NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: Separately, the meaning is clear to most everyone. Together, as mentioned in Article II of the US Constitution, it seems there are many different “definitions”, but none specifically defined in Law.

Steven Craig of Oklahoma has pursued this question through the Courts, including a previous case to the Supreme Court, in the past two and a half years. He has asked various Federal agencies and officials to simply certify that he, as a US citizen, born in Oklahoma of parents born and raised in the state, qualified under the Constitution as meeting the requirement of Article II. Since Article II specifically states “shall be” it isn't optional. To date he's never been able to be certified, nor even had a response to the question.

This Spring, a Federal Court judge ruled that it was outside their jurisdiction to answer the question.

Recently, Steven filed an Application for Original Jurisdiction with the Oklahoma Supreme Court essentially challenging how the State could certify any candidate for President or Vice President in a general election, without verifying that the candidates asking to be placed on the Oklahoma ballot are eligible.

Simply, the answer to the Question of who is eligible can only be given by the SCOTUS. This action is asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to "Certify the Constitutional Question to the SCOTUS".

On Aug. 30th the Chief Justice of that court has ordered that all parties in the complaint, including state officials and the the state and federal chairpersons of both major political parties, respond by September 19th.

The Ruling to Certify the Question would have profound implications on all 50 States with the possibility of a Motion for an Emergency Injuction on placing any candidates for the Executive Offices on any Ballots for the upcoming Primaries and General Election putting pressure on the SCOTUS to respond promptly.





Steven Lee Craig                                                      )

Petitioner,                                                      )


vs.                                                                               )             No. 109 808



State of Oklahoma                                                   )

The Honorable Mary Fallin Governor,                 )          

Oklahoma State Attorney General                        )

E. Scott Pruitt,                                                           )

Oklahoma Secretary of State                                  )

V. Glenn Coffee,                                                      )

Oklahoma Election Board/Senate Secretary        )

Paul Ziriax                                                                 )

Republican National Committee                           )

Chairman Reince Priebus                                       )

Oklahoma Republican State Committee               )

Chairman Matt Pinnell                                            )

Democratic National Committee                           )

Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz             )

Oklahoma Democratic State Committee              )

Chairman Wallace Collins                                      )


Respondents                                                 )









Now comes Steven Lee Craig, Petitioner, under the Rules of the Court and with cause in pleading to this Court to acknowledge the necessity of Original Jurisdiction on the subject matter presented herein.


The Petitioner has for the most recent 2 ½ years sought to be acknowledged as an American natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned, applying at various U.S. Federal Government Departments and sub-divisions thereof as well as the three levels of Federal Courts, District, Appeals and at the Supreme Court of the United States, and incorporating each as Brief’s in Support for this Application and Petition. (1)


Every attempt by the Petitioner to date has failed with it being opined by Federal Departments and Courts that an individual so situated lacks a Statutory Basis upon which make the claim of Right and or the ability to make any “legal” claim of harm or damage for not being so acknowledged.


Apparently, in some Federal Departments and Courts, the Constitution is not viewed as being Statutory in Construction and therefore Article II Section I Clause V and the expressed form of Citizenship therein provides no Statutory Basis for a person so situated to make a claim for being so acknowledged.



Petitioner offers the following points as subjects suitable to be considered as Adjudicative Facts, revised and extended from previous versions of Motions filed which exposes the lack of “legal” action on the subject matter;


[a]  As of this date (1) there is no acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom (2) of natural born Citizen (3) that satisfies the needs of the Constitutional Rule of Law insofar as the various Departments and Courts of the Federal Government is concerned.


[b]  Only the Supreme Court of the United States has the Constitutional authority to interpret, for legal purposes, the definition, (as well as the meaning and intent), of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.(4) Further, the Political Question Doctrine does not apply to the interpreting and defining the definition, meaning and intent as there is no “discretionary language” that would defer to any other branch of the Government within the Clause. (5)


[c]  The Congress is barred from abridging, enlarging and or otherwise modifying by Legislative Acts those provisions reserved to the Executive Branch, except by the Amendment process.(4)(5)




[d] The Executive is barred from abridging, enlarging and or otherwise modifying the qualifications and election provisions of Article II by Executive Order for obvious self- serving interests that may arise in conflict with the needs of the Constitution. (4)(5)


[e]  Notwithstanding the Repealed provision of the 1790 naturalization Bill, that described the circumstances requisite for a person born abroad to be considered as if a “natural born Citizen”, there is not a surviving acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen that has been expressed in any other enacted Legislation nor in any adopted Amendments to the Constitution nor expressed in any Judicial Opinion being in response to the subject matter at hand, or upon any related subject matter of any other case that would make it settled Law and binding upon Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution.(1)(4)(5)


