Given your heritage and your love for this country and the opportunities afforded you by you efforts, liberties and freedoms garanteed you by the Constitution, as it was, upon your arrival, surely you can understand the concerns of many, that were here when you arrived, that the Constitutions preservation MUST be the foremost duty of every Citizen of conscience.

Please lend your support to the Quo Warranto action, contact the Attorneys below and express your support in its pursuit.

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. E-Mail
http://www.usdoj.gov/ Website

United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
dc.outreach@usdoj.gov E-Mail
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/ Website

Sirs,

During last year’s Presidential election, many Citizens, voters and interested persons have questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States. The Congress took the time to ‘Vet’ Senator McCain and produced a Non-Binding Resolution attesting to his eligibility for the office of Potus, specifically as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. However, the same deliberative action was not taken up in the case of Senator Obama. This has become quit troubling in that Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website; http://fightthesmears.com: ………Verified still up and available as of this date.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

This statement, being factual, proves Mr. Obama is in fact not a ‘natural born citizen’.

Most scholars and legal minds, who offer unbiased opinions, believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution that both parents must be U.S. Citizens and the child must be born on U.S. soil.

Although citizenship issues have been adjudicated in the courts, and have been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, the distinction of natural born citizen has stood uncontested as if self evident as to meaning and intent in the U.S. Constitution, and in its amendments and in the courts. In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would, with unbiased opinions, cling to this definition above any other unknown construction.

One can not but acknowledge the original understanding of “natural born citizen”. The term comes straight out of VATTEL’s LAW OF NATIONS, published in 1758. This was the standard legal reference work for the Framers of The Constitution. There are numerous references to it at the time of the writing of The Constitution. The term “natural born citizen” was common currency, most everyone knew what it meant; “born in the Country of the parents who were therein citizens”. There was no alternative definition of “natural born citizen” offered or considered once put forth by John Jay, by letter, to George Washington. Multiple Votes by the Constitutional Convention were made in the various Committees and upon Adoption Vote occasion’s without once questioning its meaning and/or intent and with no debate at any time as to it’s purpose for making such a distinction.

Subsequently, no Amendment to The Constitution, nor any other legal device, Bill or Act has changed the original meaning of “natural born citizen”.

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the ‘natural born citizen’ clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect, expressed in;
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
V
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 175].

As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the office of President of the United States.

This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a “Natural Born Citizen” nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office.

It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.

Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility. In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join at least one of the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements. In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves to potential prosecution.

Research has determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility.

What has been determined and held as motivating opinion, is that once President Obama was elected, (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but), by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution, (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute 16-3502.

Furthermore the statute states in part that:

“only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.”

Furthermore, the following summarizes the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:

1. Due to the separation of powers that is our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress held the power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States. The United States Congress exercised this power by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, [DC Code Sections 16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.]

2. Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry. You have a special duty to bring forth this action.

3. No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you, Mr. Taylor and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the matter.

4. Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14th amendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “Natural Born Citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
v.
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 175].

And further admonishment to those serving Justice;

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.’ Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.’

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

‘No person,’ says the constitution, ’shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.’

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

Sirs, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Taylor, or you, Attorney General Holder, having the duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute. Lacking such an action on the part of you, individually or jointly, will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution). It is an awesome burden placed upon the both of you, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws. If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to?

A nation without laws is no longer a nation.

I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.

Sincerely,
Slcraigre@aol.com

Go to cooba and live like the real Cubans live and then come back here and tell us how great socialism is! You’re a whiny, brat who thinks you deserve something you didn’t work for on the backs of those who do work. You aren’t worth it!

Because I’m sick of being told how much I’m worth by capitalists.