Domingo, 21 de noviembre de 2010


A Simple Petition for Redress

The court is asked to determine what constitutes a ?natural born Citizen??

United States Constitution (1787)-?Article II, Section 1, Clause 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 to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.??

Naturalization Act of 1790 (amended 1795)-?"?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".

Civil Rights Act of 1866-??Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and?not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States??

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)-??All persons born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.? NOTE: U.S. Congressman John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as ?simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural] NOT owing allegiance to ANY foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, aNATURAL BORN CITIZEN?? If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant. [emphasis added]

Minor v. Happersett (1874)-??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, ornatural-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.?

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)-??These considerations lead to the conclusion that the rule in respect of citizenship of the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment differed from the English common law rule in vital particulars, and, among others, in that it did not recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it did recognize an essential difference between birth during temporary, and birth during permanent, residence. If children born in the United States were deemed presumptively and generally citizens, this was not so when they were born of aliens whose residence was merely temporary, either in fact or in point of law.? AND ?"Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and "naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is as completely as citizens of the United States, [p730] who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born in the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our Government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.? NOTE: The ultimate decision of the court formalized the concept of mere jus soli birth as sufficient for United States citizenship for the first time in our history.

Historical precedence of the Presidency-?

Presidential candidate Senator McCain-?inarguably born on foreign (Panamanian) soil to American citizens, senate resolution signed by then Senator Obama affirmed the importance of his parental citizenship heritage as a prerequisite for POTUS.

President Obama-?inarguably born in the United States to a foreign (British) father, of temporary residence, and an American mother (statutorily incapable of bestowing her citizenship due to Naturalization Act of 1952), American citizenship solely based on statute regarding the Wong Kim Ark decision per the 14th Amendment of jus soli.

Questions pertinent to the court:

1. Is mere jus soli required for ?natural born? citizenship?

2. Is consideration of the citizenship of the parents a requirement for "natural born" status?

3. Is there, in fact, an unambiguous ?natural? (i.e. immutable) state of citizenship that only results from birth within the United States to parents who are Americans (naturalized or born)?

4. Can the question of children born within the United States to illegal immigrants having greater claim to the presidency than do children born to American parents, serving at the direction of the Armed Forces, abroad be reconciled?

5. Is President Obama, whose citizenship is solely the product of a latter 19th century court decision, a "natural born Citizen" and thus eligible for his current office per the constitutional requirement?

IN CONCLUSION:?The decision of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark answered who, at birth, were indeed citizens but did not identify that which were unequivocably?"natural born".?Per Minor v. Happersett, the court is formally tasked with stating by what without?"doubt"?criteria, indeed, does President Obama meet this constitutional requirement to hold office?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar