Revisiting My 2009 Letter to SCOTUS

, , , , , , ,

Ignoratis Terminis Artis, Ignoratur et Ars

sua sponte: Latin for ” of one’s own accord ” – sua sponte is used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion , without prompting or suggestion from either party. In Chief Justice Robert’s condemnation of President Trump, was it a valid court notice, or merely personal?

Edit for April 4, 2025–For 108-years of U.S. nationality law, Kamala Harris and Marco Rubio would not even be citizens. Obama and Cruz, would not be ‘citizens at birth’ until revisions to the INA in 1952. QUESTION: So, how did they suddenly become Article II natural born citizens? Was Article II amended? Kamala was primarily a Jamaican, and Rubio Cuban. Ted Cruz was born a Cuban as well, and on Canadian soil. Obama was born, as he admitted, a British citizen of Kenya, and there are documents still unvetted (blocked by the courts and state department) that show he was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Just the other day, Chief Justice Roberts spoke out in public declaration that President Trump’s demand for impeachment of a radical justice who ordered the immediate return of all deported Venezuelan criminal gang members was inappropriate, preferring the process of appellate review. This appeared to be a personal statement under the color of law, without being signed off on by concurring justices. Two Republican legislators have already initiated impeachment of DC ‘Justice’ Boasberg.

Of course, appellate review takes years and would essentially block the democratically elected mandate of 2024, to undo Joe Biden’s ‘Invasion by Invitation.’

May of 2009, journalist Bob Unruh referenced my letter to the Supreme Court Justices requesting a statement ‘sua sponte‘ concerning the laws requiring a U.S. citizen father for any presidential candidate to be a natural born citizen (or a temporary constitutional exception made for the earliest presidents). The First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 made it even more clear by saying a child born to a U.S. citizen overseas was ‘as a natural born citizen,’ i.e., received from the father, not the place. 

My Letter to Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy
How to get eligibility ruling from Supremes * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh… Read morewww.wnd.com

In a case of constitutional law involving the presidency, the Supreme Court and others (the first case was filed in 2008) denied any hearing challenging Obama’s natural born citizenship, and nothing was heard from the Chief Justice either. He remained silent.

Yet, when President Trump enforced the Alien Enemies Act to deport violent, criminal gang members who came into the United States illegally with the sole purpose of committing organized crime, a corrupt DC justice protested in a questionable order and Chief Justice Roberts spoke out ‘sua sponte’ deriding President Trump’s demand that the justice be impeached. 

Here we have a clear case of illegal aliens committing felonies, terrorizing entire neighborhoods, deported under an existing statute, but a DC Justice and Supreme Court Chief Justice rose up in opposition to a sitting president for merely enforcing the law—doing his job!

Again, back in 2009 we pleaded with the courts to take up the subject of Obama’s foreign nationality at birth, but those petitions were denied again and again, and the supreme court silent. 

DUAL NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP AS A LEGAL TEST

In fact, the House Judiciary committee has discussed whether a 14th Amendment ‘border baby’ is under sufficient U.S. jurisdiction to be conferred citizenship at all.[19]  [THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ . . . IT SUGGESTS ALLEGIANCE ISSUES IN CASES OF DUAL NATIONALITY.] fn 19, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju23690.000/hju23690_0.HTM

And, the legal test of birthright citizenship, as created unconstitutionally by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, is that Ark was not only made a U.S. citizen by the court, but retained subjection to the Chinese Emperor, dual citizenship. And so, all birthright citizens are a conundrum, a conflict of law, having a naturally acquired nationality from their parents and another by fabrication of an unconstitutional court case. 

Yet, the courts have lambasted President Trump for challenging so-called ‘birthright citizenship’ granted to children of aliens as being a direct violation of the constitution and, essentially, barring the Trump administration from publishing or speaking of it again! Essentially a ‘gag order’ similar to that of Judge Merchan in the New York fraud case.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.[20]

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (1866)

Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

John Jay was concerned of foreign principalities undermining the sovereignty of the United States with intrigues of those with dual allegiances.[21]

“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 of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”

Letter to G. Washington, The Papers of John Jay, Library of Congress, 1787

‘Natural born citizen,’ being a child of citizens born overseas, is included in the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowing for the natural devolvement of nationality from the father to the child. The allegiance of the father is the sole source of nationality– no statutory dealienage required. (“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 . . .”)

