Citizen Files Complaint Against NY Board of Elections for Misstating Presidential Birth Requirement

WHY DO SOME STATES SAY “BORN CITIZEN” WHEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

by Sharon Rondeau

New York State was named for James Stuart, the Duke of York, who was designated as the second son of the British king

(Mar. 19, 2011) — A New York State resident recently filed a formal complaint against the New York State Board of Elections regarding its statement of qualifications for a candidate for President of the United States.

From: Creg Maroney
To: jconklin@elections.state.ny.us; rbrehm@elections.state.ny.us; tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us; tbreads@elections.state.ny.us
Cc: george.christian@mail.house.gov; sheriff@co.dutchess.ny.us;
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 9:34:24 AM
Subject: NY State Board of Election & John Conklin [[ Time Sensitive ]]

February 25, 2011

To the NY State Board of Elections and NY State Board of Elections Public information director John Conklin,

I have presented my concerns to Mr. Conklin numerous times.  Now it appears that he is deceiving the Public deliberately and intentionally by stating that the qualifications for U.S. President to be “ Born a (c)itizen ” when the correct Constitutional text is ” natural born Citizen ” in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 U.S Constitution.

As you may know, the President of the United States is up for election every 4 years.  The next general election for this office will be in November 2012.  The requirements to run for President of the United States are outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  A candidate for this office must be:

1.         A natural born Citizen of the United States ;

2.         At least 35 years old; and

3.         A resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

However the NY State Board of Elections website states ” Born a (c)itizen ” as the qualification to run for the office of U.S. Presidency. As you can see for yourself the Running for Office requirement page from the NY State Board of Elections website. (below)
NYS Board of Elections website:
Running for Office

Editor’s Note: The chart below has been taken from the New York State Elections website.

Requirements to Hold Office

OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
President of the United States Born a citizen 35 years 14 years in country United States Constitution Art. II § 1
United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3
NYS Governor/ Lt. Governor
Attorney General
Comptroller
Citizen 30 years Resident of state 5 years immediately preceding election New York State Constitution Art. IV § 2 and Art. V § 1
Representative in Congress Citizen 7 years 25 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §2
New York State Senator
New York State Assembly
Citizen 18 years Resident of state for 5 years and resident of district for 12 months immediately preceding election. (In a redistricting year, may be a resident of county for 12 months immediately preceding the election.) New York State Constitution Art. III § 7

Public Officers Law § 3

The following Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code defines “citizens of the United States at birth ”.

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian , or other aboriginal tribe: Provided,

That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person o tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States ;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States ;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States , or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States .

Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code may also be found here – http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml.

My questions and request to the Public servants of The New York State Board of Elections and Public information director John Conklin who also is in charge of the NY State Board of Elections Website are,

Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code defines “citizens of the United States at birth.

1) Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of Title 8 United States Code eligible for the Ballot and will be placed on the Ballot in New York State to run for The Presidency and Vice President of The United States?

2) Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of Title 8 United States Code eligible for the candidacy on any Ballot in New York State ” except ” for The Presidential and Vice President?

3) Can a child of two Illegal Aliens that is born in New York State run for the Presidency of the United States and will be placed on the Presidential Ballot in New York State since that child is ” born a (c)itizen “ as written by John Conklin on the NY Board of Elections website?

4) My request is that the NYSBOE change the qualifications for U.S. President on the NYSBOE website to a ” Natural Born Citizen “ as required in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of The U.S. Constitution.

I might run for The Presidency of The United States of America and I need to know if I qualify.

Please stop ignoring my election questions to those in charge of elections in the State of NY.

Please answer my questions in a timely fashion so my Right as a United States Citizen to Run for The Office of United States Presidency will not be denied if I qualify and chose to do so.

Sincerely,

Creg Maroney

Email: Redacted

Cc: Congressman Chris Gibson

New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman

Complaint filed against New York State Board of Elections Public Information Director John Conklin

A list of New York State elected officials is here.

Mr. Maroney also contacted representatives from the state of Georgia, who recently quashed a bill which, had it passed, would have clearly defined presidential and vice-presidential eligibility requirements for future elections.  His emails were sent prior to the  deadline of Wednesday, March 16, 2011, for passing the measure out of committee and were also sent to Georgia county sheriffs.

The state of Massachusetts sets forth the requirements for president as they appear in the U.S. Constitution.

