Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Second amended complaint, Natural born citizen
From Steven Lee Craig:
“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.
These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817”
Steven Lee Craig
1309 Hisel Rd.
Del City, Oklahoma 73115
The United States of America
C/o U.S. Attorney
) Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
) 10th Circuit 09-6082
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That
publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;
BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES. CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.Â§ 212. Citizens 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 the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition 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 fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on
their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, 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.”
Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution;
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833), of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845
Volume 3: Â§ 1473.
“It 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) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But 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, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy
within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”
The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws
of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel.
Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage,
“…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…”
in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”.
Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America were necessarily Naturalized by the Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as that generation of First Citizens passed it would devolve to the Second Generation of those
Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this conforming with Vattel’s definition noted above and as also considered in the House of Representatives as found in;
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
[Elliot’s debates,Volume4]Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.
Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning
which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.
In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural–born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”
Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to the First Naturalized Citizens as being the natural born citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized citizens who, with time and circumstance, beget their own natural born citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the political and natural world. In the second paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has no mandate to ‘abridge’ the authority of Article II Section I Clause V and thereby the inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature in the performance of the mandate to promulgate laws of naturalization. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment or the Nineteenth Amendment abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the
source of future natural born citizens was increased and in the latter the source of conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents.
The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote,
“…[E]very 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,'”
Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the Nineteenth Amendment, with each “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, which implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.
That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations sovereignty. The first duty of the Government and the Citizens thereof is to ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States of America. That the Government is ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest regard, the greatest interest, and the greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who
have longest been bound and blessed by the liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel;
“…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…”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This case involves diversity of citizenship and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1343 (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357
2. This case further arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3).
The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.
4. Plaintiff, Steven Lee Craig
1309 Hisel Rd.
Del City, OK 73115
10. Defendant, The United States of America
VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION
Claimant incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length.
Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen as a specific form of Citizenship acknowledged within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution
and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution and elsewhere, thereby violating Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection.
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”
Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;
“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479
“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are
additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .
Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.
Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).
“While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.
Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not been surrendered; that being the Constitutionally recognized circumstance, of the political and of nature, that confers the naturalness of a natural born citizen.
Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born Citizen violates Claimants Fifth Amendment Rights of Due Process of the Law in that the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the
Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by the distinctions of Citizenship within the Constitution.
Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization have been discriminatory in that the form of Citizenship, natural born citizen, has been ‘excluded and omitted’ while every circumstance, situation, happenstance, possibility and probability of Naturalization of new Citizens has been and continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.
Claimant alleges that unequal treatment has occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization, by the “exclusion and omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that citizenship known as natural born citizen within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and / or Regulations hereto promulgated regarding Citizenship and Naturalization.
Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939)
“The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to
selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment)
“Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.”
Claimant alleges that, upon recounting the 222 years of Legislation regarding Citizenship and Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise
engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the mandates to Legislate and then delegate administrations the Legislated Laws making Naturalization uniform without looking to the Constitutional forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause V, and the intent of the distinctions thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges of the American form of Citizenship, natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory Un-Uniform promulgation of Naturalization Laws.
Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
“…By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times
seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged
that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discriminations” in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…”
Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, in having violated Claimants Fourth Amendment Rights by extension have violated Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural portion of Claimants American Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and
Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation from the Constitution and the internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”.
Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86
We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In
short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.
This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [n35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]
… When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “
Denationalization, being a “punishment more primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than a severing of generational ties and an involuntary amputation upon that Citizenship?
WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:
1. An immediate Order of Declaratory Judgement expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”.
2. Entry of Judgment
By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered
Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis
Steven Lee Craig
1309 Hisel Rd.
Del City, Oklahoma 73115
Trump “I didn’t need to do this” spoken in context of election and building the wall, He didn’t need to do to get reelected, Faster for nation’s security
Trump “I didn’t need to do this” spoken in context of election and building theRead More
Hillary Clinton: “she is, in my judgment, an evil force, an embodiment of evil”, Herbert London, Ph.D, “Hillary Clinton is an inveterate liar”
Hillary Clinton: “she is, in my judgment, an evil force, an embodiment of evil”, Herbert London, Ph.D, “HillaryRead More