Florida Obama Ballot Challenge Natural Born Citizen Brief

7/31/2019 Florida Obama Ballot Challenge Natural Born Citizen Brief

1/16

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ, ))

Plaintiff, )

)vs. )

) Case No.: 2012CA00467

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al. ))

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________________ )

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF

"NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

Plaintiff has pled that Defendant Obama fails to meet the eligibility requirements for the

Presidency of the United States. This brief sets forth the rightful definition of "natural born

citizen," a requirement mandated by the Constitution, for eligibility to run for and hold the Office

of the President of the United States ("Office of the President" or "POTUS" or "President").

INTRODUCTION

In founding this country, the framers took great care in drafting and setting forth a new

form of government. The POTUS was established to become the leader of the nation. The

framers knew that this office, and the person elected to hold it, would command great power.

This elected President would be the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and

would negotiate treaties on behalf of all the states within the United States. In order to prevent

even a slight hint of foreign influence the framers set forth stringent requirements, more stringent

than for any other official positions within the United States government. The President of the


2/16

2

United States, they demanded, must be more than just a citizen. A citizen could be naturalized

after arriving from another country. A citizen could be born to foreign parents within the United

States soil. In either of these scenarios, this new "citizen" would, at least to some extent, hold

allegiances to foreign nations.

It was with this knowledge that the framers built in a more stringent requirement for

POTUS. The President would need to be a "natural born citizen." The term "natural born

citizen" was one who was born to two citizen parents. This term, used only once throughout the

entire Constitution, is the built in safeguard that the framers included to ensure that no foreign

influence would be allowed into the highest office of the United States.

THE LAW

Any discussion of eligibility must begin with the original text. Article II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of

the Constitution states:

"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."

As set forth below, it is clear based on the laws of statutory interpretation that there is a separate

and distinct meaning to the term "natural born citizen." It was with the specific intent of

distancing the President from foreign influence that the framers included this requirement. The

Supreme Court, in previously defining this term, has recognized the differences in the

terminology and has established that a "natural born citizen" is one who was born to two citizen

parents. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court


3/16

3

ruled that, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its

citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."Id. at 167.

I. The Intent Of The Framers Of The Constitution Establish That "Natural Born Citizens"

Are Those Born Within The Territory Of The United States To Two Citizen Parents

A. Under The Principles of Statutory Construction, The Term "Natural Born Citizen"

Must Be Defined Differently And Thus Has A Different Meaning Than The Term

"Citizen"

It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that where two different and

distinct terms have been used, each is to be given its own meaning. "As always, "`[w]here there

is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general

one, regardless of the priority of enactment.' ... Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 -551

(1974). . . Any argument that a federal court is empowered to exceed the limitations [of a

statute]. . . without plain evidence of congressional intent to supersede those sections ignores our

longstanding practice of construing statutes in pari materia. See United States v. United

Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 168 -169 (1976); Train v. Colorado Public Interest

Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 24(1976)." Crawford v. Gibbons, 482 U.S. 437, 445.

The rationale behind this rule is based on the intent of the statute's drafters. When

undertaking the important task of crafting law, the drafters of a statute certainly choose their

words carefully. The drafters' goal is to create a statement of the law that is as clear and concise

as possible. Thus, when an idea has been memorialized in one word or phrase, the drafter uses

that one word or phrase, and it alone, to communicate the idea, since the use of two or more

words or phrases would risk creating an interpretive ambiguity that would threaten to defeat

purposes of the law being drafted. It is the application of this principle that gives rise to the

question presently before this court.


4/16

4

No statutory drafters undertook their task with greater care than the framers of the

Constitution of the United States. Seeking to establish a new form of government, the framers

engaged in over four months of rigorous debate. The fact that the result of their efforts spans a

mere four pages is a testament to the framers' commitment to concisely stating the law and proof

of their intention that every word be given meaning. Thus, the requirement that the President be

a "natural born Citizen," a phrase used nowhere else in the Constitution, must be given a

meaning distinct from the term "citizen," a word employed on its own ten times within the

Constitution.

The context in which the framers use the unique phrase "natural born Citizen" further

establishes their intention that it be distinguished from the term "citizen." Under Article II of the

Constitution, eligibility to be President is only open to those who are "a natural born Citizen, or a

Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". This two-pronged

approach to satisfying the citizenship requirement for presidential eligibility clearly establishes

the fact that the framers contemplated a future citizen class distinct from "a Citizen of the United

States." A "natural born Citizen" must, therefore, possess qualifications that "a Citizen of the

United States" was unable to attain "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Thus, it is

necessary to identify these qualifications in order to define "natural born Citizen".

