Electronically Filed 0611112012
10:
I 0:33 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDAMICHAEL
C.
VOELTZ,Plaintiff,vs.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
et.
al.
Defendants.
)))))))))))
----------------------------------)
Case No.: 2012CA00467
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM
ON THE DEFINITION OF"NATURAL
BORN
CITIZEN"
Plaintiff has pled that Defendant Obama fails to meet the eligibility requirements for thePresidency
of
the United States. This brief sets forth the rightful definition
of
"natural borncitizen," a requirement mandated by the Constitution, for eligibility to run for and hold the Office
ofthe
President
of
the United States ("Office
ofthe
President" or "POTUS" or "President").
INTRODUCTION
In
founding this country, the framers took great care
in
drafting and setting forth a newform
of
government. The POTUS was established to become the leader
of
the nation. Theframers knew that this office, and the person elected to hold it, would command great power.This electedPresident would be the Commander in
Chief
ofthe
United States armed forces, andwould negotiate treaties on behalf
of
all the states within the United States. In order
to
preventeven a slight hint
of
foreign influence the framers set forth stringent requirements, more stringentthan for any other official positions within the United States government. The President
of
the
United States,they demanded, must be more than just a citizen. A citizen could be naturalizedafter arriving from another country. A citizen could be born to foreign parents within the UnitedStates soil.
In
either
ofthe
se 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 forPOTUS. The President would need to be a "natural born citizen." The term "natural borncitizen" was one who was born to two citizen parents. This term, used only once throughout theentire Constitution,
is
the built in safeguard that the framers included to ensure that no foreigninfluence would be allowed into the highest office
ofthe
United States.
THE LAW
Any discussion
of
eligibilitymust 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 haveattained
to
the Age
of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident withinthe United States."As set forth below,it is clear based on the laws
of
statutory interpretation that there
is
a separateand distinct meaning to the
tenn
"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
previouslydefining this term, has recognized the differences in the
tenninology and has established that a "natural born citizen"
is
one who was born to two citizenparents.
Minor v.Happersett,
88 U.S.
162
(1875). In this landmark case, the SupremeCourt
2
ruled that, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country
of
parents who were itscitizens 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 ParentsA.
Under
The Principles
of
Statutory Construction, The Term "Natural Born Citizen"
Must Be
Defined Differently And
ThusHas
A Different Meaning Than The Term"Citizen"
It
is
a fundamental principle
of
statutory interpretation that where two different anddistinct 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 generalone, 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
[ofa
statute].
..
without plain evidence
of
congressional intent tosupersedethosesectionsignores our
longstanding practice
of
construing statutes in pari materia. See
United States
v.
UnitedContinental Tuna Corp.,
425 U.S. 164, 168 -169 (1976);
Train
v.
Colorado Public InterestResearch 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
ofthe
statute's drafters. Whenundertaking the important task
of
crafting law, the drafters
of
a statute certainly choose theirwords 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 usesthat one word or phrase, and it alone,
to
communicate the idea, since the use
of
two or morewords or phrases would risk creating an interpretive ambiguity that would threaten to defeatpurposes
of
the law being drafted. It
is
the application
of
this principle that gives rise
to
thequestion presently before this court.3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
FL - Voeltz - 2012-06-11 Voeltz Memorandum Re NBC
480
Reads
4
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
