press release news tip - barack hussein obama, ii was elected and inaugurated in violation of the...

7/31/2019 PRESS RELEASE NEWS TIP - Barack Hussein Obama, II Was Elected and Inaugurated in Violation of the Constitutio

1/36

PRESS RELEASE NEWS TIP: Barack Hussein Obama, II was elected and inaugurated in violation of the Constitution of

the United States of America [Part II].

EXHIBIT 1

ATTACHED TO

EX PARTE PETITION FOR ANSWER TO A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF LAW

by SCOTT RILLE,pro se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO: _____________________

Monsignor Charles F. W. Dumas

Chez E. van Harrevelt

Amsterdam

Dear Sir,

Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to

us in good season, when 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 publiclibrary 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.

Kindest regards,

Benjamin Franklin

(COLOR PHOTOS AND TEXT IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.)

Page 1 of 3


2/36

The Law of NationsFrench Edition

1758

The Law of Nations, Ch. XIX, Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), First French Edition 1758, First English Edition 1760, Knud Haakonssen,

General Editor, LIBERTY FUND, INC., 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 2008.

Natural born citizen of the United StatesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

There is no record of a debate on the natural born Citizen qualification during theConstitutional Convention. This

clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a

whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787 letter fromJohn JaytoGeorge Washington,

presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote: Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a

strong check to 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.

John Jay (December 12, 1745 May 17, 1829) was anAmericanpolitician,statesman,revolutionary,diplomat, a

Founding Father of the United States, and the firstChief Justice of the United States(178995).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother.Let it be taught in schools, inseminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, [in] spelling books and in almanacs. Let it be

preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts of justice.Inshort, let reverence for the law become the political religion of the nation. . . Shall we expect sometransatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of

Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their

military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or

make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years.At what point, then, is the approach of

dangerto be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring upamongst us. It cannot come

from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of

freemen, we must live through all time, ordie bysuicide. -Abraham Lincoln, The Perpetuation of

Our Political Institutions- 2 of 3 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washingtonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washingtonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washingtonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washingtonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States


3/36

As evidenced below, there can be no doubt whatsoever our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers relied heavily on The Law of

Nations as they struggled with the weighty matter of creating our Constitution and Constitutional Republic.

- 3 of 3


4/36

EXHIBIT 2

ATTACHED TO




CASE NO: _____________________

Monsignor Charles F. W. Dumas

Chez E. van Harrevelt

Amsterdam

Dear Sir,

Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to

us in good season, when circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consultthe 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.

Kindest regards,

Benjamin Franklin

(B&W AND COLOR PHOTOS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED)

- 1 of 5


5/36

PHOTO IMAGES OF A NUMERICAL CATALOGUE AND LE DROIT DES GENS 1775 EDITIONUSED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

1314 Locust St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-8229

PHOTO IMAGE OF TITLE PAGE OF A NUMERICAL CATALOGUETHE LOG BOOK FOR INCOMING BOOKS INTO THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

PHOTO USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

(PLEASE REFERENCE PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 1.)

- 2 -


6/36

PAGE SHOWING ENTRY OF VATTEL (LE DROIT DES GENS)INTO A NUMERICAL

CATALOGUE

SHORTLY AFTER BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DEPOSITED IT AT THE LIBRARY IN 1775.


- 3


7/36

TITLE PAGES OF 1 OF THE 3 VOLUMES BENJAMIN FRANKLIN RECEIVED FROM PUBLISHER

DUMAS IN AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND, INCLUDING HAND-WRITTEN NOTE BY DUMAS,

DEPOSITED AT THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA BY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

Presented to the Library Company by Monsignor Dumas (Charles F. W. Dumas).

PHOTOS USED BY PERMISSION FROM THE LIBRARY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA

- 4


8/36

Le Droit des Gens (1775), LIV. I. CHAP. XIX. 115

The Law of Nations (1775), BOOK I. CHAPTER XIX. Page 115


Les citoyens sont les membres de la socit civile: lis cette socit . 212.

par certains devoirs, & soumis son autorit, ils participent avec gali- Des citoyens

t ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont ns & naturels.

dans le pays, de parens citoyens.

- 5 -


9/36

EXHIBIT 3

ATTACHED TO




CASE NO: _____________________

(COLOR PHOTO AND TEXT IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)

Page 1 of 7


10/36

FRENCH TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND DICTIONARY EXCERPTS REVEAL NATURAL & NATIVE BORN ROOT MEANING.

