Lightfoot v. Bowen: Motion Filed to Declare Obama Unqualified, Certiorari Before Judgment

by Phil on 01/15/2009

Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in Lightfoot v. Bowen, today filed the following motion to declare that the President-Elect fails to qualify under Article 2, Section 1 and Amendment 20 (including Rule 21 (2)(B) and (4), as shown below) of the Constitution.

The relevant part of the 20th Amendment:

Section. 3. 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.

The motion in its entirety follows…

No. 08A524 

In The Supreme Court of the United States

GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN, 
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL, 
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY 
Petitioners;

v.

DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California

Respondent.

On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The 
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)

MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, 
THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT 
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & 
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

January 15, 2009

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?

Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?

MOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)
I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).
The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) which empowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.”
To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:
Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to the Petition.
A. Respondent declared President elect
Congress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declared Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bear U.S. CONST. Amendment 20.
B. Burden of Proof on Respondent
The clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.
C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed to present to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.
D. Respondent has hindered discovery
Respondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining and examining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost, systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, including those presented before this Court by the Petitioner.
E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.
The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitioners seeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed to qualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
F. Immediate Constitutional Remedy
In light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changed circumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutional remedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:
Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 & Amendment 20.
This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs that he qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.
The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.
This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress the constitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates. 
Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish the stringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for the common defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civil rights of “citizens”.
Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as invoilable supreme law, and preserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.
Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this critical qualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enable election officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, to properly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.
The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. The Petitioner comes bearing the burden of upholding our Constitution and protecting our Republic against tyranny, on behalf of We the People in this and future generations. Standing before the Judge of all the world for the rectitude of her ways:
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
to punishment.” ___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, 949-683-5411
26302 La Paz, Mission Viejo CA 92691

MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT
The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20. 
Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.
Furthermore, to date, all State and Federal election officers appear to have committed misprision of their duties under U.S. CONST. amend. 20, by failing to examine the qualifications of the President elect, and thence by failing to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify.
The delayed declaration of the President elect left but five (5) working days to observe this misprision, prepare this Motion, and to submit it, before this Court meets in conference on Friday January 16th to consider the Petitioner case After that conference this Court has no (0) working days before the inauguration of the Respondent as President on Tuesday January 20th. That event without word from this Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating such enormous political barriers as to possibly prevent effective redress by the Petitioner.
Inauguration of the President elect having a popular majority while preventing his qualifications from being examined would nullify U.S. art. II §1. Conversely, declaration that the President elect had qualified or failed to have qualified would be of very high public import.
Were this Court to provide the recommended remedy, of declaring that the President elect had failed to qualify, that would provide obvious immediate constitutional relief for the Petitioner. This would cause far less political trauma by clearly upholding constitutionally defined procedures than any redress by granting existing prayers after the inauguration. 
Petitioner presents analysis regarding critical safeguards to the Constitution that could be of existential importance to preserving the Republic. The constitutional principle of sole allegiance underlying the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” for Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution rather than civil rights of citizens, does not appear to have been so identified in the Petitioner’s case nor in other petitions to the Court. 
The Motion would further support the cause of numerous subsequent Petitioners including Berg v. Obama No. 08-570 distributed for the Court’s conference on January 16th, who are committed to submitting petitions for similar issues.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on January 15, 2009. ______________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1
ARGUMENT 3

I.The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify 3
A. The 20th Amendment qualification process 3
1. Burden of proof on the President elect 3
2. Qualification candidate 3
3. Constitutional qualifications exist 3
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications 3
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications 3
6. Venues for qualification 4
7. Period for qualification 4
8. Opportunity for qualifying 4
9. Time and Actors for remedy 4
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications 4
11. Electoral College 5
12. State Election Officers 5
13. Declaration of qualification/failure 5
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria 5
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects 6
B. Respondent’s refusal to supply proofs 6
1. No certified documents provided 6
2. Birth records sealed 6
3. Educational records sealed 6

II. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. 7
A. Stringency of qualifications 8
1. Increasing Responsibility 8
2. Increasing Maturity 8
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration 8
4. More Stringent Citizenship 8
Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications 8
5. Founders all U.S. citizens 9
6. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” 9
B. Contemporary definitions: “native born citizen” 10
1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758) 10
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) 10
C. Primary allegiance passes through fathers 10
D. Birth to Colonials not U.S., “natural born” 10
E. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial 10
F. Birth to two citizens overseas 11
G. Commander in Chief in time of war 11
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief 11
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief 12
3. International conflict over divided loyalties 12
4. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance 12
5. Avoid dual nationality through a parent 13
6. Avoid dual nationality through birth place 13
7. Power to Exclude Aliens 13
H. Natural Born under Amendment 14 14
1. Citizenship rights 14
2. Bingham affirms narrow “natural born 14
3. Reviews of “natural born citizen” 14

III. CONCLUSION 14

IV. APPENDIX A-1
A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify A-1
C. Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants A-2
D. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
A-3
E. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of Law A-4
F. CONSTITUTION of the United States of America A-5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) 10
322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) 10
377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) 10
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889) 13
Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 13, 14
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – (U.S. 1787)
U.S. CONST. pmbl 7, A-5
U.S. CONST., amend. XX passim
U.S. CONST., amend I. 7
U.S. CONST., amend. IX A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. X A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1 A-6
STATUTES: Organic Laws of U.S.A. & States
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) passim
DECLARATION (U.S. 1776) 9
DECLARATION para. 2. A-3
DECLARATION para. 32 A-5
Massachussetts Constitution §XXX (1780) A-3
STATUTES: Organic Laws – Common Law
1 Blackstone Commentaries(1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (1765) 10, A-3
BILL OF RIGHTS secs. 16, 17, 18. 1, W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 , 16 Dec. 1689 (U.K.) 7,A-4
Blackstone, Commentaries, 152-154 (1765) 10
DOOMS (Code) of Alfred “the Great” (880). A-4
MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215); 1 Henry 3 (1225). 6, 7, A-4
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) 10
U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 6, 7
Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778 12
STATUTES: Other, Bills, Proclamations, & Resolves
5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. A-5
10 U.S.C. 312. Militia duty: exemptions. A-4
28 U.S.C. 453. Oaths of justices and judges. A-4
29 U.S.C. 169 Employees with religious convictions[]fees A-4
Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795) 11
BIBLE
Bible. A-3
Matthew 5:33-37. Affirmation. A-4
Ruth 4:6 10
TREATISES
Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, 912 pp, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 (1999). 7
de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, p 101 10, 14
John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690) A-4
Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press 10
Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858). A-5
OTHER AUTHORITIES
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). A-4
British Nationality Act (1948) §5(1) 10, 11, A-1
Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves 14 Oct. 1774 Tansill 1–5 #2 A-3
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800) 12, 13
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (NY Jul. 25)
1, 12, 13
Trial of the Seven Bishops for Publishing a Libel. 12 How. St. Tr. 183, 415, (1688).
A-4
Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). A-5
MISCELLANEOUS
Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (1644). A-26