The website About.com lists the first requirement to serve as President of the United States as a “native born U.S. citizen,” but that is not what the U.S. Constitution states.  Other websites properly statenatural born Citizen” as the first requirement.

The chart here offers definitions of both the terms “native born” and “natural born” and explains the differences.  Recently Attorney Leo Donofrio located and published an article from The Boston Globe from 1896 which clearly differentiated “native born” from “natural born” in regard to presidential eligibility.  An essay here offers a different explanation of the two terms.  Another essay details the different types of citizenship and the several factors which bring into doubt the “natural born Citizen” status of Barack Hussein Obama.  This author states that Obama could have been “native born” but not “natural born” due to his British citizen father.

The Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel stated that a child must have a citizen father to be considered a member of “the society” and “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”  Vattel used the “law of nature” to reach his conclusions about citizenship.

The Federalist Blog maintains that “natural born Citizen” does not refer simply to a person’s place of birth.

Why has the “natural born Citizen” requirement been arbitrarily changed to say “born citizen” or “native born citizen” when that is not the term used in the Constitution?  Is it because Obama did not have a U.S. citizen father and the media has attempted to cover this disqualifying factor?  Some have contended that Obama might not even hold U.S. citizenship at all.

Obama himself has admitted to being born a British citizen, claiming only “native citizen” status.

Why is a citizen of Great Britain giving orders to the U.S. military, and why is the military following those orders?  One officer  who questioned the legitimacy of those orders was sent to Ft. Leavenworth prison rather than being provided with an answer to that question.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National

26 Responses to Citizen Files Complaint Against NY Board of Elections for Misstating Presidential Birth Requirement

  1. Sam

    Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM

    Rep. Judy Burges has informed me that the AZ Presidential Eligibility bill is still alive and has been released from committee last night (Mar 22). It is being offered as an amendment to SB1157. It still has several more committee hurdles to pass before it reaches the floor – but it is STILL ALIVE !!
    More when I hear from Rep Burges.
    Sam

  2. natural born citizen party

    Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48978571/SUMMONS-and-VERIFIED-COMPLAINT-for-Strunk-v-NYS-BOE-et-al-NYS-6500-2011

    new nbc 2008 POTUS eligibility case filed today in NYS (Kings Cty NYSSC) –

  3. MichaelN

    Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 7:48 PM

    Please, call and e-mail these AZ state senators

    Eligibility bill is going through the committee today at 2 (mountain time zone). We have to pass it in AZ

    Rep. Tom Forese 602.926.5168

    Rep. Michelle Ugenti 602.926.3155
    Rep. Steve Urie 602.926.4136

    Rep. David Gowen 602.926.3312

    Rep. Steve Montenegro 602.926.5955

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=2068171221776929351

  4. Fellowship

    Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:30 AM

    Pardon me, but just what is a “born citizen”? – one that is living but sidestepped the process of have been given birth? Leave it to the politicians to demonstrate their ignorance like a third grade textbook. “Born citizen”. Unbelievable.

  5. tom

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    I have been trying to get additional copies. So far , I’ve only the one that I “procured”/pried loose from the grip of one of my friends/ students from South America. I have been meaning to include it in a comprehensive video that I had planned to produce & upload to my “YouTube” page. The image standing alone is viewing that is only so compelling ;-)
    Anyone, preparing for and planning to take the U.S. Citizenship Exam should be in possession of these study materials–you may even land a copy of the ,purported to exist , Spanish Language version which includes the even more watered down or liberal wording I referred to in my original post

  6. albert w loescher

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 12:24 PM

    The DOTUS (Deceiver) knows basketball = feints and draws. The globetrotter is adroit with deception and division = selective justice, collapsed economy, militant unions, the sewer in AZ, Japan’s woes, and now a third front in a world war. The ‘whatever-want-it-now generation’ is more concerned for the ‘right’ of food (bread) and entertainment (circuses). Not to worry about the silly detail of eligibility. The insouciants will receive what they deserve.
    awl

  7. A pen

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 9:10 AM

    Bravo sir! However this not so great state of NY is corrupt to the last man paying himself to run it. I live here and have been on top of these treasonous acts from the outset. I spoke openly in 2008 and 09 and was ridiculed. Now I’m being asked to accept an apology and speak at a gathering of businessmen who are fearful of their futures. My words will be plain as they only need to know what is written in our founding documents. I will advise them to put their money where it will do the most good, teaching the youth and assembling the community for open dialog as was once common. I don’t expect Albany to change but by god the locals will know traitors on sight.

