Monday, May 18, 2015

Sibley v. Congress II

Regarding my lawsuit against Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner, I have now perfected service of process on both Gentleman and thus the lawsuit can move forward. That lawsuit seeks to challenge the refusal of Congress to call an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments despite 35+ states having applied for the calling of such a convention.

Senator McConnell promptly removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

I will in due course be contesting that removal.


Monday, May 4, 2015

Harvard Law, Ted Cruz and "natural born Citizen"

In March, the Harvard Law Review stepped into the political arena with an article by two former Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal. They wrote a Note seeking to establish that the Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz was eligible to be President under Article II of the Constitution.  Article II requires, among other conditions precedent, that the President be a "natural born Citizen".  In their Note -- “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen” -- Clement and Katyal argue that "natural born Citizen" means all those who were: "U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

This legally-indefensible argument deserves refutation given that it comes ex cathedra from the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Grotesquely, six of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices graduated from Harvard Law School:  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, and Elena Kagan.

Hence, the distinctive intellectual bias of graduates of that law school has a disproportionate impact on the direction of law in the United States. The Harvard Law Review has refused to publish my Response to the Note of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal: “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen”.  I post it here for what it is worth. I guess the powers-that-be believe that there is no sense in muddying the intellectual waters with the apparently pre-ordained Harvard Law School coronation of Senator Cruz as "eligible" to be President by allowing my Response to be published.

In sum, in my Response, I refute the arguments of Messrs. Clement and Katyal, and conclude as follows:
Thus, I must maintain that the manipulation of the framingera sources and law by Messrs. Clement and Katyal to conclude that Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be President cannot stand.  They conclude: “Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent -- whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone -- is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.”  The British statutes, Blackstone,  de Vattel, The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the holding in Minor v. Happersett are all consistent: “natural born Citizen” is a privilege bestowed upon a special class of U.S. Citizen, to wit, a child born of two U.S. Citizen parents.
Thus, insomuch as  Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal were born in the United States to parents none of whom were United States citizens at the time of these gentlemen's respective births and Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen, none of these fine gentleman are eligible to be President of the United States.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

Montgomery Blair Sibley vs. Congress

As repeatedly documented in this Blog, I have filed suit against the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch many times.  Predictably, none of those suits were determined upon the merits but instead my claims were avoided from being determined on the merits by the courts ruling that I did not have “standing” to challenge the allegedly illegal actions of government officials.

Now I am fully aware of the adage attributed to Albert Einstein that Insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Nonetheless, believing I should leave no stone unturned, yesterday I sued the U.S. Congress through their representatives: the Honorable Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.  The suit is framed as a logical syllogism:
U.S. Citizens have a general right: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922)
The “Law” found at Article V of the Constitution states in pertinent part: “The Congress . . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, . . ” 
“Two thirds of the several States” equals 34 states (50 states*.66%= 34)
To date, as detailed in the Complaint, thirty-five (35) states have made "application” for a Convention to Propose Amendments but Congress has refused to make the “call”.
Therefore, insomuch as Congress is not “administering” the government according to law, the Court is obligated to order Congress to do its duty and make the “call” for such a Convention.
The Defendants the Honorable Mitch McConnell and the Honorable John A. Boehner have twenty (20) days to respond to this lawsuit which I served upon them today.