Petition for Redress of Grievances – Examined

Guest Contributor — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:50:57 +0000

Revised Draft Redress Petition
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
REGARDING THE FAILURE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THE PRESIDENT ELECT, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

INTRODUCTION

WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…or the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances”;

TRUE.

WHEREAS, no Member of Congress raised an objection over the qualifications of the presidential candidates in Congress on January 8th 2009, when the President of the Senate called for objections on the reading of each State’s electoral certificates for Barack Hussein Obama II ( 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15, §17, §19(a) (1), and §19);

TRUE as reported here (assumed true, given no reporting on issue).

WHEREAS no Member of Congress raised a Point of Order before the President of the Senate challenging his qualifications for President when Barack Obama II was declared President elect, thereby committing misprision and failing to perform their sworn duty to uphold Amendment 20 of the U.S. Constitution.

TRUE as reported here (assumed true, given no reporting on issue).

FACTS

WHEREAS, Article II Section 1 2 of the United States Constitution specifies that “no person except a natural born citizen….shall be eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States”;

TRUE. (Actually, it’s Section 2, not Section 1, but we assume this is a typo)

WHEREAS, by Article II Section 2 President needs qualify as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States;

TRUE ….

WHEREAS, John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote George Washington July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen”;

TRUE as quoted here.

WHEREAS, John A. Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment wrote: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”;

TRUE (as stated/quoted here) … BUT … Whatever the merits of the argument that Bingham framed the 14th Amendment, Congress deliberated on it. This petition ignores the express statements of other framers of the amendment regarding the impact of the language.

For example, as former AG Dellinger noted in a statement to Congress (as quoted here):

“The Fourteenth Amendment initially contained no definition of citizenship. Senator Howard of Michigan proposed to insert the definition that became the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.“

He explained that this was not meant to include those discrete classes of persons excluded by the common law, “but will include every other class of persons.”

The Framers intended the amendment to resolve not only the status of African-Americans and their descendants, but members of other alien groups as well. This is reflected in the exchange between Senators Trumbell and Conness, supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, and Senator Cowan, a strong opponent of both. Senator Cowan expressed his reluctance to amend the Constitution in such a way as would “tie the[] hands” of the Pacific states “so as to prevent them . . . from [later] dealing with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom they see fit.” (12) The supporters of the citizenship clause responded by confirming their intent to constitutionalize the U.S. citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents.

“Senator Cowan . . . . I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States.’ What does it mean? . . . Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?

“Senator Conness . . . . The proposition before us . . . relates . . . to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

Additionally, this petition ignores the express holdings of multiple cases decided since the 14th Amendment was passed (and before), many of which are compiled here.

WHEREAS, Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) found that Ms. Elg, born in Brooklyn NY to a Swedish father and an American mother was considered a US citizen but not a natural born citizen;

FALSE.

Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), at page 328, states the following procedural history of the case:

“In April, 1935, Miss Elg was notified by the Department of Labor that she was an alien illegally in the United States, and was threatened with deportation. Proceedings to effect her deportation have been postponed from time to time. In July, 1936, she applied for an American passport, but it was refused by the Secretary of State upon the sole ground that he was without authority to issue it because she was not a citizen of the United States.

Thereupon she began this suit against the Secretary of Labor, the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and the Secretary of State to obtain (1) a declaratory judgment that she is a citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and (2) an injunction against the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration restraining them from prosecuting proceedings for her deportation, and (3) an injunction against the Secretary of State from refusing to issue to her a passport upon the ground that she is not a citizen.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of the Naturalization Convention and Protocol of 1869 (proclaimed in 1872) between the United States and Sweden (17 Stat. 809) and the Swedish Nationality Law, and Section 2 of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, 8 U.S.C. § 17. The District Court overruled the motion as to the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration and entered a decree declaring that the plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States but directing that the complaint be dismissed as to the Secretary of State because of his official discretion in the issue of passports. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591.

However, the holding of the case was as follows (at page 350):

“We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.

Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

WHEREAS, the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification has thus been construed to require birth in the United States or its territories and to two American citizens, without allegiance to any foreign nation;

FALSE .