GOOGLE TRANLATE:

FRENCH: naturels ENGLISH: natural

indigenes indigenous, natives

1758 First Edition of Le Droit Des Gens in French:

. 212 Les Citoyens sont les membres de la Socit Civile: Lis cette Socit par

Des Ctioyens certains devoirs, & soumis son Autorit, ils participent avec galit ses advan-

& Naturels. tages. Les Naturels, ou Indigenes, sont ceux qui sont ns dans le pais, de Parens

Citoyens.

1760 Edition of The Law of Nations, First English Translation:

. 212. The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society byOf the citi- certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advan-

zens and tages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are

natives. Citizens.

1787 Edition, The Law of Nations, English Translation:


11/36

1775 Edition, Le Droit des Gens, Livre I, Chapitre XIX [Edition used by the Framers.]:

Les citoyens sont les membres de la socit civile: lis cette socit . 212.

par certains devoirs, & soumis son autorit, ils participent avec gali- Des citoyens

t ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont ns & naturels.

dans le pays, de parens citoyens.

A French teacher, of French ancestry and heritage, provided Petitioner herein with the

following insight:

Dear Mr Rille,

Vattel used the words naturels (naturals/naturally born) and indigenes (from the Latin

word indigena which means natives ) to refer to French natives who inherit their French

citizenship through their French parents (right of blood) as opposed to foreigners born in

France who would only be considered as inhabitants of France, not as French citizens.

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/

F.naturel

to be

born

born out

of

wedlock
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/http://www.1828-dictionary.com/http://www.1828-dictionary.com/


12/36

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

begotten

ILLEGITIMATE (born out of

wedlock)

inborn
http://www.merriam-webster.com/http://www.merriam-webster.com/http://www.merriam-webster.com/


13/36

Anglo-French naturel

born, congenital

birth

born, natural


14/36

NATIVE

Latin indigena

naturally

INBORN

INBORN

by birth

by birth

NATURAL


15/36

INDIGENOUS

born

indigenous

INDIGENOUS

birth


16/36

EXHIBIT 4

ATTACHED TO




CASE NO: _____________________

(COLOR TEXT IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)

Page 1 of 3


17/36

http://www.freedomproject.com/latest/articles/66-forgotten-influences

Forgotten Influences of the Founders

Our own Founding Fathers were convinced, and history has proven them prescient, that they

were building a new and everlasting republic that would do what other republics of the ancient

world had failed to do: survive the effects of the maladies of self-government and bequeath tothe subsequent generations of Americans a sound and stable republicif they could keep

it.*

For the ingredients necessary to brew the right antidote to the poisons of democracy and

tyranny, the Founders drew from several sources. From the recent past, there was the English

legacy of the right of the people to the enjoyment of certain unalienable rights such as trial by

jury and due process; there was the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome that citizens are and

by rights should be entrusted with the power of self-determination; and there was the faculty of

renown continental thinkers and jurists who propounded the principle of natural law and its

blessings and burdens better than any theorists before or since. The Founders wisely chose fromamong the best and brightest, and combined their words and deeds into a potent concoction that

they then reduced down with the fire of revolution into a remedy that, despite its base of

history, was uniquely American.

. . .

Emmerich de Vattel

The fourth of the Four Horsemen of American liberty is Emmerich de Vattel. Although last in

this list of forgotten influences, it can be claimed, without exaggeration, that it is Vattelsinterpretations and writings on the subject of the proper constitution of government that was

most influential on the Founders of the American Republic. As a matter of fact, Thomas

Jefferson, indisputably one of the lead framers of our nations government, ranked Vattels

seminal The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Lawas highly as similar treatises by

Grotius and Pufendorf. Further proof of Vattels impression on the Founders is the fact that

Vattels interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writerson international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and The Law of

Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities.

The Swiss-born Vattel learned to love God from his father, a pastor in the Reformed Church. It

was Vattels belief that the law of nations was given to man by God for their happiness. Vattelwrote that the best constitution was that constitution founded most firmly on natural law and

least liable to be unmoored from it. Vattel stated, It is the constitution of a state whichdetermines its progress and its aptitude to attain the ends of a society. These words were

instructive to the authors of the American Constitution and encouraged them in the sometimes

arduous struggle to frame a well-constructed and long-lasting Constitution for the new

- 2 -
http://www.freedomproject.com/latest/articles/66-forgotten-influenceshttp://www.freedomproject.com/latest/articles/66-forgotten-influenceshttp://www.freedomproject.com/latest/articles/66-forgotten-influences


18/36

republic. They learned from the distinguished Vattel that if a country is to be successful then it

must begin as it means to continue, built upon an unshakeable foundation of natural law and

separated power.