[f]  The Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen remains as it was when written into the Executive Qualifications Clause in definition, meaning and intent having not been abridged, enlarged or otherwise modified by Legislation or Amendment since its insertion into the subject Clause of the Constitution. (1)(4)(5)


[g]  Article II Section I Clause V, when interpreted in light of its Statutory Construction, is read to be an “exclusionary provision expressed as a prerequisite imperative requirement”.(1)




[h] Without an acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen the subject Clause is made to be without effect, insofar as the Constitutional Rule of Law and the ability of that Law to enforce the “exclusionary provision of the prerequisite imperative requirement” is concerned.(6)


[I]  The definition that would identify who is or is not a (U.S.) natural born Citizen is, in the first instance, a "Citizenship Question", and, in the second instance, a transient "Political Requirement" of a candidate/elected official regarding his Citizenship circumstances at birth; and, furthermore, both the quality of that Citizenship and the Political intent of the requirement survive, with or without an acknowledged "legal" definition.(5)


The foregoing being recited to this Court for the purpose of exposing the unconstitutionality of any and all State Election Laws, insofar as the “national general election of the Federal Executive Officers” is concerned, given that there is no means of satisfying the “exclusionary provision of the prerequisite imperative requirement” of Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution; not by the Electorate, the Political Parties, the Election Board, the State or the Federal Government.

Unconstitutionality is a great harm and damage to the Rule of Law in its-self to those who are Guaranteed a Constitutional Republican Form of Government under the Rule of Law by their express consent, not to mention the potential harm and damages of the consequences that this unconstitutional vacuum invites and that the provision of Article II Section I Clause V was meant to avoid in the first instant.


Any argument that asserts the State Election Laws concerning the National General Election of the Executive Officers is not unconstitutional is to argue that the subject Clause of the Constitution is meant to be without effect and that “nothing more needs to be done” by the Federal Government, the State, the Election Board or Political Parties in order to satisfy the needs of Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution.


The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the State Constitution acknowledging the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the Guarantee of the State to provide a Republican Form of Government under the Constitutional Rule of Law to its Citizens, as well as the admonition found in Marbury v Madison, each makes such an argument untenable.(6)

This Court, upon Motion by a Party, by the State or sua sponte has the authority to Certify a Question of Constitutional interpretation or proposition of Law to the Supreme Court of the United States.


For this cause Petitioner pleads before the Bench of this Court to take the following actions;

Motion of Mandamus

1]     Compel each Party listed as Respondents to enter a Response, be it in concurrence with, in demurral of, or in Motion to Sever from, the objectives of this Application.

Motion: Certification of U.S. Constitutional Question to the SCOTUS

2]        Upon this Courts contemplation of this Application / Petition, the Responses, the needs of the Constitution of the United States, and the needs and intents of the State Constitution, then make the determination and take the actions to perfect the “Certification of a Constitutional Question to the Supreme Court of the United States” requesting a definition of the Constitutional idiom of "natural born Citizen", insofar as the needs of the Constitution is concerned; whether Sua Sponte, upon the Motion of concurring Responses or upon the Motion of this Petition.


Correctly incorporating the Statutory Construction of Article II Section I Clause V into the Statutory Construction of the State Laws, insofar as the provisions that relate to the National General Election of the Federal Executive officers are concerned, at once confirms the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the adherence of the State to the Republican form of government under the Rule of Constitutional Law that is Guaranteed to EACH of the Citizens of the Great State of Oklahoma.



By Leave of the Court I Pray it be so ordered, 



  1. USDC Western OK CV-09-343-F, 10-1345-C, 10-0659-C, USCA 10th 09-6082, 11-9501, 11-6017, SCTUS 08-10817   


  1. Idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own") is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.[1]


The characterization of “Idiom” is applied to the term and juxtaposition of words “natural born Citizen” by virtue of  their usage within the COTUS for their specific and intended purpose and when used in the Constitutional sense become a wholly American “idiom”..


  1. Article II Section I Clause V of the COTUS, (with expired “Grandfather provision (*)” removed);


“No person except a natural born citizen (*) 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.”


  1. Separation of powers; Political doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate to prevent abuse of power. Also known as the system of checks and balances, each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

“Article III  Section II The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--“


  1. Political Doctrine; Subject matter that the Supreme Court deems to be inappropriate for judicial review because discretionary power over it should be left to the politically accountable branches of government (i.e., the President and Congress). Thus, the courts will leave constitutional questions on such matters to be resolved in the political process. Courts will usually find a matter to be a political question on one of two grounds: (1) the constitutional concern for separation of powers, where the Constitution has already committed the matter on other non-judicial branches of government for decision making; and (2) prudential concerns which lead the Court to choose to refrain from adjudicating the matter.


  1. Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137 [175] et seq.


“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”


“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”


“[T]he Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


Views: 15

Reply to This

© 2021   Created by Kelly Townsend.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service