Firstly, naturalization must be eliminated as a means of attaining "natural born Citizen"

status because it was through naturalization that all "Citizens of the United States, at the time of

the Adoption of this Constitution" became citizens, having previously been citizens of England

or their various countries of origin. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to specify the two modes

of acquiring citizenship. By eliminating naturalization, only two qualifications for "natural born


5/16

5

Citizen" status can remain: birth within the territory of the United States and two United States

citizen parents.

The first qualification of a "natural born Citizen," birth within the territory of the United

States, could not have been attained by anyone prior to the founding of our country. Since the

United States was hardly more than a decade old at the time the Constitution was drafted, the

only persons that would meet this qualification would have been far too young to serve as

President, thus necessitating the provision for "Citizens of the United States, at the time of the

Adoption of this Constitution."

The second qualification of a "natural born Citizen," being born to two United States

citizen parents, was similarly unattainable by anyone prior to the founding of our country. This

additional requirement was necessary, however, since many British citizens remained within the

territory of the United States. As explained in greater detail below, the framers were acutely

concerned about the danger of foreign influence in POTUS. By requiring a person to be born to

two United States citizen parents, the framers insured that hostile foreign interests would not be

able to infiltrate the highest office of our fledgling country through a child born to foreign

citizens on United States soil.

B. The Framers' Goals In Restricting Eligibility For The Office Of The President Require

That "Natural Born Citizens" Be Born Within The Territory Of The United States To

Two Citizen Parents

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the United States was hardly more than a

decade old. With the Revolutionary War still fresh in their minds, the framers of the

Constitution were acutely aware of the country's susceptibility to foreign influence. In this

regard, the framers were centrally concerned with the Office of the President.


6/16

6

On July 25, 1787, in a letter to George Washington, who had been elected to preside over

the Constitutional Convention, future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay states:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong

check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national

Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the Americanarmy shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."1

Similarly, in Federalist 68, written in 1788, Alexander Hamilton, who himself was born

outside of the United States, recognized the need for the stringent requirements for the Office of

President of the United States:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should beopposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of

republican government might naturally have been expected to make theirapproaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreignpowers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better

gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the

Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the

most provident and judicious attention."

Federalist 68. The danger contemplated by Jay and Hamilton is very real. As the events of the

past two decades have taught us, hostile foreign powers are actively seeking to infiltrate our

society. Take the example of John Walker Lindh, the young man from California who was

recruited by Al Qaeda and fought against American forces in Afghanistan. Or Jose Padilla, an

American citizen, born in New York, who was arrested on suspicion of plotting to detonate a

"dirty bomb" in Chicago. Through the use of internet chat rooms, message boards and other

interactive websites, terrorist groups continue to spread anti-American messages and recruit new

American adherents to their violent mission to destroy our country.

1Available athttp://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1&level=1. (last

viewed on June 5, 2012) (Emphasis in original).
http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1&level=1http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1&level=1http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1&level=1http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1&level=1


7/16


8/16

8

Situations such as these demonstrate the potential conflicts that could arise as a result of

having a President with too close of ties to another country. With the revolutionary war fresh in

their minds, it is these scenarios that the framers of the Constitution sought to avoid by requiring

that the President be not only born within the territory of the United States, but also that both of

his or her parents be United States citizens. The division of a President's allegiance gives rise to

too great a danger to permit any lesser standard.

II. The Term "Natural Born Citizen" Has Been Historically Understood And Interpreted

To Require Birth Within The Territory Of The United States To Two Citizen Parents

The term that a natural born citizen was one born in the country with two citizen parents,

was the prevalent view of the time. In his landmark treatise "A Treatise on Citizenship,"

Alexander Peter Morse definitively stated the accepted law on "natural born citizen," "A citizen,

in the largest sense, is any native or naturalized person who is entitled to full protection in the

exercise and enjoyment of the so-called private rights. The natural born, or native is one who is

born in the country, of citizen parents." Morse, Alexander Peter,A Treatise on Citizenship pp. xi

(1881) See Exhibit 1(Attached). "Under view of the law of nations, natives, or natural born

citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Id. at 7.

