Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.

org
State of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------x
Victor Williams,
E: 5016-16
5016-1
OAL DKT. NO. STE:

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

Petitioner,

v.

Ted Cruz,

Amicus Brief
Bri Regarding
Reg
Exceptions
ptions

Respondent.

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

Fernando Powers, Donna Ward,

Bruce
Stom
d, and B
Br
ce S
tom
om

(South Jersey Concerned

Committee),
d Concerned
oncerne Citizens
tizens
zens Commi
Com
Petitioners,
ners
rs,

OAL
OA DKT. NO. STE: 5018-16

v.

Ted Cruz,
uz,

Amicus Brief Regarding

Exceptions

Respondent.
R spondent.
Re
ndent.

------------------------------------------------------x
---Robert Pilchman (Pro Se; Amicus Curiae).
------------------------------------------------------x

Page 1 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Director of the Division of Elections, Department of State

225 West State Street, 5th Floor

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

PO Box 304

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0304

Attention: Exceptions
Fax: (609) 777-1280

Dear Director of the Division of Elections,

Department
ctions,
ions, Dep
Depart
ment
nt of State:
State

Ted Cruz being a "born Citizen

does NOT
that Ted Cruz is a "natural
izen doe
do
OT mean ttha
born Citizen". Onee question
seems
uestion se
mss critical tto nnot lose focus on: What's the
difference between
ween a "born
"bo Citizen"
itizen" and
an a "natural born Citizen"?

Unfortunately,
unate y, the
th decision
cision
on of A
ALJ Jeff
J S. Masin seems fatally flawed

because
seemss to make the
natural superfluous. Its as if the ALJ
ecause
use it seem
see
th word
w

does not know

k ow what the significance of natural is and believes that, as

such, it would bee best

such
b to effectively ascribe no significance to natural.

Page 2 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

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

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

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

pin on,
n, the only
includes the military role of Commander in Chief). In my opinion,
case of a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute
tatute
ute would bbee bbeing
born in the United States when both parents are U.S.
.S. Citizens.
Citize
Citizens Indeed,
deed,

anything less apparently would require a law

1401
aw (such as 8 U.S.
U.S
S. Code 14
Nationals and citizens of United States
ess at birth

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

ALSO, IS IT REASONA
REASONABLE
THAT SOMEONE COULD
ASONA E TO BELIEVE
BELIEV
BEL
NOT ONLY
NLY BE A BORN
ORN
N CITIZEN
CITIZE OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E.

CANADA,
CUBA,
ANADA,
ADA, C
CU
A, AND THE
TH UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL

BORN CITIZEN
COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND
CI
CITIZEN OF THREE
TH
THE
STATES)??? THIS SEEMS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
TH UNITED STA
S

Page 3 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

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

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

considere
consider
born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall bee considered
as natural born citizens: Provided, (

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf
attempt
pdff ). Some at
em to
argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the
States
t United
ted State
to be a natural born Citizen. However, even
Naturalization
en in
n the Natur
Na
alization
zation Act
A oof

1790 it apparently states children off citizens ccitizens

tizens
ens in the pplural (i.e.

both parents). Moreover, the expression

xpression
essio shall
shalll be considered
consid
considere as implies a
leniency (and thus actually
Citizen as used in
ly supports
support that
at natural born
b

the U.S. Constitution

on is more sstringent
ngent
gent (i.e. it
i is also necessary to be born in
the United States)).
ates)). In any
an event,
ent, in 1795,
17 the Congress apparently repealed
and replaced
Naturalization
lace the N
ralization
ization A
Act of 1790 (while George Washington was
still
elucidated in
ill the president)
preside
presid nt) as elucid
elucidate

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

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf
). (By the way,
ht
http
so
prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing
understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship)

Page 4 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

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

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

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

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

atural-born
-b
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall bee natural
natural-born
citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,
common
common-law
w, with the

nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution

nstitution were
were familiar,
milia it was
never doubted that all children born inn a country of parents
rents wh
who were
w its

citizens became themselves, upon

citizens also
also. These
were
on their
thei birth,
i
T

natives, or natural-born citizens,

itizens,
zens, as ddistinguished
nguished fro
from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further

citizens
urther and include
clude
ude as citi
citize children born within the
jurisdiction without
referencee to the ci
citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]
ithout
out refe
refere
citizen

parents. A
As to th
this cclasss there
here have been
be doubts, but never as to the first. (
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html
,
tp://caselaw.f
/caselaw ndlaw.com/usaw.com/u

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

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

Page 5 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

regarding his background) as apparently documented in

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

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

ALJ Jeff S.
S
Finally, another issue that was apparently not addressed, byy ALJ
Masin, is that according to the Living Constitution, we need
adaptt tto
eed to ad
ada

current circumstances. Currently, with a much larger

population
arger
ger popu
populati
on than
han when
whe
the U.S. Constitution was written and given
national
en greater nati
n onall securit
security

concerns (in the nuclear era), it would

d seem that ann interpretation
terpretati favoring a
higher eligibility standard would
preferable.
uld be pre
pr erable.
e.

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

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
), "MR.
up me.just
me.j
com/cases/fede
m/cases/f
CHIEF
with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE
HIEF
EF JUSTICE
JUST
JUSTICE FULLER,
ULLER, wi
HARLAN dissenting
stated:
dissenting" sta

Before
the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by
B
Vattel:

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

Page 6 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

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

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own

ch ccitizen,
izen, on
o
preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each

entering into society, reserves to his children the rightt of becoming

becomin members
m
of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that off the children,
childre
chil n, and
nd these
become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
nsent. We
W shall
shalll soon see
se

whether, on their coming to the yearss of discretion,

their
discretion
discreti , they
ey may renounce
re
ren
right, and what they owe to thee society
ociety in
n which
which
ch they were
we born. I say that,

in order to be of the country,

necessary
be born of a father
ntry,
y, it is nec
ne
sary
ary that a person
per
p

who is a citizen; for,

born there of a fore
r, iff he is bbo
fforeigner, it will be only the
place of his birth,
irth, and not
no his
is country."
country."

(By
according
By the way, ac
cording
ding to the
t doctrine of coverture, upon marriage, a
woman's legal
l gal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her
husband, in accordance
with the wife's legal status of feme covert.
hhusb
ord
[Emphasis Removed] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture ).)

Furthermore, even the majority opinion (

Page 7 of 9

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

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

C
op
y
Pr Pr
ot ov
ec id
tO ed
ur C
Li ou
be r
rty tes
.o y O
rg f
:

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

The
tes v.
v Wong Kim
majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States
Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) (

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
), stated The
/649/case.html
49/case.h
T
Th
evident intention, and the necessary effect,, off the submission
sub
submission
on of this case
ca to
the decision of the court upon the facts
ctss agreed by
b the
the parties were
wer
w to present
for determination the single question
stated
of this opinion,
uestion
ion sta
st ed aatt the beginning
begin
namely, whether a child born
rn in the United
ited
ed States, of parent of Chinese

descent, who, at thee time

subjects of the Emperor of China,
me of his
h birth,
rth, are sub
subjec
but have a permanent
domicil
residence in the United States, and are
rmanent do
cil and resi
residen
there carrying
arryi
y g on bbusiness,
ness,
ss, and are
a nnot employed in any diplomatic or

official
Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his
fficial
cial capacity
capac under
der the Em

birth a cit
citizen
United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is
citi en of the Uni
off op
opinion that the
he question must be answered in the affirmative.

Page 8 of 9