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

1. The Petitioner submits that the U.S. CONST’s 20th Amendment places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to demonstrate that he qualifies to become President, and on government officers to evaluate and report on those proofs. It negates the lower court’s assumption that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner. 
The Respondents, President elect Barack Hussein Obama II (herein RPE Obama) et al., have failed to submit to election officers the requisite objective government certified proofs attested to by multiple reliable witnesses, as evidence that the President elect qualifies per U.S. CONST. Art. 2 §1 and §2. Furthermore, they have systematically acted to withhold from State and Federal election officers, and from We the People, the evidence necessary to evaluate the qualifications of the President elect.
Having thus failed to qualify by default, U.S. CONST. amend. 20 requires election officers to declare that the President elect has “failed to qualify”. Congress then has constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. 
By misprisions of State and Federal election officers to perform these duties, Petitioner has the constitutional right and duty to challenge the qualifications of the President elect by redress petition preserved under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, by rights reserved by We the People, under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, 10 and 20, and by each government officer’s oath of office to uphold the CONSTITUTION as inviolable supreme law, U.S. CONST. art. VI.
2. The core issue underlying the Petitioner’s motion, this case before this Court, and to all similar cases is the constitutional interpretation of the restrictive “natural born citizen”qualification for President.
Prior cases with other issues have brought issues of individual civil rights of citizenship to the attention of this Court. The Petitioner brings the issue of the restrictive constitutional qualifications for President. This addresses the essential safeguard provided by the Founders to preserve the Republic and upholding the inviolability of Constitution as supreme law.
The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John 
II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify The 20th Amendment qualification process The U.S. CONST. amend. 20 prescribes that:
“. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;. . .”
The Constitution does not guarantee inauguration of a President elect. It requires that he first “qualify”.
The Petitioner has observed that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power and method of qualifying. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to powers reserved under the 14th Amendment. However, common principles may still identify methods by which the President elect may qualify, or fail to have qualified.
1. Burden of proof on the President elect By the past tense verb “have failed to qualify”, the CONSTITUTION places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to lay objective proofs before competent officers necessary to demonstrate that he has met the constitutional qualifications for President. 
2. Qualification candidate Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II was declared the constitutional President elect by Congress in joint session on Jan. 8th, 2009. RPE Obama is thus the active subject of U.S. CONST., amend 20.
3. Constitutional qualifications exist The verb “qualify” indicates that the Constitution establishes objective criteria that the President elect must satisfy. See explicit restrictive qualifications in U.S. CONST. Art II, §1 and implicit qualifications listed below.
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications The verb “has failed to qualify” implies that there are election officers to whom those constitutional proofs of qualifications must be submitted. The electoral votes are submitted to the President of the Senate presiding over Congress in joint session with tellers appointed from the Senate and House. At least those constitutional officers are competent to receive evaluate the qualifications. The Chief Justice of this Court, and the President are other constitutionally defined officers before whom the President elect could submit his proofs for qualification.
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications All Executive, Legislative and Judicial officers, being on Oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, have the power and duty to challenge the Respondent President elect Obama to show cause by date certain why he should not have failed to qualify.
a. Objections to reading Electoral votes
When Congress tabulates votes of the Electoral College in joint session, law explicitly requires the President of the Senate to ask for Objections after the reading of each State’s electoral certificates. 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15. Objections to electoral votes may be filed if signed by one Senator and one Representative. Electing a candidate for President who would not qualify would violate the Constitution and justify raising a formal objection on reading each State’s votes. On reading the electoral votes, Senate President Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections on reading of each State’s votes on Jan. 8th, 2009. See also 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1,§17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1)
b. Point of Order on declaring President elect Obama has failed to qualify
Officers on oath to uphold the Constitution bear the high privilege to raise a Point of Order or Question of Order over any breach thereof, as well as over any breach of the Rules of each House. Senate Rule XX. When an appointed election officer fails to uphold the duties required by U.S. CONST. Art II §1 and amend. 20, any Member of Congress has the power and duty to raise a Point of Order. 
Failing that, citizens, including the Petitioner, have the unalienable right of petition for redress of grievances, to petition their State or Congress with a prayer to raise a Point of Order over breach of Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I
Reporting the tallied electoral votes provided an opportunity to raise the Point of Order that the President elect has not qualified. However, no Member of Congress raised that Point of Order requested by numerous citizens by redress petition. See Appendix A. Every time any House is in session provides an opportunity for Members of Congress to raise a Point of Order that the President elect has failed to qualify.
6. Venues for qualification The joint session of Congress, held to count electoral votes and announce the President elect, is one venue in which the President elect could have submitted his qualifications. Thereafter, the President elect could submit his qualifications to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of this Court, or the President as constitutionally recognized officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution.
7. Period for qualification By the classification “President elect”, Amend. 20 establishes at least the qualification period between the constitutional “election” of tabulating electoral college votes before Congress on January 6th (January 8th in 2009) and the inauguration on January 20th when the President elect is sworn in as “President”. 
8. Opportunity for qualifying By “have failed to qualify”, the President elect will have been given the opportunity to submit proofs showing that he does qualify. By January 16th, RPE Obama will have had five business days during which to submit proofs of his qualification. 
9. Time and Actors for remedy Were this Court to determine and find the President elect has failed to qualify by default, there would still be time to notify Congress, for Congress to appoint the Vice President as Acting President, and for the Electoral College and Congress to proceed with electing another President who does qualify, per U.S. CONST. amend. 20. This urgent constitutional business would have privilege over other business.
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications By “have failed to qualify”, the competent election officers must examine the proofs submitted by the President elect against the constitutional qualifications. The CONSTITUTION grants all powers necessary to perform constitutional duties including obtaining government certified documents from any Federal or State repository, and to subpoena other records as needed.
11. Electoral College By U.S. CONST. amend 12, Electors in the Electoral College are election officers with the duty to elect the President. Electors, and the Electoral College have the privileges and duty to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President, and the President elect. By their oath to uphold the Constitution, they have a duty to demand and evaluate proofs and to find that the Presidential candidate or President elect has or has failed to qualify.
12. State Election Officers Each State has the equivalent privileges and opportunities to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President and for the President elect. As the Petitioner has sought relief, the Secretary of State can communicate RPE Obama’s failure to qualify to the Governor, the State’s Senators and President of the Senate, and to its Representatives, and the Speaker of the House. Each State’s Senators, Representatives and Governor have the Privilege of the Floor in the respective House, and may communicate that failure, or raise a Point of Order. Senate Rule XXIII
13. Declaration of qualification/failure By “have failed to qualify”, the election officers have the constitutional power and duty to declare that the President elect has met or has failed to meet the restrictive constitutional requirements for President. They have the power and duty to communicate that determination to the authorities responsible to elect the President. I.e. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria Objective evidence of qualifications must be commensurate with the level of proof required. Certified copies of original birth certificates are commonly required by citizens to obtain government photo ID, marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, and to register to vote. 
To obtain security clearance, military officers must provide increasingly exhaustive evidence that they qualify. As Commander in Chief, the President commands the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force bearing Top Secret clearance. Common sense requires that the President elect provide objective proofs commensurate with the higher constitutional office of Commander in Chief, and the Top Secret clearance required of those he must command. To verify constitutional qualifications, election officers should require the President elect to provide the following, and to verify their validity.
a. Age 35 years
Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
b. 14 years residency in the US
Evidence of residence within the U.S., with certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S., being more thorough than that required for naturalization, or documenting U.S. births abroad. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
c. Natural born citizen with sole allegiance
By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
(1) President Elect’s Citizenship
Government certified copies of the original (“long form”) birth certificates of the President elect, showing original place and date of birth, and both biological parents. 
(2) Citizenship of Biological Father
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological father at the birth of the President elect.
(3) Citizenship of Biological Mother
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological mother at the President elect’s birth.
(4) Citizenship of Adoptive Parents
Government certified copies evidencing citizenship of every adoptive parent of the President elect.
(5) Change of Name
Government certified copies of every legal change of name since birth. 
(6) Declarations of allegiance
Certified copies of each document wherein the President elect has sworn allegiance, or declared his citizenship or allegiance, whether as a youth or adult, including applications for higher education and financial aid.
(7) Military & Public Service
Certified copies of any registration for military service, and of each and every military and/or public service.
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects Official inauguration of a President elect do not remedy failure to constitutionally qualify. The US Constitution is inviolable, founded on the security of the U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 No certified documents provided Per the Petitioner’s application and current belief and knowledge, none of these documents having been submitted to election officers in Congress, in the Electoral College, or in any State, by RPE Obama, that are government certified with reliable witnesses. Upcoming petitioners including Gail Lightfoot have similarly found no evidence of such positive action by RPE Obama to qualify. 
2. Birth records sealed The RPE Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form “vault” birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted. 
3. Educational records sealed The RPE Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.

III. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. When King and Parliament breached their rights with arbitrary laws, the Founders fought to restore the Rule of Law claiming ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘entitle[ment]’ by the ‘laws of God.’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) (herein “DECLARATION”). The inviolability of the Magna Carta (1215) was preserved in the U.S. Constitution (1787) as “supreme law.” Magna Carta (1215) §61. This security was restored by theU.S. CONST., amend I.U.S. CONST. pmblU.S. CONST., art. I §3 para. 5. The “natural born citizen” allegiance qualification was strictest of these, to protect against treason and tyranny.
Democracies Descending into Tyranny: Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections. These included Germany, Russia, and China.
Secularist States Murdered Millions: States establishing Secularism caused the most extrajudicial deaths in the 20th Century. Courtois et al. (1999) detail the consequent horrors of atheistic communist governments killing more than 125 million – more than three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars. See Appendix C, Hagen & Irish (2000).
The greatest threat to Domestic tranquility is not war but descent into mob rule and dictatorship. Preserving protections of the Constitution and Republic are critically important. The restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for President, is a critical constitutional guard against tyranny. Petitioner applies the unalienable right of redress petition and security of Oaths to preserve the US. CONST. in face of misprision of failing to enforce presidential qualifications by election officers.
Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for President to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny, rather than its prior cases on protecting individual civil rights.
A. Stringency of qualifications The U.S. CONSTITUTION explicitly requires a progressively increasing stringency in qualifications for higher levels of officers of government. See Table 1.
1. Increasing Responsibility Representatives represent a portion of a State (< 30,000 citizens per U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para 3). Senators have greater responsibility to represent a State and the Nation’s interests. The President is responsible for the entire Nation. In light of their increasing responsibilities, the CONSTITUTION imposes increasingly stringent qualifications for Congressional offices, with the greatest stringency for the President.
2. Increasing Maturity The minimum age increases from 25 to 30 to 35 years for Representatives, Senators and the President. After coming of age at 21, this requires from 4 years to 9 years to 14 years of maturity. The President must have 350% the adult maturity of Representatives.
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration The qualification of citizenship increases from 7 years to 9 years for Representatives, and Senators (no residency). ( U.S. CONST. art. I, §3 para. 3U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5 Each Member of Congress must be a “citizen” U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para. 2; U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5. The features distinguishing “natural born citizen” from “citizen” are critical to this and other cases contesting respondent Obama’s qualifications.

Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications

Member of Congress President
Repre-sentative Senator Commander in Chief
Responsi-bility Part State State All States
Minimum Age years 25* 30** 35***
Citizen/
Resident 7 years citizen* 9 years citizen** 14 years a resident ***
Citizen Type Any * Any ** Natural born ***
US allegiance Sole or divided Sole or divided Undivided
Father a citizen Option Option Yes
Mother a citizen Option Option Yes
Naturalized Option+ Option+ No+
Born in US jurisdiction Option+ Option+ Yes (or Residency)+
*U.S. CONST. art. I, §1; **U.S. CONST. art. I, §3; ***U.S. CONST. art. II, §1; +U.S. CONST. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements

Petitioner submits that the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the President must be more stringent than “citizen”, both by logic, and by inference from the gradation of constitutional qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President.
However, “citizen” is a binary qualification. As “natural born citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, what are the constitutional criteria for establishing for this greater stringency? The “jurisdiction” of birth, allegiance or citizenship of each parent at an individual’s birth, and the individual’s own actions regarding allegiance on coming of age create multiple subcategories of “citizen”. Following are distinctions between “naturalized”, “native”, and “natural born” citizens as shown in the CONSTITUTION, by the Founders, and by contemporary authorities.
6. Founders all U.S. citizens By U.S. CONST., art. VII para. 3, the U.S.A. is dated by “the independence of the United States of America the twelfth” codifying that it was established by the Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776). On adoption of the U.S. CONST. numerous candidates for Representatives and Senators satisfied the requirements of “citizen”, having 7 or 9 years of citizenship, and age per & §3. If Respondent Obama had been a U.S. “citizen” for 9 years and was at least 30 years age he would have qualified on his election to the Senate.
7. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” However, DECLARATION (U.S. 1776)377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944)231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) ” Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)
de Vattel’s Law of Nations widely quoted by the Founders. de Vattel stated: 
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ..” Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens and Nations, p 101 para 212; cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).

2. ” William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
Blackstone in reviewing the Common Law stated:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, . . . aliens, such as are born out of it. . . .
. . .every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, . . .” Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
Both de Vattel and Blackstone thus state that children born of two citizens in that nation are natural-born citizens. RPE Obama has not shown evidence that both his biological parents were U.S. citizens.
D. Primary allegiance passes through fathers In the Judeo-Christian legal tradition, allegiance flows through the father. Bible Ruth 4:6; de Vattel and Blackstone affirm this principle:
“ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.” de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 para 212.

“ . . .so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .” William Blackstone, Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)

RPE Obama has not shown evidence his father was a natural-born US citizen.
E. Birth to Colonials not US, “natural born” George Washington was born to colonials of Virginia, and John Adams to colonials of Massachussetts. Both were born “native” to those Colonies, and “overseas” to Britain. Yet by the exception clause, the Founders implied that the restriction to U.S. “natural born citizen” disqualified both from becoming U.S. President. The CONSTITUTION’S exclusion clause by application disqualifies all U.S. citizens born to colonial fathers subject to the British sovereign.
F. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial RPE Obama has posted: 
“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.” http://www.Fightthesmears.org
(Technically the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar until Kenya gained independence in 1963.) 
The divorce decree for RPE Obama’s parents has recently been posted. (http://www.plainsradio.com). 
“That one child has been born to said Libelant and Libeled as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.” HI, 1st Cir. Domestic Relations, divorce decree D. No. 57972 Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama p 2 §IV. 

The Hawaii court thus confirms RPE Obama’s statements. 
RPE Obama acknowledged that he had foreign allegiance, being a British citizen at birth through his Kenyan father (per British law provided exceptions for children born overseas to ambassadors, merchants, and citizens:
“Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: . . .all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:” Blackstone Commentaries 154-57.

After adoption of the Constitution, Congress adapted this common law distinguishing between children born overseas vs those within the jurisdiction of the US, describing them as “citizen” rather than natural born citizen. Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795), (with variations in 1790 and 1798.)
If born overseas, RPE Obama has not submitted proofs that he was born to two US citizens.
I. Commander in Chief in time of war The U.S. CONST. art II §2 provides: 
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;” 

Petitioner submits that this unique constitutional duty of Commander in Chief provides a critical constitutional principle differentiating the qualifications of “national born citizen” for president vs “citizen” for Members of Congress.
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote George Washington: 
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on 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.”Records Federal Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787)

Jay expressly defined the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the “commander in chief of the American army” as excluding all “Foreigners” with allegiance to foreign sovereigns. Washington acknowledged his “hint” and this qualification of “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution without further discussion.
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief Senator Charles Pickney affirmed Jay’s restrictive qualification, stating:
“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800)

Petitioner respectfully submits that the underlying constitutional principle on the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” to become President is that of requiring undivided allegiance to the U.S.A. for the Commander in Chief to “insure attachment to the country” and exclude “Foreigners”.
On adopting the CONSTITUTION, the United States was just recovering from an existential war with the superpower Britain. The US endured ongoing conflict with Britain impressing US citizens for its ships, over this issue of the allegiance of native or naturalized citizens “natural born citizens”. Britain demanded the allegiance of all US citizens born in the colonies, or whose father was a British citizen, and who thus were not “natural born” with both parents being US citizens. In 1812 the US was forced to go to war with Britain to resolve this festering issue of allegiance to Britain.
5. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” US Const. Art. III, §3. As Commander in Chief, the President must guard against Treason. 
During the War for Independence, General Greene reported: “Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold who commanded at West Point . . . was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab.” Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778. 

Though a U.S. citizen and war hero, Benedict Arnold had been born under allegiance to Britain and his wife has strong allegiance to Britain. In light of the Founders’ painful experience during their recent War of Independence, the Treason section reinforces the principle that “natural born citizen”as qualification for Commander in Chief is to exclude citizens having any foreign allegiance. I.e., to select Presidents having only ever had sole allegiance with both biological parents and adoptive parents being US citizens.
Since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on “9/11″, the US has been at “war on terrorism”. This enemy is not a nation state but radical Islamic religious faction bent on imposing its religious views through force. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country. 
Similarly, Petitioner submitted affidavits detailing how relatives of RPE Obama in Kenya have used violence to subjugate Christians, coerce elections, coerce the government into granting political power (establishing a Prime Minister without constitutional amendment.) Petitioner documented RPE Obama as having aided and abetted this coercive effort.
RPE Obama has failed to show that he is free of foreign influence as necessary for a Commander in Chief in time of war.
6. Avoid dual nationality through a parent Tories retaining allegiance to the British sovereign were a major part of the “enemy” during the US War of Independence. The Founders’ experience directs an explicit avoidance of citizens having near relatives with foreign allegiance as a threat of direct opposition or of becoming traitors. This infers that “natural born citizen” should be interpreted to mean that both parents of the Commander in Chief should be U.S. citizens. Adoptive parents should also be U.S. citizens.
Petitioner documents that RPE Obama had Indonesian citizenship evidenced by school records and parents divorce decree. Petitioner submits that the core purpose of “natural born citizen” is that of allegiance to safeguard against tyranny. The issue is thus whether RPE Obama retained sole allegiance to the USA per requirements for a Commander in chief in time of war, rather than his personal civil rights of citizenship or if he lost his citizenship (cf Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325).
7. Avoid dual nationality through birth place Foreign birth establishes foreign allegiance (dual citizenship). During World War II, Hitler recalled US citizens with dual nationality or German parentage. Pierce O’Donnell, In Time of War: Hitler’s Terrorist Attack on America, 2005. Some were trained sent back to sabotage the US war effort. By the sovereignty of the U.S., Congress has the absolute power 
“to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in. . . .The United States, . . . are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889)