III. The Supreme Court Has Interpreted The Term "Natural Born Citizen" To Require

Birth Within The Territory Of The United States To Two Citizen Parents

In defining the terms "citizen" and "natural born citizen," the Supreme Court similarly

followed the historical definitions. The definition of "citizen" was declared in the Fourteenth

Amendment as "[a]ll 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." U.S.

Cons. Amend. 14. "Citizen" was subsequently defined by the Supreme Court inMinor v.


9/16

9

Happersettas "a member of the nation, and nothing more."Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162,

166 (1875).

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, did not alter, or in any way address the

term "natural born citizen." The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted simply to ensure that

African Americans and their children would be considered citizens of the United States. The

Fourteenth Amendment did not alter, nor even address, the presidential requirement of "natural

born citizen."

The Supreme Court has similarly made clear that "citizen" and "natural born citizen"

were two distinct and separate terms. Less than a decade after the passage of the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Supreme Court clarified that" all children born in a country of parents who

were its citizens" were in turn "natural born citizens."Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167

(1875).

The term "natural born citizen" was a more selective classification that required more

than just birth on the soil. Natural born citizenship required both that the child was born on the

soil of the country, and also that the child was required to meet the rule of descent or blood.

The only other Supreme Court case that discusses the differences in the terminology is

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the definition of

"natural born citizen" was repeated from the earlierMinordecision. The Chinese parents of

Wong Kim Ark were working within San Francisco, CA when their son was born. The parents

had established a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." The Court ruled that

since the child's parents were not working as diplomats, and had no further allegiance to China,

that the child was a "citizen" at birth. Yet the Wong Kim ArkCourt decided only that the child

was a "citizen" as the litigants did not argue and the Court did not consider, claims that the child


10/16

10

was a "natural born citizen." Simply put, the definition of "natural born citizen" was not before

the Court. The case only decided that the child was born a citizen, while at the same time

reaffirming the definition of "natural born citizen" that was previously described inMinor.

It is clear based on the decisions of bothMinorand Wong Kim Arkthat the Supreme

Court has recognized the differing terms and differing meanings. Moreover, the Court also

defined "natural born citizen" as a child born to two citizen parents. No decision from that point

on, or Constitutional amendment, has ever altered the meaning that was understood at that

particular time. The requirements for "natural born citizen" still remain as being born in the

United States to two citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162; Morse, Alexander Peter,

A Treatise on Citizenship.

CONCLUSION

Under the rules of statutory construction, the unique phrase "natural born Citizen"

contained in Article II of the Constitution must be defined differently than the term "citizen." In

order to define this phrase, it is necessary to examine the context in which the phrase is

employed as well as sources outside the Constitution as the Supreme Court found in Minor, since

the Constitution does not contain definitions of its terms. By examining the context of the phrase

"natural born Citizen" and the goals of the framers of the Constitution, it becomes clear that a

"natural born Citizen" is one who is both born within the territory of the United States and born

to two United States citizen parents. This definition is reflected in the common law of England

in effect at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and thus has been confirmed by the

Supreme Court of the United States.


11/16

11

Based on Supreme Court precedent, and the reasoning presented above, this court must

hold that presidential eligibility, under Article II of the United States Constitution, requires both

birth within the territory of the United States, as well as birth to two United States citizen

parents.

Dated: June 11, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.

F.L. Bar No. 246220

Klayman Law Firm2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (310) 595-0800

Email: [email protected]


12/16

Exhibit 1


13/16


14/16


15/16


16/16

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been served by email and the U.S.

mail this 11th day of June, 2012 to the following:

Hon. Terry P. LewisCircuit Judge

Leon County Courthouse

Room 301-C301 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Daniel Nordy

Ashley E. Davis

Florida Department of State

R.A. Gray Building

500 South Bronough StreetTallahassee, FL 32399

Mark Herron

Joseph Brennan Donnelly

Robert J. Telfer, III

Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.Post Office Box 15579

Tallahassee, FL 32317

Stephen F. Rosenthal

Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800

Miami, FL 33130-1720

Richard B. Rosenthal

The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A.169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1422

Miami FL 33131

James A. PetersOffice of the Attorney General

FL-01, The Capital

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Counsel for Defendants

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.F.L. Bar No. 246220

Klayman Law Firm

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006Tel: (310) 595-0800

Email: [email protected]

Documents

Florida Obama Ballot Challenge Natural Born Citizen Brief