As with many of the ancient historians and our own Founding Fathers, Vattel recognized the

insidious harm done to constitutions by those who weaken it from the inside over time. James

Madisons warning in this regard is oft quoted: I believe there are more instances of the

abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in powerthan by violent and sudden usurpations. Madison undoubtedly believed this independently, buthe was certainly inspired by his reading in The Law of Nations wherein Vattel admonished:

The constitution and laws of a state are rarely attacked from the front; it is against secret and

gradual attacks that a nation must chiefly guard. In this instance and many others, one can

appreciate the weight and value of Vattels theories on those of our most illustrious thinkers.

Words of Wisdom

The lessons our Founders learned from the wise men discussed in this article are just asvaluable for us, their political and philosophical heirs. We must vigilantly and

zealously guard and treasure the republican government established

by the Constitution and the eternal principles of natural law upon

which it is built. Let us be fervent and grateful protectors of liberty

and resist all attempts to wrest our government from us or from its

firm foundations of popular sovereignty and the right of self-

determination.

______________________________________

*Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of

1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,

"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With

no

hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,

"A republic, if you can keep it."

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklin

- 3
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklinhttp://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklinhttp://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklin


19/36

EXHIBIT 5

ATTACHED TO




CASE NO: _____________________

(COLOR TEXT IN ORIGINAL DUCUMENT)

Page 1 of 6


20/36

Vattels Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

Theodore T. Moran

What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So

many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 2, Section 1 , with these words, No personexcept 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 to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise the Lawof Nations, written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

212. Of the citizens 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, ornatural-born citizens, are those born inthe country, of 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.

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is Of the citizens and naturals. Itis not Of citizens and natives as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors werecorrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by

translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated tosuit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native

is rendered as originaire or indigene, not as naturel. For naturel to mean native would need to be usedas an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after

defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for nativesalong with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was

defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we

must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various

alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fullyunderstand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the

photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212,here in the original Frenchif you have any

doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes itquite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but ofnatural

born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of

high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period.

- 2 -
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htmhttp://www.birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://www.birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://www.birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://www.birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpghttp://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm


21/36

Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of Le droit des gens, which the deferred to asthe authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate."

If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as

authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstones naturalborn subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were

influenced from Blackstones Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was

Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone wasincreasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the

notion that the United States was under English Common Law, The common law of England is not the

common law of these States. George Mason one of Virginias delegates to the Constitutional Convention.As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those

of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problemwith a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not

all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural

born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born

Citizen can become President. Under Blackstones subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural BornSubjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural

born. Like theanalogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive geneticmutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be

President.

But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, To encourage also foreign commerce, it was

enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that 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 husbands conse nt, mightinherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several

more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the kingsligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and

purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high

treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. This use of Blackstone gaveGreat Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressingAmerican sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Fat hersnaturalizing themselves into our new country. Once an Englishman, always an Englishman, was the reason

the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjectsto the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress

passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be

natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further,

the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now Americancitizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States

of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstones definition of a natural born

subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli,for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a

state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstones definition of a natural-born subject.

Blackstones definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the RoyalNavy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments

of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstones definition of

a natural-born subject.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txthttp://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txthttp://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985#p12034http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985#p12034http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985#p12034http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=008/llhj008.db&recNum=663&itemLink=D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_cgb3::%230080664&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=008/llhj008.db&recNum=663&itemLink=D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_cgb3::%230080664&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=008/llhj008.db&recNum=663&itemLink=D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_cgb3::%230080664&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=005/llsj005.db&recNum=267&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_iVv6::%230050268&linkText=1http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=008/llhj008.db&recNum=663&itemLink=D?hlaw:17:./temp/~ammem_cgb3::%230080664&linkText=1http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985#p12034http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txthttp://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt


22/36

John Jays letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone

introduces. To George Washington, President ofthe Constitutional Convention, Jay writes 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 declare expressly that the command in chief ofthe American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. Jay not only knewof Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations

with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the firstimmigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattels

assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathershave never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find

the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one And the children of citizens of the United States, that

may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in

the United States: Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished toremain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several

phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the

immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstones definition, he remained silent.