Making an Alien the Commander in Chief would incur the danger of the US losing “its absolute independence and security”by descent into tyranny. Pickney restricting the President from foreigners applies this power to exclude aliens and applies it to excluding any citizen with foreign allegiance, by birth or adoption, from becoming Commander in Chief, lest they endanger the U.S.’s “absolute independence and security.”
J. Natural Born under Amendment 14 Citizenship rights In ” John A. Bingham, appointed Union Army Judge Advocate by Lincoln, crafted the 14th Amendment (final April 28, 1866.) Bingham himself affirmed the narrow interpretation of “natural born citizen” clause stating:
“[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…. .” Rep. John A. Bingham, re S 61 Bill, March 9, 1866. 

He confirmed de G. J. Chin, reviews U.S. SC cases finding that in Insular Cases, “persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.” Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Mich. Law. Rev. 1st Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008, 
S.H. Duggin & M. B. Collins (Feb. 2005) provide a detailed review, arguing that “natural born citizen” is unfair. ‘Natural Born’ in the USA’ Boston Univ. Law Rev. However, they omitted the key contemporary definition of Petitioner submits that the Constitution places the burden of proof to qualify on the President elect. All officers sworn to uphold the Constitution including election officers in Congress, the Electoral College and all States have the duty to challenge and test those qualifications, and to declare that the President elect (or candidate) has qualified or failed to qualify.
The Petitioner and public record indicate explicit active refusal by the RPE Obama to submit any government certified witnessed proofs that he qualifies for President.
The restrictive qualification “natural born citizen” is essential to preserve the Constitution and the Republic from descending into tyranny. It should be guided by the underlying constitutional principle of enforcing sole allegiance to the United States and to exclude all candidates with any foreign allegiance through the allegiance of either birth parent or by any adoptive parent, or by the President elect’s own actions.
Petitioner humbly submits that this Court should therefore affirm the Petitioner’s Motion and find that the Respondent, President Elect Barack Hussein Obama II has failed in his constitutional burden of proof to qualify for President.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

No. 08A524 

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

GAIL LIGHTFOOT, NEIL B. TURNER, KATHLEEN FLANAGAN, 
JAMES M. OBERSCHAIN, CAMDEN W. MCCONNELL, 
PAMELA BARNETT, & EVELYN BRADLEY 
Petitioners;

v.

DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California

Respondent.

APPENDIX
On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The 
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)

MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT 
BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT 
UNDER US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II §1, & 
AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691
949-683-5411

January 15, 2009

VI. APPENDIX
A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify David L. Hagen submitted to Congress the following Petition for redress of grievances that Barack Obama II failed to qualify to become President. 

“Re: Petition for Point of order: Barack H. Obama II is not qualified to become president.
Grievance: Barry Soetoro/a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II is not qualified to become president, having had primary allegiances to other nations, and not providing unambiguous evidence he is a “natural born Citizen” without other allegiance, to satisfy the Constitution Article 2 Sect. 1.
Prayer: By your oath to uphold the Constitution, your privilege to raise a Point of Order, by the 10th Amendment powers retained by We the People, and by the right of petition for redress of grievances, I pray that you cosign/raise an Objection/Point of Order in Congress on January 8th 2009, with a member of the other House, on the reading of each State’s electoral certificates/of the total vote for Barack Hussein Obama II, per 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15, §17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1), namely:
“We/I Object/raise a Point of Order that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not qualified to become president per the Constitution Article Two, §1, having “Foreign Allegiances” by birth and adoption, by renouncing US citizenship, and by failing to provide unambiguous evidence that he is “a natural born Citizen” without other allegiance, election of a President who does qualify having precedence over other business of this House per Amend. 20 §3 and 3 U.S.C. 1. In particular:
1 Mr. Obama having had conflicting “Foreign Allegiance”(s) cannot become Commander in Chief having sole allegiance to the USA, and thus cannot qualify as “a natural born Citizen”.
1.1 Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barak Obama, has first allegiance to Indonesia, having Indonesian citizenship with renunciation of US citizenship, by adoption/legal acknowledgment by Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a citizen of Indonesia, per Constitution of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Art. 2 (1), as required to enroll in Indonesian schools, per school records and travel to Pakistan in 1981; and
1.2 Mr. Obama had first allegiance to the British Crown and to Kenya, being born a citizen of Kenya through his Kenyan birth father Barack Obama, Sr., per Chapter VI. Sections 87 and 97 of the Constitution of Kenya; and being a bipatride under the Historians and experts estimate that about 100-176 million were executed or starved by dictators and tyrants – in the 20th century. E.g., typical ranges from Hagen & Irish (2000): 
Murder by Government
Tyrant Civilians killed
Mao Tse-tung, China 50-70 million
Stalin, USSR 20-40 million
Hitler, Europe 10-20 million
Lenin, USSR 4 million
Talaat Pasha, Turkey 2 million
Sudan Arab vs Nebo 2 million
Franco, Spain 2 million
Pol Pot, Cambodia 1.7 million
Kim Il-sung, N. Korea 1 million?
Mengistu, Ethiopia 1 million
Sukarno, Indonesia 0.6-1 million
Rawanda Hutu v. Tutsi 800,000
Tito, Yugoslavia 500,000
Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam 200,000
Milosovic, Yugoslavia 200,000
Nehru-Gandhi, India 200,000

The greatest danger to the People and the USA is not external but INTERNAL. Dictators have killed about three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars.
Republics and Democracies succumbing to Tyrants
At least thirty three Democracies succumbed to tyrants in the 20th Century when they failed to uphold Oaths and constitutions. Taken from Hagen & Irish (2000):
Argentina: Juan Peron; Cambodia: Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge; USSR – Ukraine: Stalin; USSR – Russia: Stalin; China: Mao Tse-Tung & China’s “Great Leap Forward”; Central African Republic: Jena-Bédal Bokassa; Cote D’Ivoire: Felix Houphouet-Boigny; Dominican Republic: Diederich B ernard Trujillo; Germany: Adolf Hitler, GDR; Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah; Haiti: Dr. François Duvalier; Indonesia: Sukarno, Suharto; Iran: Shah Pahlavi, Khomeini; Iraq: Sadam Hussein; Italy: Benito Mussolini; Malawi: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda; Malaysia: Dr. Mahathir Mohammad; North Korea: Kim Il-Song; Panama: General Noriega; Philippines: President Ferdinand Marcos; Romania: Ion Antonescu, Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolea Ceausescu; Rome: Julius Caesar, Nero, Domitian; Senegal: Leopold Sedar Senghor; Spain: Prima De Rivera, General Francisco Franco; Sudan: Arab-Islamist military; Tanzania: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere; Turkey: Prime Minister Talaat Pasha (Ottomon Empire); Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Nyazov; Uganda: Idi Amin; Uruguay: Gregorio Alvarez; Zaire: Mobutu Sese Seko; Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe.

F. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
The Declaration and Resolves, Continental Congress, Tansill 1–5 #2 (14 Oct. 1774) preserved ‘immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution and the several Charters.’ These included ‘rights, liberties, and immunities’ and ‘common law’ via their ancestors. Those Codes, Charters, Acts and ‘unalienable rights’ acknowledged God and were secured by swearing before God. 
When King and Parliament breached their unalienable rights, the Colonies interposed, establishing the U.S.A. by the DECLARATION to restore the Rule of Law: 
The Rule of “[Law] depends not upon the arbitrary will of any judge; but is permanent, fixed, and unchangeable, unless by authority of parliament.” 1 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (p 138, 1765).
‘to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Declaration para. 2.

People codified and ratified Constitutions to secure these principles.

“In the government . . . the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, . . . the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION § XXX (1780).

Quotations on the Rule of Law and Ancient liberties:

“[T]he charter; . . . the divine law, the Word of God; . . . in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” 
Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

‘Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society.’ John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690)
Whether the supreme law . . . be above the king. . . . People may resume their power. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex Ques. IX, XXV (1644).

‘Leave all causes to be measured by the golden and straight mete-wand of the law, and not to the incertain and crooked cord of discretion.’ Sir Edward Coke 4 Inst. 41 (1628).

The Rule of Law was embodied in the Bible’s MOSAIC CODE with public consent. Exodus 20:2-17, Deut. 4:13. The COMMON LAW ‘Dooms’ (Code) of Alfred (880) began with the Decalogue and Golden Rule verbatim. Lee (1997). ‘[H]aving regard to God,’ Archbishop Stephen Langton and the barons interposed, bringing King John, the Chief Justice and all civil powers back under the Rule of Law by the MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215) (restoring the CHARTER OF LIBERTIES, 1 Henry, 1100), securing it by redress petition. Parliament interposed, binding the King by the Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 (1689), codifying Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688), to preserve redress petition, interposition, and alternatives for conscience sake. 
G. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of LawThe People secured the CONSTITUTION and Justice on Theism, mandating swearing before God of everyone exercising governmental authority or testifying in court. U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶ 3, amendments I, IX, X and XIV.
To obey Jesus’ commands some people refuse to swear: “But I tell you, Do not swear at all: . . . but let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’, ‘No’; . . .” Matt. 5:33-37 NIV. For conscience’ sake, the CONST. Art. VI, ¶ 3 provides the alternative of ‘Affirmation’ to ‘Oath.’ This embodies the First Principle: 
Provide alternatives for the sake of conscience, whenever government touches religion, especially involving deeply held sectarian religious practices, like swearing before God. SC Justice James Iredell defined the Oath as: 
“a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most,” 
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). 

He described other forms of oaths for other religions. 28 U.S.C. § 453, requires each Judge or Justice to “solemnly swear (or affirm) [to] administer justice.” Alternatives to militia duty and union fees are provided for conscientious objectors and those with religious convictions. 10 U.S.C. 312b; 29 U.S.C. 169. 
The DECLARATION para. 32U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶ 3.U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, ¶ 6.; 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858).Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). (1787)
U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, para. 6.U.S. CONST., art. II, § 1, para. 8.U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶2, 3
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 
U.S. CONST., amend. I 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added.)
U.S. CONST., amend. IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
U.S. CONST., amend. X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. CONST., amend. XX §3
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 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 are 13 comments in this article:

  1. 01/15/2009Ted says:

    The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

  2. 01/16/2009I remember says:

    “Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?”

    That’s a very badly worded question.

    It is not a question of whether to interpret the NBC clause expansively or strictly, but rather it must be understood historically, since there is no precedent for it being understood in any other sense. To ask the question as has been done here is to give SCOTUS a golden opportunity to rewrite the Constitution by playing word games.

    This petition will be the disaster of us!

  3. 01/16/2009Poppet says:

    The Supreme Court, as well as the Media, has obviously been “ducking” OUR Constitutional Law. I wonder what went on behind
    “Closed Door’s” when Obama & Biden went to visit the Supreme Court?
    Most American’s are not aware of Obama’s Ineligibility to be
    President by Law. The one’s that do know have tried in vain to
    Protect our Constitution. It now seems to me that Obama will only
    be “ousted” when he cannot fulfill all of his promises he made during his false Campaign. Let’s hope that the Brave and True prevail, and keep OUR Constitution “intact” and continue to be a Nation of Freedom and Prosperity for all of Mankind.
    I include “Phil’s” Excellent and Courageous website at the end
    of all my e-mail’s. Daniel Smith, Ridge, NY.

  4. 01/16/2009Dennis Lee says:

    May God be with you Orly, I pray the Constitution Will Prevail.

  5. 01/16/2009Today’s Blogs: January 16, 2008 says:

    [...] Dr. Orly Taitz, lead counsel in Lightfoot v. Bowen, today filed the following motion to declare that the President-Elect fails to qualify under Article 2, Section 1 and Amendment 20 (including Rule 21 (2)(B) and (4), as shown below) of the Constitution. Read the full post here… [...]

  6. 01/16/2009Howard Appel says:

    First question: How does Dr. Taitz speak for “we the people?” He certainly doesn’t speak for me or the millions of other persons, all citizens, who voted for Obama.

    Second: Dr. Taitz seems to be able to find language in the Constitution that isn’t there. My copy of the Constitution says:

    “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.”

    I don’t see anywhere in there that requires (a) “Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof, or (b) certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S. or (c) that the President (not the Commander in Chief) should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US. This certainly seems like someone who is “interpreting” the Constitution and seeking the exercise of, dare I say it, “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.”

    Also, what are all these citations to how many people have died in other countries around the world. This is an American court and we don’t use fuzzy social science and international standards or other things to interpret or apply our laws. That sounds so “French.”

