amongst the People that would call this new notion and vision of self government so Ordained and Established, The United States of America by those of the Original States and by those, so accepted, thereafter.
.

This view was, again poetically, expressed by Francis Bellamy when he wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance" in 1892;
.

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
.

And amended several times until The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942 in its current form;
.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
.　
The Court, with indulgence, may agree that it is unnecessary to list the numerous instances of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and this Judicial Branch having extended their Jurisdiction into foreign lands supporting the proposition that ‘America is where the American Citizen is’, and simply state the obvious that even though that citizen may not, on their own, be able to secure their ‘rights and privileges’ where ever they may be outside the physical boundaries of the United States, still the United States reserves the right to ‘reach out’ and ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the rights and privileges of that citizen.
.

Therefore an American citizens allegiance must be considered as "…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…" being of the Constitution and not to a piece of land, or a State, ( 83 U.S. 36 [p74]), whether within the physical boundaries of jurisdiction or without.
.

When outside the physical boundaries, then Citizenship is carried as if the soil of America, being the fibers of the Constitution, is mixed within that citizens own blood so that where ever they are found, there too is found an honored piece of America, that space that an American Citizen occupies, [88 U.S. 162, 166] (83 U.S. 36 [p80]).
.

But then there are instances when Allegiance is questioned noting that one can not read minds and hearts so as to allow determination of where that Allegiance resides. This then is where the definition of an American Citizen and the English Common Law definitions governing Citizenship and Subjects depart from one another and where the divide between an American citizen and an American natural born citizen is found. Where the English Law allows for alienation’s to be found in the hearts and minds of their Colonial subjects within the places and in the customs of their Colonial subjects forefathers, never the less, Allegiance to the Crown is imposed upon those Citizen Subjects by both imposed force and imposed Law.
.

In contrast, the American naturalized citizen gives an Oath of Allegiance freely and without mental reservations when citizenship is granted;
.

(8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008))

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
.

When citizenship is obtained by the 14th Amendment to one traveling through (in transitu) or newly arrived (immigrant) or of parents not both citizens, the allegiance of one so born is assumed from the natural attachment to the soil, being the construct of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, yet still remains subject to the election of citizenship options which may be made by their, then, non-citizen parent(s). Although the result of the decision within United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 ‘imposed’ citizenship upon all persons born within the physical jurisdiction of America, the right of ‘affirmative renunciation’ remains.
.

Then to the American natural born citizen, who possess no alienation of allegiance at birth, being of two American citizen parents, receives their citizenship as a natural birthright emanating from the jurisdictional allegiance of the citizen parents. Here, allegiance can be assumed to grow through the allegiance held by their fathers (parents). [88 U.S. 162, 166] (Vattel: Bk 1 Ch. 19 Â§ 212.)
.

This is not guaranteed, given the nature of life, but more often than not it is true, when that which has been honored by the fathers (parents) finds favor with the child when raised amongst the continued good governance and liberties under the terms of the societal (Constitutional) contract.
.

This was the natural state understood and acknowledged by the Framers when considering the qualifications of the various Representatives and Executive Officers.
.

Being that ‘all politics is local’ the Representatives sent to the Halls of the Federal Government were to be chosen by their local electorate, who could best know their hearts and minds, hence the lower threshold of qualification for eligibility.
.

But when considering those whose hand would be at the tiller of the ‘Ship of State’ and upon whose voice the Military would rise to commands to take actions, no limits of qualification or scrutiny of character and allegiance are sufficient, but without additional alternatives or options, the most indispensable of qualifications was for the Executive Officers to be an unadulterated natural born citizen and this was seen to be wise and prudent measure;
.

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston, 1833. Â§ 1473.

[I]t is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct)……………………[B]ut the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections,…[e]xamples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source…"
.

And as expressed by John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
.

"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 States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"
.

Regarding H.R. 133;

"To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens."

and H.R. 1490;

"To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
.

Although both Bills seek to end the "Birth Right" citizenship grant assumed by the 14th Amendment that has been extended to illegal and/or undocumented aliens (169 U.S. 649) each of the Bills turn on the interpretation of;
.

"... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…"
.　
The proposition of the nature of citizenship being derived from the Preamble to the Constitution suggests that ‘Allegiance and Jurisdiction’ are indivisible. When there is divided and/or no allegiance assumed to the Jurisdiction (Constitution), then Citizenship is subject to Judicial interpretations and Legislative grants and by the election of citizenship options available to the parent(s), while in the alternative, when allegiance of the parents is unadulterated at birth the ‘rights and privileges’ of citizenship confers, naturally, to the natural born citizen, regardless of the jurisdiction (beyond the physical boundaries of the USA) subject only to the purpose of parents travel, either temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu or the intent of general inhabitancy abroad, animo manendi. . (S.Res.511) ( 88 U.S. 162 )
.　
Petitioner asserts that the nature, and therefore the definition, of a Natural Born Citizen is, and should be declared as;
.

"A Natural Born Citizen of America is a person being born within the Natural Birth Right Privileges enjoyed by all American Citizens, that being of American Citizen Parents, being a Father and a Mother, however their citizenship was derived, with each being with Allegiance to the Constitution and without alienation of allegiance being owed to any other Jurisdiction, investing into their children, by natural laws and of the Constitution, the bound Citizenship of such Parents."
.

"Maintenance of the Birth Right Privilege is the obligation of the Parents in the circumstance of Birth within the Jurisdiction of Foreign Lands with and by the Laws of United States Citizenship promulgated to regulate such circumstances."
　

A Citizen and Native born Oklahoman has sued the United States

2009-07-04T17:35:00.002-05:00

A Citizen and Native born Oklahoman has sued the United States claiming Civil Rights damages for the lack of definition of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" found in Article II.