To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattels definition of a natural born

citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no otherclaim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the

Naturalization Act of 1790.The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington,

recognized Blackstones commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the landsunder British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural

born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person,

and thus establish a presence of influence in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers

to naturalize at birth these children, but not give them the status natural born citizens. Also in this act of1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the

first appearance of the oath of allegiance to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject. This oath is still ineffect today.

If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remainingsource is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a

Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an

idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference

to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, andthe use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let

us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers

of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattelor not.

The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who pennedVirginias Citizenship statuein

1779, Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this

commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall

hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath

- 4 -
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html


23/36

or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the

commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a

citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother

becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this

commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not

being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. As can be seen Jefferson is equatingcitizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

For further proof on the question of Vattels influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, heobserved, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the

latest editions. TheLibrary Company of Philadelphiawhich holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775

reference to this book, as Le droit des gens, from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt inAmsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact

that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was

considered by the family of nations to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the

most exact reference of Vattels Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon theFrench original. On December 9

thof 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattels editor, C.G.F. Dumas, I am

much obliged by the kind 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. hasbeen continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I

kept 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.

Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislativecannot change the constitution Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts,

John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams

as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and

frowning, haunted me. These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is

amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is theindividual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he

wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or

abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness."

Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel,

quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance ofthe new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel.

He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the

standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciarybranch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel,

quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance ofthe new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel.

He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the

- 5 -
http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=


24/36

standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciarybranch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that sameyear by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Gent to honor their treaty and support Franceswars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel s Law ofNations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war

in 1793. Gent wrote to Washington, you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions

committed on positive treaties.

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone andVattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that

the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only

political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of hisbirth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born

citizen ought to lie, as Vattels definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and isthe only definition that is in accord with Jays letter to Washington.

FROM ABOVE:

For further proof on the question of Vattels influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he

observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of thelatest editions. TheLibrary Company of Philadelphiawhich holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775

reference to this book, as Le droit des gens, from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in

Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The factthat this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was

considered by the family of nations to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the

most exact reference of Vattels Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but

relied upon the French original. On December 9 thof 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattels editor,C.G.F. Dumas,

I am much obliged by the kind 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. has been continually in the hands of the members of our

congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept 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.

- 6 -
http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=http://pacscl.exlibrisgroup.com:8992/F/KFSU2CBCJTPA45DA5NIGS16C85QIVLK5I6M6U591CRUTD4YAF2-61326?func=find-b&request=Vattel%2C+Emer&find_code=WAU&adjacent=N&local_base=LCP01ALL&x=48&y=5&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=


25/36

EXHIBIT 6

ATTACHED TO




CASE NO: _____________________

(COLOR PHOTO AND TEXT IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)

Page 1 of 11


26/36

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett

Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of thefourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United Statesand of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding theprovision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine theright of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case uponother grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we findthat it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only onewhich has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to thiscourt for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html


27/36

view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it canbe by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all otherconsiderations and proceed at once to its determination.

It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of theState of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registrationtherefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States,and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or

naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, isa citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, shehas the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of hercitizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and bythe fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the UnitedStates and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared tobe "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them thatposition. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not

in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of theseveral States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without suchprovision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of apolitical community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association ofpersons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of thepersons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by theassociation. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection.Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations.The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection andprotection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to thismembership. The object is to designate by a title the person and therelation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject,""inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between themis sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen isnow more commonly employed, however, and as it has been consideredbetter suited to the description of one living under a republicangovernment, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon theirseparation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articlesof Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When usedin this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a

nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before theadoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what personsoriginally associated themselves together to form the nation, and whatwere afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained andestablished by "the people of the United States," [n3]and then goingfurther back, we find that these were the people of the several States
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3


28/36

that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them withGreat Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among thepowers of the earth, [n4]and that had by Articles of Confederation andPerpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States ofAmerica," entered into a firm league of[p167] friendship with each otherfor their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutualand general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against allforce offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of

religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when theConstitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto acitizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one ofthe persons associating together to form the nation, and was,consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never beena doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons orcertain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but neveras to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States intwo ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparentfrom the Constitution itself, for it provides[n6]that "no person except anatural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of theadoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,"[n7]and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule ofnaturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created bynaturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-borncitizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,

with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution werefamiliar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country ofparents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, asdistinguished from aliensor foreigners. Some authorities go further andinclude as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without referenceto the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is notnecessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we havenow to consider that all children born of citizen parents within thejurisdiction are themselves citizens.The words "all children" are certainly

as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and iffemales are included in the last they must be in the first. That they areincluded in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of theplaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, asearly as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," mightbe admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children ofsuch persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, beingunder twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4


29/36

also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children ofcitizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out ofthe limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-borncitizens. [n8]These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, beenretained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however,the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretoforeborn or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of theUnited States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth,

citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who haddeclared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by lawdied before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should beconsidered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights andprivileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10]and in 1855 it wasfurther provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized underthe existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizenof the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislationupon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens bynaturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would havebeen done if it had not been supposed that native women and nativeminors were already citizens by birth.

