williams v cruz in nj - amicus curiae brief regarding exceptions filed by robert pilchman (pro se)

of 9

State of New Jersey

------------------------------------------------------x

Victor Williams,

Petitioner, OAL DKT. NO. STE: 5016-16

v.

Ted Cruz,

Respondent.

------------------------------------------------------x

Fernando Powers, Donna Ward, and Bruce Stom

(South Jersey Concerned Concerned Citizens Committee),

Petitioners, OAL DKT. NO. STE: 5018-16

v.

Ted Cruz,

Respondent.

------------------------------------------------------x

Robert Pilchman (Pro Se; Amicus Curiae).

------------------------------------------------------x

Amicus Brief Regarding

Exceptions

Amicus Brief Regarding

Exceptions

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Copy

uz,

ReR

----

Provide

d d, and Brand B

d Concernedoncerne

nersrs,

Courte

sy

------------------ x x

ce S

urtes

y

urtes

yAmicus Bri

Of:E: 5016-E: 5016-161

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.otom om

tizens Commizens Com

OA

spondent. ndent.

-

orgorReg

ptions

of 9

Director of the Division of Elections, Department of State

225 West State Street, 5th

Floor

PO Box 304

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0304

Attention: Exceptions

Fax: (609) 777-1280

Dear Director of the Division of Elections, Department of State:

Ted Cruz being a "born Citizen” does NOT mean that Ted Cruz is a "natural

born Citizen". One question seems critical to not lose focus on: What's the

difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen"?

Unfortunately, the decision of ALJ Jeff S. Masin seems fatally flawed

because it seems to make the word “natural” superfluous. It’s as if the ALJ

does not know what the significance of “natural” is and believes that, as

such, it would be best to effectively ascribe no significance to “natural”.


Copy

unate

ecause it seemuse it see

does not kdoes not k

such

Provide

d Citizen” doeizen” do

e question seuestion

ween a "boween a "bo

y, the y, th

Courte

sy

ctions, Departions, Dep

Of:

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

ment of Statent of State:

NOT mean thaOT mean t

ms critical to ns critical t

Citizen" and aitizen" an

cision of ALJ Jon of A

s to make the wmake th

ow what the ow what

e b

of 9

Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen”

seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute.

Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen”

is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which

includes the military role of Commander in Chief). In my opinion, the only

case of a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute would be being

born in the United States when both parents are U.S. Citizens. Indeed,

anything less apparently would require a law (such as 8 U.S. Code § 1401 –

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 )).

ALSO, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD

NOT ONLY BE A BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E.

CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL

BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND

THE UNITED STATES)??? THIS SEEMS OUTRAGEOUS!!!


Copy

NL

ANADA, CUADA, C

BORN CITBORN CI

THETH

Provide

d uscode/teode/te

REASONAASONA

Y BE A Y BE

Courte

sy pin

tatute would bute would

U.S. Citizens.S. Citize

aw (such as (such as 8

es at birth s at birth

t/8/1

Of: hich hich

on, the n, the

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

e b

Indeed, deed,

U.SS. Code § 14Code

401401 )). )).

E TO BELIEVE TO BEL

ORN CITIZENN CITIZE

A, AND THEAND TH

IZEN OF THIZEN OF

STAS

of 9

In the Naturalization Act of 1790 (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently

states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe

born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered

as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ (

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to

argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States

to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of

1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e.

both parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a

leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in

the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in

the United States)). In any event, in 1795, the Congress apparently repealed

and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was

still the president) as elucidated in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 (

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). (By the way,

prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing

understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship)


Copy

lace

ill the presidethe presid

https://en.https://en.

httpht

Provide

d xpressionessio

ly supports support

on is more sis more

ates)). In anates)). In an

the Nthe

Courte

sy

pdf ). Some at). Somef

be born in the born in t

en in the Naturn the Na

f citizens” –citizens” – c–

“sha

Of:e consideree consider

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

em

United Statested State

alization Act ozation A

tizens in the pens in the

ll be considerel be consid

at “natural born“natural b

ngent (i.e. it isgent (i.e. i

event, in 1795,ent, in 17

ralization Act ization A

nt) as elucidateas elucid

wikipedia.org/ikipedia.o

s o

of 9

required more than just being born in the United States or why else would

the (Citizenship clause of the) 14th Amendment have been necessary?)