Petition cites no case or legal authority addressing this issue, which has construed “natural born citizen,” as used in Article 2, or implied in the 14th Amendment, to mean a child born in the U.S.A. to U.S. citizen parents. Moreover, there is a long line of legal precedent holding that a child born in the U.S.A. is a “natural born citizen” without regard to the citizenship of his/her parents, many of which are excerpted here.

WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the ‘natural born citizen’ title on naturalized U.S. citizens;

TRUE, but … irrelevant. The 14th Amendment provides, at Section1, that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As explained by several subsequent courts (e.g., here, at 682):

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.“

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama II acknowledged that his father was a Kenyan National, and that at birth Mr. Obama was born of first allegiance to the British Crown, through the citizenship of his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948;

TRUE that Obama’s father was a Kenyan National and that, under UK law, Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth, as reported here.

FALSE (or at least unsubstantiated) that under US law, the above fact means that Obama’s first allegience was to the British Crown.

WHEREAS, the divorce decree D. No. 57972 of Stanley Ann D. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama acknowledged that Barack Hussein Obama was the biological father of Barack Hussein Obama II;

TRUE that the divorce decree states that one child was born to Mr. and Mrs. Obama as reported here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian National named Lolo Soetoro;

No evidence provided to support this.

WHEREAS, the Hawaiian divorce decree No. 117619 of Stanley Ann D. Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro, acknowledged Barry Soetoro as their child, by affirming they had one child below 18, and one child above 18;

TRUE that the divorce decree states that they had one child below 18, and one child above as reported here.

WHEREAS, Gradebook No. 203 Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta records Mr. Obama having used the legal name “Barry Soetoro”, born on Honolulu 4-8-1961, with parents named Mr./Ms.: L. Soetoro M A (Lolo Soetoro)” and that he was a citizen of Indonesia;

TRUE as shown here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama has stated that he is a ‘native’ born U.S. Citizen under the 14th Amendment;

(looking for this)

Obama has also stated, under oath, that he is a “natural born citizen,” as shown here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama signed notarized documents regarding his eligibility to serve as President under the U.S. Constitution, including sworn statements of his ‘natural born’ citizenship;

TRUE, as shown here.

WHEREAS, except for an ambiguous Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, Mr. Obama has sealed of his birth certificates and educational records and has expended nearly one million dollars to avoid providing evidence that he is a natural born citizen and qualifies to serve as President;

FALSE/UNSUBSTANTIATED.

The COLB (here and/or here) unambiguously shows Hawaiian birth. There is no evidence that Obama has “sealed” his birth certificate, and Hawaii officials deny that it has been sealed by them or that they directed that it be “handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i .” The amount of money spent to respond to the couple complaints that have required a response, is wholly speculative and not supported by any evidence.

As noted here, the same document relied upon to support claims of Indonesian adoption also unambiguously state that Obama was born in Hawaii. See also this discussion of Indonesian law.

WHEREAS, to date no legal authority has received unambiguous evidence verifying that Barack Hussein Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article II of the United States Constitution;

TRUE, all such challenges have been dismissed as shown here.

WHEREAS, 33 Democracies descended into tyranny in the 20th century for failing to uphold their constitutions, resulting in over 100 million people being killed by their own governments;

UNSUBSTANTIATED.

WHEREAS, Amendment 20 Section 3 provides that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”, the Constitution thus requires a challenge to the qualifications of the President elect, and that thereafter the legal burden of proof lies with the President elect to demonstrate that he has qualified to be President per Article II Sections 1 and 2 including being a “natural born citizen” having only ever had undivided loyalty to the United States as required for the Commander in Chief;

FALSE.

Amendment 20, Section 3 provides as follows:

“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

There is nothing to the effect of the above statement. (It is true that a federal statute sets forth the process of properly registering any challenge to the qualifications of a President-Elect — however, as noted above and reported here, no such challenge was made.)

WHEREAS, the information on record strongly indicates that Mr. Obama has not and does not qualify to be President of the United States;

Statement of Opinion. If based on above allegations, this is an opinion not supported by fact or law.

Counter-Opinion: Information on record, combined with applicable US law (see index to this blog and see also here), strongly indicates that President-Elect Obama is qualified to be President.