But if more is necessary to show that women have always been consideredas citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in thelegislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution,the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversiesbetween citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly

held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United Statesjurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Itsexistence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist thecase must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courtsare full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship ofwomen, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection wasmade on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has beenheld that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the UnitedStates. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many ofthe States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmitinheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the

question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien,and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it beeninsisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On thecontrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The onlyquestion has been whether, in the particular case under consideration,she had availed herself of the right.

In the legislative department of the government similar [p170] proof willbe found. Thus, in the pre-emption laws, [n12]a widow, "being a citizen ofthe United States," is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8


30/36

purchase upon the terms specified, and women, "being citizens of theUnited States," are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of thehomestead law. [n13]

Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannotbe necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one ofthe elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men havenever had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to

both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of womenany more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights ofMrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been acitizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities ofcitizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is acitizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen ofthe United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she hadbefore its adoption.

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of theUnited States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to

men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended,and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presentedwhether all citizens are necessarily voters.

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities ofcitizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we neednot determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily oneof them.

It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States hasno voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the

United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. Themembers of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the peopleof[p171] the States, and the electors in each State must have thequalifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of theState legislature. [n14]Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of theStates, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to makethe choice are elected by the voters of the State. [n15]Each State mustappoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, theelectors to elect the President and Vice-President. [n16]The times, places,and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are tobe prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may

at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to theplace of choosing Senators. [n17]It is not necessary to inquire whether thispower of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize anyinterference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters,for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the Statein this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.

The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen.It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as healready had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n15http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n15http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n15http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n16http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n16http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n16http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n17http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n17http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n17http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n17http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n16http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n15http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13


31/36

have had that effect, because it may have increased the number ofcitizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States,but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the Statelaws, and not directly upon the citizen.

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added theright of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as theyexisted at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire

whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at thetime of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued thatsuffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in theenjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [p172] But if it wasnot, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with theexception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of theirown. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown.Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State wereall citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who

should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, "every male inhabitantof each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporatedin the State, of twentyone years of age and upwards, excepting paupersand persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were itsvoters; in Massachusetts "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years ofage and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth ofthe annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixtypounds;" in Rhode Island "such as are admitted free of the company andsociety" of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had "maturity inyears, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and fortyshillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," if so certified by the

selectmen; in New York "every male inhabitant of full age who shall havepersonally resided within one of the counties of the State for six monthsimmediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the timeaforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of thevalue of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenementtherein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actuallypaid taxes to the State;" in New Jersey "all inhabitants . . . of full agewho are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in thesame, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote fortwelve months immediately preceding the election;" in Pennsylvania"every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the

State two years next before the election, and within that time paid aState or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six monthsbefore the election;" in [p173] Delaware and Virginia "as exercised by lawat present;" in Maryland "all freemen above twenty-one years of agehaving a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offerto vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the Stateabove the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in thecounty in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding theelection;" in North Carolina, for senators, "all freemen of the age oftwenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the


32/36

State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, andpossessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land forsix months next before and at the day of election," and for members ofthe house of commons "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years whohave been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve monthsimmediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid publictaxes;" in South Carolina "every free white man of the age of twenty-oneyears, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years

previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres ofland, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed atleast six months before such election, or (not having such freehold ortown lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which heoffers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a taxthe preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of thegovernment;" and in Georgia such "citizens and inhabitants of the State asshall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paidtax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided sixmonths within the county."

In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several States itcannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make allcitizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution wouldnot have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition ofcitizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expresslydeclared.