.
"When I became aware during the 2008 Presidential Campaigns that there was no ‘legal of Constitutionally recognized definition for Natural Born Citizen I felt like my American Heritage had been stolen." Mr. Craig said.

.
It took him until April of 2009 to prepare the Civil Rights case, as he could not find an attorney or Legal Firm he could afford and set about preparing the case Pro Se In Forma Paperis, (Representing himself without ability to pay fee’s).

.
Beginning the case in the local United States District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma, 03-0343, he said he knew it would be an uphill battle.

"The legal system is set up much like a monopoly for Legal Professional’s and don’t take kindly to people off the street trying to take matters in their own hands, unless of course you a prison inmate or a favored minority victim." Mr. Craig opined.

.
The Judge took little time in dismissing the case Sua Sponte, (on his own discretion), expressing his judgement that the case as written lacked the recognizable elements of a ‘case or controversy’ and ‘claims and remedies’. The Judge allowed for the submission of an Amended Claim which Mr. Craig filed within weeks of the threatened Summary Judgement but the Judge then affirmed his previous Judgement adding that the Dismissal was to be ‘with prejudice, (not allowed to resubmit at his court).

He added that he did not think that Mr. Craig could prevail against a ‘Motion for Dismissal’ that he anticipated would be coming from the Defendant, the United States of America.
.

Mr. Craig promptly filed an Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit in Colorado, 09-6082 with a Motion to allow a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion to invoke Rule 22 of the Appeals Court Rules, (Suspend the Rules and Hear the Merits).

.
Mr. Craig, after determining that the Appeals case was properly Docketed and the period for the Defendant, the United States of America, to reply had begun, Mr. Craig prepared and filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States, 08-10817, under Rule 11, (Petition before Judgement at the Appeals Circuit Court level).
.

"I feel honestly violated that the nature of my Citizenship has been so disregarded by 222 years of Legislative and Judicial actions that had I have been aware of this circumstance when I was a younger man I honestly feel I would have begun this crusade sooner. But the fact that I am nearly 60 years old will not deter me from reclaiming that Heritage of ‘Natural Born Status’ of American Citizenship. It was of enough importance for the Framers of the Constitution to put it in as a qualification for any that would quest to be the Political leader of the Nation, the Helmsman at the Tiller of the Ship of State, the Presidency of the United States of America, so I insist that it must be of consequence, import and of value." Mr. Craig mused as he was reflecting on his motives.

.
Asked about the strategy and purpose of filing for a Writ at the Supreme Court and the current status of the case Mr. Craig explained,

"I’m not a legal strategist but it seemed to me since the Rule was there specifically for cases that presented ‘questions of National importance’ there was a chance the Court would hear the merits and advise the Appeals Court to allow the Defendant, the United States of America to respond and offer their definition of Natural Born Citizen and their justifications for it. I have no reason to doubt that their definition and mine are the same since they appear that way in light of the Senate Resolution 511 defining Sen John McCain a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of being born to two citizen parents in spite of uncertainty of the jurisdiction. If that is the case then the Court will be obliged to enter a Declaratory Judgement which will move the definition closer to codification in the Rules of Law of the United States and I will be able to say in jest that I am the First Legally recognized Natural Born Citizen in America."

"As to the status of the case it is pending in the 10th Circuit subject to the Supreme Court Conference hearing on September 29th, ’09, when the Court returns from their summer vacations."

.
Mr. Craig has a ‘blogspot’ web page that he said he would keep updated through the summer for anyone who might have questions, wants more information or would like to know how they can help in getting the courts to hear the question and legally define ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
　
http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/
Reported by Patriotcrusade@aol.com

Patriot Letter

2009-07-02T15:54:00.002-05:00

Patriot;

We really need your help in this grassroots campaign to have the U. S. Supreme Court define what The Constitution means when it refers to the words "Natural Born Citizen" as a requirement for The President.

Since a Senator or Congressman is required only to be a "Citizen", it is obvious the Founding Fathers meant something completely different.

The Court has never defined what the words mean and we believe it can not be answered by anything other than a ruling on the issue.

My friend, Mr. Craig has a request currently on the Supreme Court docket and we believe this case, which is not a direct challenge to any specific person, will at least make it clear to all Americans what those three words mean.

Please help by printing out the attached letter and mailing it to the Court at:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Clerk of the Court

1 First Street, N. E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Our goal is to have every Justice fully aware of our concern. Please pass this on to anyone on your email list who might help in this effort or put this entire post on a pamphlet for your 'Tea Party Handout" or Post in your favorite forum or Blogspot!

I know that the printing and mailing is an inconvenience, but I promise you that it's worth effort.

Thanks, a Natural Born Citizen

___________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Clerk of the Court

1 First Street, N. E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Re: Craig v. US 08-108

May it please the Court,

I and my family are very dismayed in having learned our Constitutional Heritage of being 'legally defined natural born citizens' has been lost to history in spite of the fact that the term, as it exists in Article II Section I Clause V, has never been Amended.

.
It is clear from the historical records that the Framers relied on Emmrich Vattel's definition as found in his work, The Laws of Nations, as the Framers were as aware of the natural world, the nature of men and the nature of politics as they were of the Beneficent Deity.

Or, in other words;

The Constitution uses the word "citizen" as a requirement for Senators and Representatives, but utilizes the term "natural born citizen" as a qualification for the President, apparently indicating they intended a higher standard for that office.

Please look to the Framers of the Constitution for their original intent when framing your opinion as the continuation of our guaranteed Republic and the value of my children’s citizenship depends upon it.

Respectfully;