A RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION TO SHOW ELIGIBITY OF A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Whereas, James Madison (1751-1836) who attended the college of New Jersy which would become Princeton, graduating in two years. He was studied in subjects ranging from Latin to geography to philosophy; Whom called for the Constitutional Convention of 1786, Whom wrote most of the US Constitution at the Constitution Convention in 1787; Whom once the Convention ended, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers. Whom became the 4th President of the United States and is attributed to stating the following Two (2) quotes, (1) “Every word of the Constitution decides a question between power and liberty.” (2) “Do not separate text from the historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

Whereas, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), his scientific achievements helped him earn respect at home and abroad. While in England, he also received honorary degrees from St. Andrews and Oxford. Whom attend the Second Continental Congress that met from 1775-1776 where he helped draft and signed the Declaration of Independence. Whom attended the Constitution Convention of 1787 and signed the Constitution, so ratifying the same the seventh day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty. Whom in a letter dated December 9th, 1775 (12 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution) wrote the following : “I am much obligated by thinking present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Indee Sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s`est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies” bc. Being a very concise and dear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther pubished here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.”



Whereas, John Jay (1745-1829) whom served as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS from 1789-1795, (contributor to Federalist Papers) in a letter dated 25 July, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington, “Dear Sir, Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to delcare expressly that the command and chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

Whereas, Fifty-five (55) days after the above cited letter from John Jay to Washington dated July 25th 1787, the Constitution for the United States was ratified containing Article I § 8 CL. 10, “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”, Also Contained therein, occurs Article II § 1 CL 5, “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 the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Whereas, Vattel’s the “LAW OF NAITONS”, which Franklin stated in 1775 “has been in the hands of the members of Congress now sitting,” and also stating, “when the circumstances of a rising stat make it necessary frequently t consult the law of nations”, contains Book I, Ch. 8@ 212 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 citizens those children naturally follow the conditions 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 father is therefore that of the children, and THESE BECOME TRUE CITIZENS merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their own coming of to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe the society in which they were born. I say that, IN ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNRY, 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.”

Whereas, there appears no other “strong check against the admission of a foriegner’ as to the Commander in Chief of the Army within the Constitution beynd the Article II § I CL 5 requirements, it is surely the original intent that only that specific type of citizen the “natural born citizen” described by Vattel and well understood by the Framers of the Constitution, as is demonstrated within this resolution by citation of historical record, is to lawfully hold the position.

Whereas, John Binham 1815-1900) served as US Representative from Ohio from 1855- 1863 and again from 1865-1873 was appointed judge-advocate. Mr. Bingham on 9 March, 1866, speaking on the House floor stated’ “[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 State of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Whereas, John Marshall (1755- 1835) whm attended the ratification convention in Virginia and spoke on the new constitution, was appointed secretary of state by Adams in 1801, became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court until 1835, whom in 1814, serving the SCOTUS in that year along with Bushrod Washington (1762-1829) William Johnson (1771-1826) Gabriel Duvall (1752- 1844) and Joseph Story (1779-1845), descided The Venus, 12 USC 9 Cranch 253 253 (1814). Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or there fathers did. These men being men who were intimately associated with the American revolution Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir. William Johnson’s father, mother and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/ assistance to the line of troops, respectfully. Henry Brockholst Livingston, during the Revolutionary War, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the Army against the British and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire § 212 paragraphs from the French edition, using his own English, on p 12 of the ruling: “Vattel, who though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says; “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound t this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subject and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obligated to defend it because of its grants ~ p 12 US 290
“them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. Then enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizen of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participation in all its advantages.

Whereas, in the majority opinion delivered by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, 88 US. 162 (1875) it is stated: 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 parents”.

Whereas, on p 168-9 of the record within US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 (1898), Justice Gray states: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution where 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.”

Whereas, on 30 April 2008, the United States Senate (in toto), the 110th Congress unanimously agreed with Senate Res. 511( one of those which sponsored the resolution was the now sitting President of the United States, Mr Obama from Illinois). The sole purpose of Senate Resolution 511 is to apply the set of birth requirements which give interpretation of “natural born citizen” s applied to the United States Constituton Article II § I CL 5.
Within that Resolution, at the last paragraph and the statement of the resolution is the following: “Whereas John Sidney McCain III, was born to American Citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936; Now, therefore, be it Resolved. That John Sidney McCain, III is an ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II § I, of the Constitution of the United States.”.

Whereas, it is clear from the forgoing paragraph that the statements “Wereas John Sidney McCain III, who ws born to American citizens…” offered the 110th Congress (in toto) within SR 511 agrees with the historical background provided withing this instant Resolution that one requirement for “natural born citizen” status of citizenship is to have been born of two (2) American citizens. Furhtermore, it is apparent from the same 110th Congress that there pose is that John Sidney McCain III was born under the jurisdiction of the United States agrees with historical background tat a second birth requirement is that a “natural born citizen” status citizenship requires the birth to take place at a place where the jurisdiction of the United States by the completion of the statement “… on an American military base in Panama Canal Zone in 1936“.


Resolved, That the United States Constitution Article II § 1 Cl 5 “natural born citizen” is any human being born (A) within the country of the United States, or on soil which is under the sole and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and also (B) born of “Two (2) biological parents, who at the time of birth, are both legal United States citizens andnot owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.