|
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
Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts. 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 Libellant 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 Writ Of Certiorari
Before Judgment 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. |