  7. 01/16/2009Phil says:

    Mr. Appel,

    A couple of points:

    1. Dr. Orly Taitz is female who is originally from Russia (I forget the specific location); as you may be able to observe from her behavior, she has a serious distaste for any kind of statist regimes, such as communism or socialism;

    2. While it is obviously true that the Constitution doesn’t specifically define Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 RE: natural born citizen, apparently Dr. Taitz has reason to believe that (1) the President-Elect is ineligible for the presidency; (2) she has evidence to substantiate such a claim; and (3) she thinks the Court ought to order the President-Elect to unseal such documents that would confirm or verify his eligibility.

    Naturally (pun intended), she may or may not be correct in her assertions. But, then again, that’s what this process is all about. Conclusions pertaining to whether or not she’s presenting a good case are another discussion.

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  8. 01/17/2009Pete says:

    Phil,

    Nice post, it is both eloquent and accurate. Responding to the obamabots, in the hope of changing minds, is somewhere just beyond futile. They don’t really care if Obama is eligible or if the Constitution is up-held. Those supporters have become ‘religious’ in their zeal in support, ignoring any and all who question them, or their previous vote.

    What is fundamental is the process. Following that process will provide everyone with an acceptable answer to the current dilemma. The obamabots don’t want the process, they FEAR the process. Their impetus is the fear, and it is manifest by the frequent slanders, misquotes of Hawaiian officials, lack of providing documents, and personal attacks. They are not ignorant to the circumstances, they understand the ramifications, and know that a potentially serious problems exists.

    The obamabots are afraid and embarrassed that they may have ‘voted’ for the wrong person. I would remind them that it really takes decades to determine the historically a good from a bad POTUS. Many thought Jimmy Carter was a messiah from the plains in the 1970’s, or that Harry Truman was horrible, only to find a different historical interpretation. Obama might yet still be a great POTUS, and he might yet still be corrupt/incompetent. POTUS come, POTUS go. ‘We the People’ need to invest more vigor into the defending the Constitution, than defending any single POTUS.

  9. 01/17/2009Phil says:

    Pete,

    It is my hope — albeit perhaps in vain — that an opponent of the eligibility issue would finally step forward — I don’t care on which blog or forum — and present rational and logical evidence as to why this entire debate is a moot point.

    Instead, all that I ultimately see is, “you people are a bunch of [insert favorite nice-or-not-so-nice pejorative here].”

    That is a grade-school, “na-na-na-na-boo-boo,” juvenile remark and has absolutely no basis in rationality; it does, as you’ve pointed out, have a basis in fear. Further, and unfortunately, some take this kind of reaction and give up ground, as it were, thinking that they really are whatever name they’re being called, as if to raise a question makes one inherently incompetent.

    Honestly — since when does raising a question against a politician become so taboo? I simply do not understand that premise.

    In fact, I’ll go one step further (and the dear opponents need to take note of this, copy and paste it, and really go forth and cogitate):

    For those who, say, wish to impeach President George W. Bush, why not go after him on the basis of, say, McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform? Did that piece of legislation, which he signed into law, constrict 1st Amendment freedoms? Yes? Well then, could one not consider that unconstitutional? Hello!

    Thanks for the comment,

    -Phil

  10. 01/17/2009Pete says:

    Phil,

    You definitely get it. We should question them all. That is what Thomas Jefferson expected us to do. The exaggerated defense of an individual politician from simple scrutiny is illogical. How do you debate someone who no longer sees this truth?

  11. 01/20/2009Maureen says:

    Well the Constitution said all men were created equal, but yet we had segergation in this country. Now, going by your theory, Howard, that millions voted for Obama, and she does not speak for us and has no right to stand for ‘we the people’ I’d like to point out the millions of people stood by and allowed such acts to fellow Americans to take place back in our time that were wrong.

    So, was it wrong on King and others, who may not have been speaking for the millions to stand up and challenge something becuase it was against what was in the Constitution?

    I mean should the minority conform to the majority? If that be the case then this is not a Republic is it? That would be more like a socialist society.

    Because you see, dear Obama suppoter, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose out of the Constitution when it suits you. It is the law of the land and any of us, have as much right to question and challenge our government on behalf of the ‘people’ by Constutition regardless of what the millions may think.

    My individual rights are just as worthy and valuable as a hundred million Americans combined.

  12. 01/20/2009Joanofarc says:

    Our Government is a Disgrace
    I have always supported whichever Presidential candidate won the election regardless of whether I actually voted for them. However, this will be the first time that I have felt such contempt for any individual as I feel for Obama and the Democratic Party which failed to fulfill their responsibility in assuring me and the American people that their candidate met all the requirements to enable his qualification to run as the Presidential nominee. Nancy Pelosi should be impeached for her role in the cover up as well as the other top officials in the Democratic Party. Very few of the Democratic Party voices their concerns and those that did (Joe Biden was definitely not one of them as he didn’t want to lose his V.P. position) will receive my utmost appreciation and gratitude for they have displayed the courage and integrity our country was founded on.
    When given the chance of correcting the situation they purposely continued the charade promoting Obama by excessive advertising contracts through the media to provide one-sided commentary, the propaganda approach that Stalin and Hitler used to weaken and influence the minds of their people.—The word is-communism when only one side is viewed. I wrote to the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. indicating my concerns and asking that they collect these documents but to no avail.
    I have heard about racism, but never thought it would be used so freely against us throughout this year’s campaign to gain favor with the American people or strike fear into our government so severely that they would disregard the safety and stability of our country rather than upset the black American voter. I do not care who runs as a Presidential candidate, he can be black, red, white, etc., but I do care what he is. Obama is a liar and a fraud who has destroyed the very purpose why our Constitution was formed—- to eliminate the potential of foreign powers to enter the confines of our government. When a candidate refuses to provide documentation to support his qualification, he should have been promptly removed from the ballot.
    There were sufficient complaints/petitions filed with the various states courts and then the Supreme Court to demand collection of these documents, but they chose to ridicule us instead. According to Honorable (a title he does not deserve) R. Barclay Surrick, ordinary citizens cannot take action to ensure that a Presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of that office and voters do not have standing to bring about the sort of challenge we as Plaintiffs were attempting to bring. The Judicial Branch prefers to defer this type of situation to Congress (passing the buck) knowing full well since Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and the Democratic Committee was responsible for Obama’s lack of qualification and in a large part the Democratic Party (with the exception of a few) were responsible for the financial crisis we are dealing with today, there would be little hope they would impeach Obama willingly. Honorable R. Barclay Surrick further takes exception to derailing the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primaries in living memory—a bias decision on his part. The manner of vetting that took place again McCain and Palin alone was a disgrace. He seems to forget that the disparity in the popular vote was not that much off from Obama, so we deserve and demand likewise consideration.
    It is the prime responsibility of all governmental officials to perform the total responsibilities of their jobs in a non-bias fashion basing their decisions solely on supporting documentation and not on personal, religious or political beliefs. Now since I found out he is a Democrat, I now know he is in violation of the basic rule—he cannot separate his political favoritism over that of his judicial obligation. He likewise should be impeached. A situation which could have been cleared up readily if proper documentation would have been submitted but was pushed aside not caring what civil unrest could result. What has our government become when it promotes violence by their mere disregard and is willing to use violent force to regain the peace they could have had if they merely took appropriate action. Yet they find it easier to broadcast the deployment of government forces to put down any disapproving American citizens, similar to Stalin and Hitler’s approach to differences of opinion.