[p174] But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change wasintended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. ByArticle 4, section 2, it is provided that "the citizens of each State shall beentitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several

States." If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens ofeach State must be entitled to vote in the several States precisely as theircitizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change theirresidence and become citizens of the State and thus be voters. It goes tothe extent of insisting that while retaining their original citizenship theymay vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again,by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (thefourteenth), "Representatives shall be apportioned among the severalStates according to their respective numbers, counting the whole numberof persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the rightto vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-

President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executiveand judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof,is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-oneyears of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged,except for participation in the rebellion, or other crimes, the basis ofrepresentation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which thenumber of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of malecitizens twenty-one years of age in such State." Why this, if it was not inthe power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some maleinhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of


33/36

citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to maleinhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." Theyare counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to bemade, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenshipunless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of malesalone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been [p175] selected toexpress the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of allcitizens.

And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it wasdeemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: "The right of citizensof the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the UnitedStates, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition ofservitude." The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no Stateshould make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges orimmunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of theseprivileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its beingdenied on account of race, &c.? Nothing is more evident than that thegreater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go

through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?

It is true that the United States guarantees to every State a republicanform of government. [n18]It is also true that no State can pass a bill ofattainder, [n19]and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty without due process of law. [n20]All these several provisions ofthe Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts ofthe instrument, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particulargovernment is designated as republican, neither is the exact form to be

guaranteed, in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other partsof the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertainwhat was intended.

The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the Statesthemselves to provide such a government. All the States had governmentswhen the Constitution was adopted. In all the people participated tosome extent, through their representatives elected in the mannerspecially provided.[p176] These governments the Constitution did notchange. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is, therefore,to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to

provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican inform, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution.

As has been seen, all the citizens of the States were not invested with theright of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was onlybestowed upon men and not upon all of them. Under these circumstancesit is certainly now too late to contend that a government is notrepublican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution,because women are not made voters.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n18http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n18http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n18http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n19http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n19http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n19http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n20http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n20http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n20http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n20http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n19http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n18


34/36

The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted. Women wereexcluded from suffrage in nearly all the States by the express provision oftheir constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill ofattainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left toimplication. Nothing less than express language would have beenemployed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment whichdeclares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage

was intended to be included within its obligations, language betteradapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed.The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it canonly be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claimprotection he must first show that he has the right.

But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon theinside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective.

The Constitution was submitted to the States for adoption in 1787, andwas ratified by nine States in 1788, and finally by the thirteen original

States in 1790. Vermont was the first new State admitted to the Union,and it came in under a constitution which conferred the right of suffrageonly upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided [p177]in the State for the space of one whole year next before the election, andwho were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The nextyear, 1792, Kentucky followed with a constitution confining the right ofsuffrage to free male citizens of the age of twenty-one years who hadresided in the State two years or in the county in which they offered tovote one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee, in1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years andupwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and

being inhabitants of the State or freemen being inhabitants of any onecounty in the State six months immediately preceding the day of election.But we need not particularize further. No new State has ever beenadmitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage uponwomen, and this has never been considered a valid objection to heradmission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right ofsuffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of NewJersey, without any attempt to obtain the interference of the UnitedStates to prevent it. Since then the governments of the insurgent Stateshave been reorganized under a requirement that before theirrepresentatives could be admitted to seats in Congress they must have

adopted new constitutions, republican in form. In no one of theseconstitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the Stateshave all been restored to their original position as States in the Union.

Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a conditionprecedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri,persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to becomecitizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. Thesame provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas,Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.


35/36

Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. Fornearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that theConstitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer theright of suffrage. If[p178] uniform practice long continued can settle theconstruction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of theUnited States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Ourprovince is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.

We have given this case the careful consideration its importancedemands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power forthat is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such aview of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having thepower, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted toinfluence our judgment in determining the present rights of the partiesnow litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage canbe considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not forus to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we findit is within the power of a State to withhold.

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the UnitedStates does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that theconstitutions and laws of the several States which commit that importanttrust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

1.See other sections, infra, p. 174.

2.Article 2, 18.

3.Preamble, 1 Stat. at Large, 10.

4.Declaration of Independence, Ib. 1.

5.Articles of Confederation, 3, 1 Stat. at Large, 4.

6.Article 2, 1.

7.Article 1, 8.

8.1 Stat. at Large, 103.

9.10 Id. 604.

10.2 Id. 293.

11.10 Stat. at Large, 604.

12.5 Stat. at Large, 455, 10.

13.12 Id. 392.

14.Constitution, Article 1, 2.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n1refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n1refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n2refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n2refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n3refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n4refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n14refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n13refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n12refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n11refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n10refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n9refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n8refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n7refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n6refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html#88_US_166n5refhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/

press release news tip - barack hussein obama, ii was elected and inaugurated in violation of the...

Documents