Indeed, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the

nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was

never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its

citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were

natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the

jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html ,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html )

There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to

Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to being born in the United States to

both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us


Copy

A

tp://caselaw.f/caselaw

https://suprhttps://sup

Provide

d on theirthei

itizens, as dzens, as

further andurther and

ithout refereout refe

to this cto th

Courte

sy 18

e naturalatural-born-b

At common-lawcommon

Constitution wnstitution

n a country ofn a country

birth,i

Of: 4), it stat4), it sta

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.orgw, with the with the

ere familiar, it milia

parents who wrents wh

citizens also. Tcitizens also

nguished fromnguished fro

clude as citizeude as citi

e to the citizento the ci

s there have behere have

ndlaw.com/us-aw.com/u

eme.justia.comeme.justia

of 9

regarding his background) as apparently documented in

http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html .

Finally, another issue that was apparently not addressed, by ALJ Jeff S.

Masin, is that according to the Living Constitution, we need to adapt to

current circumstances. Currently, with a much larger population than when

the U.S. Constitution was written and given greater national security

concerns (in the nuclear era), it would seem that an interpretation favoring a

higher eligibility standard would be preferable.

Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) (

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), "MR.

CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE

HARLAN dissenting" stated:

“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by

Vattel:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of


Copy

up

HIEF JUSTICEF JUST

HARLAN HARLAN

“B

Provide

d uld be prebe pr

ited States vd States

me.justme.j

Courte

sy y AL

we need to adaeed to ad

arger populatiger popu

en greater natigreater n

d seem that anseem that

erab

Of: J Jeff SJ Jeff S

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

t t

on than whenhan whe

onal security l securit

n interpretationterpretati

le. e.

Wong Kim Arkong Kim A

com/cases/fedem/cases/f

E FULLER, wiULLER,

dissenting" stadissenting

of 9

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 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."”

(By the way, according to the doctrine of coverture, “upon marriage, a

woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her

husband, in accordance with the wife's legal status of feme covert.”

[Emphasis Removed] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture ).)

Furthermore, even the majority opinion (


Copy By the way, acthe way,

woman's lwoman's l

husbh

Provide

d e society ociety

ntry, it is necy, it is ne

r, if he is bof he is b

irth, and noirth, and no

Courte

sy ch c

t of becomingbecomin

of the childref the chil

consent. We snsent. W

s of discretionof discreti

n wh

Of: izen, oizen, o

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

m

n, and these nd these

hall soon see l soon se

, they may reney may re

ich they were ch they we

sary that a perary that a p

there of a forethere of a f

is country."” country."

cording to the ding to t

gal rights andgal rights

ord

of 9

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ) did not seem

to decide on “natural born citizenship” – rather only on “born Citizenship”.

Furthermore, in Wong Kim Ark the case involved someone BORN IN THE

UNITED STATES to parents legally allowed to be in the United States. The

majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States v. Wong Kim

Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) (

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), stated “The

evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to

the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present

for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion,

namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese

descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China,

but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are

there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or

official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his

birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is

of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Copy

arryiy

fficial capacitycial capac

birth a citibirth a cit

of opf

Provide

d uestion staion st

born in the rn in the

e time of hisme of h

rmanent dormanent do

g on bg on

Courte

sy tes v

/649/case.html49/case.h

, of the submif the sub

cts agreed by ts agreed b

ed a

Of:States. ThStates. Th

Wong Wong

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org), stated “Thstated “T

ssion of this caon of this

he parties werparties w

t the beginningthe begin

ited States, of ed States,

rth, are subjecrth, are sub

cil and residenand resi

ness, and are nss, and a

under the Emder the

en of the Unien of the

he

williams v cruz in nj - amicus curiae brief regarding exceptions filed by robert pilchman (pro se)

Documents