    We didn’t ask them to lie, all we asked for was assurance Obama is the individual he professes to be. What harm could have been done if Obama was telling the truth. Since he has refused to submit the documents listed in our attached petition we can only assume he was not telling the truth. He has circumvented our constitution and could even be a Muslim traitor infiltrating the confines of our government at the highest level possible. This disregard in lieu of the terrorist attack on our World Trade Center by Islamin/Muslims alone should have demanded Obama produce valid evidence to support his statement that he was not a Muslim. Yet we take him at his word.
    Why should we waste our tax dollars setting up the Department of Home Security when they don’t care about the safety of our country by showing total disregard to any valid concerns from ordinary citizens, which they claim have no rights! We have as much right as everyone else and more so since very few others care about their country. Our rights to be heard were taken away by the government whom we thought was formed for the people and by the people but now no longer works for us but against us. It is all about power and greed. Was the Department of Home Security therefore a vision set up with no forethought since it was not brought into the picture, therefore its purpose a farce when it is sitting aimlessly awaiting the next attack to be put into force!
    Our government instructed people to become more aware of suspicious activity, but when we call an issue of extreme concern to their attention they just laugh us off. They have become so complacent in their attitude thinking the obvious can never happen and instead take safe guards against the citizens whose very concerns are to keep our country safe rather than take it against those who can do the most harm and already have by causing chaos within the financial arena of our government.
    This goes beyond race, but the Democratic Party has made it about race to cover up their failure to properly qualify an individual! To make matters worse our government has participated in the fraud. The top officials in our Judicial System should likewise be impeached for the part they played in this charade. No political figure should be allowed to remain in a position when they have performed in such a deplorable manner.
    As part of the financial disaster caused by Obama and the Democratic Party, we will now be rewarded with an extremely generous stimulus package, which won’t be fully implemented until after Obama takes office but not before so he can receive the full glory for its inception and receive the citizens gratitude for placing us more in debt then we already are to foreign countries. As of Oct. 2008 China holds $653 billion in U.S. Treasury Securities and Japan holds $586 billion, Caribbean Banking Centers $220 billion, Oil Exporters $188 billion not to mention 23 other foreign countries with another category of “all others” holding $160 billion. Who makes up the Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil Exporters or the “all other” category is scary. How much is held by the Islamic/Muslim world or other less desirables is unknown. I would like to know what would happen when any of the top foreign countries decide they want to cash in on these securities.
    In addition to the U.S. Treasury securities which our government has willing sold to foreign countries, comes the interest we have to pay them on these securities. Since our government is already operating in the red, where do you think the money for the buyouts and stimulus package are coming from, the sale of additional U.S. Treasury securities requiring repayment plus interest on top of those already mentioned above at our expense and those of our children, grandchildren and great great grandchildren.
    Obama when he is sworn is will be known as the GREATEST IMPOSTER IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY with the help of the Democratic Party who knowingly selected and promoted him regardless of his disqualification in their eagerness to gain control of the White House. Our government should be held in contempt for the charade they have allowed to take place due to their lack of courage and integrity by refusing to take action, especially since the celebration ceremony involved so many high level individuals for whom they did not want to cause distress, or is this also a case of corruption at the highest level of our government.
    I am extremely annoyed with Nancy Pelosi engaging in foreign policy and opening dialogs with foreign powers. She has overstepped her authority. Since she was not elected at large by us as the Speaker, she should not be speaking on behalf of the people of the United States. Regardless of what President Bush did or did not due, she owes allegiance to our country and to the President until such time as he leaves office and her deliberately denouncing the President in public shows lack of character that our country does not need. Especially appalling is the expense of any trips she has made at our expense. I feel Condoleezza Rice has done an excellent job so why is she interfering. It has been indicated that she has the right since she would be the next person to assume the Presidency if Obama leaves office. Is this something she is anticipating will happen suddenly? That is rather scary! I hope not, for her actions even with purposely pushing through legislation exceeding Bush’s budget limits when Bush already instructed he would veto any such action, she has wasted valuable time and money in defiance to Bush’s mandate. Is this the other reason why Congress stalled the Fannie Mae/Freddie Max needed legislation which Bush and McCain advised needed additional controls and drastic immediate action? Pelosi and the Democratic Party refused to budge therefore creating a large part of the financial disaster we are dealing with today, blame of which they have placed solely with the Republican Party. The degree of animosity she has shown in purposely disrupting the functions of the Congress to get back at the President for not giving in to her demands is below the standards of someone in her position and certainly would not be someone I would even consider representing our country. It’s bad enough with the back stabbing that went on during the Presidential campaign between both parties that were running for office, but it is unacceptable when it is done outside that particular arena just to gain points since Bush has been found unfavorable. She is not running for office according to our records.

  13. 01/24/2009Marcia says:

    We are not duped by anyone as you think we are. We know that the Constituion is a Law of the land and if you break this law you will be punished. Article 2 a person has to be 35 years of age and both parents of US desent.
    Obama in his books, website and in his acceptance speach afer he was sworn in as President Said”My father was Kenyan and he came to America for education. My mother was too young to transfer her citizenshipt to me.” That makes him a British Subject and also Kenyan. Obama also said he has duel citizenship One in Kenya and One in USA. We do not recognize duel citizenship.

Write a comment:

You have to log in to write a comment.