2nd Amended Complaint - Craig V. United States

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma Steven Lee Craig 1309 Hisel Rd . Del City , Oklahoma 73115

Plaintiff Vs. The United States of America C/o U.S. Attorney Washington, D.C. Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case

No.

10th

Civ-09-0343-F

Circuit

09-6082

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT NOW

COMES,

Steven

Constitutionally

Lee

Craig,

recognized

Claiming

form

of

to

be

of

Citizenship

known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That I

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma Cont.; publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,

“The Law

of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically; BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES. CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.§ 212. Citizens and natives. “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on Cont.; II

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833), of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845 Volume 3: § 1473. “It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced Cont.; (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those III

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy Cont.; within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to IV

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.” The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws

Cont.; of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel. Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage, V

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma “…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…” in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”. Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America

were

necessarily

Naturalized

by

the

Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as

that

generation

of

First

Citizens

passed

it

would devolve to the Second Generation of those

Cont.; Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this above

conforming and

as

with

also

Vattel’s

considered

Representatives as found in;

VI

definition in

the

noted

House

of

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's debates,Volume4]Seamen's Bill.-For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States. House of Representatives, February, 1813. Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power--the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning Cont.; which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited VII

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved. In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”

Cont.; Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first

paragraph

Naturalized

is

Citizens

referring as

being

to the

the

First

natural

born

citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized circumstance,

citizens beget

who, their

with own

time

and

natural

born

citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the

political

and

natural VIII

world.

In

the

second

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has

no

Article

mandate II

to

Section

‘abridge’ I

Clause

the V

authority

of

thereby

the

and

inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature

in

the

performance

promulgate

laws

of

Fourteenth

Amendment

of

the

naturalization. or

the

mandate Neither

Nineteenth

to the

Amendment

abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the

Cont.; source

of

increased

future and

in

natural the

born

latter

citizens the

source

was of

conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents. The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “…[E]very human jurisdiction of

being born within the the United States of IX

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,'" Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the

Nineteenth

allegiance

to

Amendment, any

with

foreign

each

“not

owing

sovereignty”,

which

implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.

Cont.; That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations

sovereignty.

Government

and

the

The

first

Citizens

duty thereof

of is

the to

‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of X

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma the United States of America. That the Government is

‘of

the

People,

by

the

People

and

for

the

People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest

regard,

the

greatest

interest,

and

the

greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who

Cont.; have

longest

been

bound

and

blessed

by

the

liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel; “…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it…” JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This case involves diversity of citizenship and

this Court has jurisdiction pursuant

XI

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma to 28 U.S.C. §1343 (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357 2. This case further arises under the Constitution and

laws

of

the

United

States

and

presents

a

federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Cont.; 3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3). The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress. Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation. III. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff,

Steven Lee Craig 1309 Hisel Rd. Del City, OK 73115

10. Defendant,

The United States of America XII

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma

Cont.; FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION Claimant

incorporates

by

reference

all

of

the

foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length. Claimant alleges that the United States of America and,

specifically,

appointed

or

the

otherwise

Representatives engaged

in

the

elected, publics

trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen XIII

as

a

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma specific form of Citizenship

acknowledged

within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution

Cont.; and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution

and

elsewhere,

thereby

violating

Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174; “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……” Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Justice O'Connor, concurring in the opinion; “There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution -- no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 XIV

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are Cont.; additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.” United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). “While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.

XV

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma Cont.; Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not

been

surrendered;

Constitutionally

recognized

political

of

and

that

being

circumstance,

nature,

that

the of

confers

the the

naturalness of a natural born citizen. Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born

Citizen

Rights

of

Due

violates Process

Claimants of

the

Fifth Law

in

Amendment that

the

Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the

Cont.; XVI

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by

the

distinctions

of

Citizenship

within

the

Constitution. Claimant alleges that the United States of America and,

specifically,

the

Representatives

elected,

appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform

Laws

of

discriminatory

in

that

the

natural

citizen,

has

omitted’

the

born

while

happenstance, Naturalization

every

Naturalization

new

been

of

and

Citizens

been

Citizenship,

‘excluded

circumstance,

possibility of

form

have

situation,

probability has

and

been

of and

continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.

Cont.; Claimant

alleges

that

unequal

treatment

has

occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal XVII

property

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma guaranteed by the Ratification

of

the

Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically,

the

Representatives

elected,

appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws

of

Naturalization,

by

the

“exclusion

and

omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that

citizenship

known

as

natural

born

citizen

within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and /

or

Regulations

hereto

promulgated

regarding

Citizenship and Naturalization. Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939) "The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to Cont.; selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power XVIII

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma which in many circumstances calling its exertion would be but a futility."

for

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment) “Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.” Claimant years

of

alleges

that,

Legislation

upon

recounting

regarding

the

222

Citizenship

and

Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise

Cont.; engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the

mandates

to

Legislate

administrations

the

Naturalization

uniform

Constitutional

forms

and

then

Legislated

of

without

Laws looking

Citizenship XIX

delegate

found

making to

the

within

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause

V,

and

the

intent

of

the

distinctions

thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges

of

the

American

form

of

Citizenship,

natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory

Un-Uniform

promulgation

Naturalization Laws. Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44 MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. “…By the early 1930's, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times Cont.; seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about "existing discriminations" XX

of

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…” Claimant alleges that the United States of America and,

specifically,

appointed trust,

in

Amendment

or

the

Representatives

otherwise having

Rights

engaged

violated by

in

elected,

the

publics

Claimants

Fourth

extension

have

violated

Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural

portion

of

Claimants

American

Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and Cont.; Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation

from

the

Constitution

and

the

internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”. Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form XXI

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights. Cont.; This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of [n35] democracies. It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]

XXII

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma … When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “

Cont.; Denationalization,

being

a

“punishment

more

primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than generational

ties

and

an

a severing of

involuntary

amputation

upon that Citizenship? WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:

XXIII

1.

An

The United States District Court For Western District of Oklahoma immediate Order of Declaratory

Judgement

expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”. 2.

Entry of Judgment

By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered

Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis

_________________________ Steven Lee Craig 1309 Hisel Rd . Del City , Oklahoma 73115 ( 405 ) 670 - 1784

XXIV