WHEREAS, while every member of Congress has an affirmative duty to ensure the protection of the U.S. Constitution, Congress willfully ignored the disqualifying information, the danger to our Constitution, the Country, and the Citizenry, and nevertheless certified the Electoral College vote for Mr. Obama;

Statement of Opinion that Congress willfully ignored any information submitted to or otherwise obtained by them.

WHEREAS, Congress has violated the trust of the people by failing to conduct due diligence and verify the eligibility of Mr. Obama thereby endangering the Citizenry by precipitating a constitutional crisis.

Statement of Opinion.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
WE, the undersigned, do pray Congress provide relief and redress as follows:

1. Challenge the qualifications of President elect, under Amendment 20 Section 3, and placing the President elect on notice that the burden of proof that he qualifies lies with him to provide unambiguous objective original evidence beyond doubt that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen under Article II Section 1, and qualifies to be Commander in Chief having only held undivided allegiance to the United States, and having been born within US jurisdiction of two US citizens in allegiance to the United States;

Unsupported by Amendment 20, as shown above.

2. Enter into the Congressional record the available documentation regarding the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II including each case filed in US Courts challenging his qualifications to become President, including: Berg v. Obama, U.S.C. 08-570; Hollister v. Soetoro a.k.a. Obama; Broe v Reed U.S.C. Cause No. 8-2-473-8, Lightfoot v. Bowen U.S.C. No. 08A524;

Cases filed by litigants do not constitute “documentation” regarding his qualifications.

3. Recognize that:
a. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II is not qualified to serve as President because he is not a natural born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 and 2 of the Constitution, having “Foreign Allegiances” at birth and by adoption, by renouncing US citizenship, and by failing to provide unambiguous evidence that he is “a natural born Citizen” fit to be Commander in Chief without other allegiances. In particular:

FALSE, as noted above.

i. Recognize that Mr. Obama had first allegiance to the British Crown and to Kenya, being born a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and then a citizen of Kenya through his Kenyan biological father Barack Obama, Sr.

FALSE, as noted above.

ii. Recognize that Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Obama, also has primary allegiance to Indonesia, having Indonesian citizenship by adoption Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a citizen of Indonesia, by Constitution of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Art. 2 (1), and as required to enroll in Indonesian schools. As evidenced by school records and travel to Pakistan in 1981, Mr. Obama retains his Indonesian citizenship.

FALSE, as to “primary allegience.” Under US law, Obamam, as a person born in the US, has primary allegience to the U.S., regardless of whether the laws of another country operate to grant him citizenship in that country.

UNSUBSTANTIATED as to any alleged adoption.

FALSE as to theory that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, as shown here.

FALSE as to Indonesian Citizenship, as demonstrated in this discussion of Indonesian law.

As noted here, the same document relied upon to support claims of Indonesian adoption (to support this argument) also unambiguously state that Obama was born in Hawaii.

b. Recognize that Barack Obama II has failed to produce unambiguous evidence that he is a “natural born Citizen” born to two U.S. citizens “in the allegiance of the United States” and that he has retained that exclusive allegiance to the United States, in that the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth may be obtained for births out of the State, is ambiguous as to the citizenship of the parents, and requires no independent witnesses to the birth or parents;

FALSE constructs regarding Obama’s obligations:

There is no evidence that Obama failed to comply with any state’s laws regarding “evidence” required to be on the ballot.

There is no requirement that the President be “born to two U.S. citizens ‘in the allegiance of the United States,’” or that “he has retained that exclusive allegiance to the United States,” given that there is no such requirement in order to be “natural born citizen” under Article 2.

4. By Amendment 20, Section 3, declare that the President elect has failed to qualify;

Given that Congress has already certified the results, with no member of either house or either party raising an objection, and declared Obama the President-Elect, the provisions of Amendment 20 do not apply at this time.

5. Invoke the 20th Amendment to appoint an ‘Acting President’, and that the first order of business of the Congress is thereby to elect a President who does qualify;

See 4, above.

6. Seek whatever guidance is needed from the U.S. Supreme Court.

See 4, above.

7. Develop federal regulations and procedures to ensure that Presidential Candidates are natural born citizens qualifying to be Commander In Chief, and are fully vetted for their eligibility to serve by each of the States before any election for President.

Such a process likely would be an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights to govern the selection of Electors, established by the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1).

Obama Conspiracy Theories » Labor

Petition for Redress of Grievances – Examined