  8. Mike

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM

    It is my conclusion that the only question that needs a definitive answer is: Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii (making him a natural born Citizen despite his father’s British citizenship)..

    “making him a natural born Citizen”?????

    “natural” citizenship flows from you father. This is what is natural in terms of natural laws of citizenship.

    Being born to a British citizen who happened to be in-country at the time is not at all a natural citizen of the United States.

    Obama was born a British citizen. He never renounced that status. He never turned in form RN to renounce that status. That status does not automatically expire, it does not just go away. To this day he is considered a British citizen. Look at the issue surrounding the Thai Prime Minister. He has had to recently admit that he is – today – a dual citizen due circumstances similar to Obama’s.

    In no way does this pass the criteria the founders established. Born on US soil alone is no way a “natural born Citizen”. Had it been then soldiers of Britain could have sired a future president during the war of 1812. Does that make sense? Of course not.

    In fact, Congress originally put MORE emphasis on jus sanguinis (blood) in the original immigration act of 1790. They state that those born overseas to citizen parents (note the plural requirement) were to be treated ‘as natural born Citizens’. Note that it did not say they ‘ARE’ natural born Citizens but they are to be treated ‘AS natural born Citizens’. They used the exact phrase as in Article II to ensure there was no doubt of their intent. So they tried to essentially ‘waive’ jus soli and rely ONLY on jus sanguinis. This shows, without a doubt the Congress in 1790 put more emphasis on jus sanguinis over jus soli. The removal of this language in later acts starting in 1795 shows that they probably reconsidered the clause and realized it went against Article II since it did essentially ‘waive’ the jus soli requirement. So both are needed – jus soli and jus sanguinis. But at least for 5 years Congress effectively relied ONLY on jus sanguinis for determining ‘natural born Citizen’ status.

    There is a effort to scrub and alter the meaning and intent of Article II that is ongoing. See Leo Donofrio’s blog for more on this.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  9. Robert Laity

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:05 AM

    The document that you linked to is the NY State Ratification of the US Constitution with a request that Congress attempt to ratify suggested amendments thereto specifically seeking that Congressmen and Senators also be required to be Natural-Born.

  10. Robert Laity

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 12:58 AM

    One “Must be born in the Coiuntry” PLUS one must have Citizen ParentS (BOTH of them and not Just the Father).

  11. Robert Laity

    Monday, March 21, 2011 at 12:56 AM

    To be POTUS one must have Citizen Parents(100% American Jus Sanguinis.,BOTH Parents must be Citizens of the US)

    AND

    He/She must be born IN the US (US Jus Soli).

    The absence of either negates the other.

  12. tom

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    This is nothing The United States Government publishes millions of booklets and distributes them widely every year with the following assertion/language–
    Requirement for President
    NATIVE BORN CITIZEN
    the Spanish Version–must be born in the Country
    The materials, you ask?
    Study Guide for the Naturalization Exam
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Where can that document be procured?

  13. tom

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM

    Sorry, Dude
    Epic fail on your part—
    Natural is that which is not acquired but inherited
    natural~ growing without human care; not cultivated; begotten(as) by actual consanguinity
    If one relies on positive aka “man-made” law to prune his “naturally” inherited features; for example B.O. Jr needing to renounce his Natural British citizenship or wait for his Kenyan Citizenship to elapse or expire in accordance with statute–then this person is in possession of a cultivated form ergo NOT natural

  14. jc

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM

    Did New York State violate their citizens rights under the New York State Constitution?

    When it was ratified and adopted, the following was signed into a lawful and binding contract.

    That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

    So it seems like the rights of New York citizen’s were violated by their State Constitution along with the citizen’s inalienable rights of the United States Constitution.

  15. natural born citizen party

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 6:14 PM

    – anyone know if Creg Moroney is an enrolled DEM, GOP or other/non-enrolled voter. I will look ask that question of the Dutchess County BOE this week. Only an enrolled Democratic (or perhaps IP or WFP) committee/party member would have standing to challenge NYS-BOE law enforcement — other than a general “article 78″ administrative election law statute enforcement complaint.

  16. Andrew Pines

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    Native Hawaiian is a ius sanguinis issue only, it has nothing to do with where one is born.