Keep in mind that Obama’s father being a British-Kenyan meant that Barack Obama, Jr., was (as he himself admitted in one of his autobiographies) a natural born British citizen, his U.S. citizen derived from removal of that nationality after abandonment of the father by operation of naturalization law. 

And let’s not forget the response from the Obama Secretary of State and the courts blocking confirmation of claimed official Kenyan birth documents, and the arrest, detention, and deportation of a WorldNetDaily researcher, Dr. Jerome Corsi, who flew to Kenya to see for himself! 

We know that the opening of the borders by the Biden administration was an invasion by invitation. How many men of military age from China are now hiding within our borders? How many criminal gangs have set up shop to terrorize our citizens? And yet, corrupt and biased judges and our own Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are supporting the invasion by challenging the constitutional authority of the president himself. 

4 responses to “Revisiting My 2009 Letter to SCOTUS”

  1. prsmithsr Avatar
    prsmithsr

    I have seen nothing indicating that the father had to be a NATURAL born citizen, only that he had to be a citizen (and his wife a citizen via Couverture or a citizen in her own right) and that the child is born on US soil (per deVattel)? What is your source for that assertion please?

    Be Well, Paul

    Reply
  2. paraleaglenm Avatar
    paraleaglenm

    To be born a citizen, the father had to be natural born or naturalized at the time of birth. For over 100-years, the mother’s U.S. citizenship was not an element, as the woman not only took the husband’s surname but assume his citizenship.

    As you indicated coverture or the laws of Coverty and Doctrine of Unity of Family made the woman’s maiden citizenship inconsequential . . . until such time the foreign husband abandoned her and her children. Then, on return, she had to make a claim to have her citizenship reinstated.

    The child does NOT have to be born on U.S. soil. This was made clear in the 1790 Act and SR511, the operation of law being jus sanguinis, bloodline succession from the father. A key SCOTUS case that had it right was Perkins vs Elg. 307 U.S. 325 (1939). The Elk case is also correct, but liberals criticize it because it involved a Native American.

    Place of birth, the jus soli, had ZERO contribution until the 14th Amendment and 1866 Civil Rights Act recognized that freed slaves had no citizenship because their fathers were stateless. So they made the stateless condition a requirement (not subject to any foreign power, or conversely speaking ‘under the jurisdiction thereof) for claiming birthright citizenship just by being born on U.S. soil.

    Any foreign nationality/allegiance/citizenship or subjection of the father cancelled out any right of the jus soli.

    Reply
  3. arnash Avatar
    arnash

    Yesterday I read about a congressman who has proposed that the federal judge who interfered in the deportation of those illegal alien gang members could be fired for bad behavior with no impeachment required. Just a majority vote is all the Constitution requires of Congress to eliminate bad judges. Following that logic is the only path that makes sense, and yet you know that Congress rarely does that which makes sense, so I hesitate to even ‘cross my fingers’.

    Reply
  4. paraleaglenm Avatar
    paraleaglenm

    Fired? That’s what impeachment is for and Republicans would need a 60% majority vote.

    The only recourse is a Supreme Court challenge of District Court judicial review, and the creation of general rules based on the specific findings of the court. In the Venezuelan deportation issue, the president as commander-in-chief invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove violent/criminal illegal aliens who were classified as domestic terrorists. Various groups disagree and demand ‘due process’ as ‘lawful residents’ to be the legal standard.

    I would like to see a declaration, with some evidence, that Biden was part of a planned ‘invasion’ to weaken the United States, blur if not remove its borders with a conspiracy to corrupt our elections in order for the Democrats to seize power.

    This would be an embarrassment and extremely damaging ‘narrative.’

    Undoing the 1898 Birthright Citizenship holding and ordering all ‘military age men entering the U.S. illegally’ removed without hearings is the goal, but the Supreme Court would have to swallow a pint of pride, chug it . . . but, at least they can say the Wong Kim Ark court was the same court that decided Plessy vs Ferguson, the ‘separate but equal’ case, and forty years previous, that court held in Dred Scott that blacks were not citizens and had no rights.

    Reply

Leave a reply to arnash Cancel reply