Patriot Groups throughout Arizona
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Steven Lee Craig )
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 )
Oklahoma Democratic State Committee )
Chairman Wallace Collins )
MOTION OF MANDAMUS
CERTIFICATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
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;
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,
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”..
“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.”
“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;--“
“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.