    Just like most natural born US citizens are not Native Americans (aka Indians). And probably almost no NBC is a native of the state in which he was born. Totally different thing and nothing “amazing”.

  17. sky

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM

    patriotactionnetwork artical Congressional Reform Act

  18. NUTN2SAY

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM

    Shouldn’t we start asking ….Why has this government including the U.S. Supreme Court initiated an illegal process to diminish the authority of the U.S. Constitution? And why are the Bill O’Reilly’s of the MSM acting has cohorts to this crime rather than reporting it to the public?

    I’ve said it before….this is dangerous stuff they are doing! It goes beyond Obama! This government has put America into a state of “check” and it is WE THE PEOPLE this government wants to capture!

    And compared to other people in other parts of the world who are now questioning their leadership by standing up, protesting and demonstrating their defiance. What do Americans do? By comparison….AMERICANS DO NOTHING THAT IS COMPARABLE! While America was burning over eleven million people were busy watching the superbowl. So much for love of country when entertainment prevails over freedom!

    Welcome to the New America my fellow serfs and slaves!

  19. James

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

    There are many different permutations of citizenship – Naturalized, Native-Born, Citizen by Birth, and Natural Born. Although the courts have noted that in the eyes of the law all of these citizenships derive themselves from same place – birth on the soil, it has never been doubted that a Natural Born Citizen is one born on the soil to parents who are citizens. Native-Born and Citizen By Birth are merely permutations that been derived from NBC but the US Constitution specifies that the POTUS must be a Natural Born citizen.

  20. James

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    Amazingly, while Obots contend Obama is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States simply because he was born here, it is undisputed fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the State of Hawaii.
    According to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:
    “You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.” This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian.”

    Obama is NOT a native Hawaiian.

    Obots tend to treated Native Born and Natural Born the same way.

  21. Harry H

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM

    Jonathan Ashley uses a single dictionary as the only source for his sweeping and entirely erroneous conclusion about a constitutional issue of immense importance. A little learning is truly a dangerous thing.

    And what is the reference to Chester Arthur supposed to show, that two wrongs make a right? Arthur was ineligible for office and knew it, just as Obama is and does.

  22. John Sutherland

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

    In all actuality, anyone running for, or being considered in the chain of succession as POTUS, needs to be identified as a ‘natural born citizen.’

  23. CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM

    A better extracted example than the anchor baby example to have used in the specific questions to the Board would have been to have used this part of Title 8 Section 1401 …. and ask if such a born Citizen aka Citizen at Birth can be eligible to run for President. Ask New York if a U.S. Citizen mother giving birth in Iran to an Iranian national who is not a U.S. Citizen is eligible to be the President of the United States.

    “(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States ;”

    See this article I wrote for more details on this subject:
    Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Likewise, “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens at Birth” but not all “Citizens at Birth” are “natural born Citizens”!
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html

  24. Jonathan Ashley

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM

    Since the writers of the Constitution failed to provide definitions for the words they used within the document, the best one can do is find definitions in existence as close as possible to its adoption in 1787.

    From Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary we have:

    NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]

    1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.

    The important part of this definition is “natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.” As such, anyone born within the borders of the United States would qualify as a natural born Citizen.

    Chester Arthur, our 21st President, was the son of Irish-born preacher William Arthur and Vermont-born Malvina Stone. William Arthur was an Irish subject at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth. He later became a naturalized Citizen (e.g., he acquired citizenship).

    The definition of Native from the same dictionary:

    NATIVE, n.

    1. One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.

    As one can clearly see, the use of “native” in lieu of “natural” by New York State officials is mute.

    It is my conclusion that the only question that needs a definitive answer is: Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii (making him a natural born Citizen despite his father’s British citizenship) or was he born in Kenya (making him a non-native requiring naturalization to become a Citizen)?

  25. Daywalker

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 11:20 AM

    > I might run for The Presidency of The United States of America and I need to know if I qualify.

    I think Mr Maroney should have stated that he is a born US citizen who does not have two citizen parents. Otherwise the system might again evade the issue by telling him he does not need to know if he qualifies because he qualifies obviously as a born US citizen with two citizen parents.

  26. Stock

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM

    Would this be an opportunity to open the floodgates and to act against the NY elections Board with a legal action for perhaps injunctive relief as they are depriving citizens of their right to vote in a legal election because the qualification standards for the ballot are improper?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>