USE THIS LETTER TO WRITE YOUR OWN SENATOR TODAY

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation ^ | February 3, 2009 | Michael Angelus

[Calpernia]

Blog Link has PDF in downloadable format with attachments referenced below:

2 February 2009 Monday

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, - (D - WA) Washington, D.C. Office 511 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-3441 202-228-0514 - FAX

via Fax: 202-228-0514

Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS

Dear Senator Cantwell:

Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below. Four documents give rise to the crisis.

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.

Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states, “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…” See Attachment C.

Document FOUR: the actual text in a letter, dated January 26, 2009, was issued by United States Senator Mark R. Warner. Senator Warner fails to address any laws identifying a natural born citizen. Instead Senator Warner solely addresses a law identifying a citizen; avoiding the legal term “natural born citizen” as so stated under current Constitutional/Congress laws, “…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that ‘…A person born...after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added) of the United States at birth.....’" See Attachment D.

WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.: The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner and we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:

Question ONE: As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?

Question TWO: Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?

Question THREE: To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?

Question FOUR: On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”

In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.

Attachments:

A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415 B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104 C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789: D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef

[Calpernia]

Blog Link has PDF in downloadable format with attachments referenced below

[Calpernia]

Ping for Activism. Write your Senator. Sample provided.

[MD_Willington_1976]

Cantwell is on facebook, just go tell her on facebook...

[Drango]

Perhaps the letter should be written in English rather than governmental gobble gook.

[LucyT]

Thanks, Calpernia.

USE THIS LETTER TO WRITE YOUR OWN SENATOR TODAY

Please write your Senator, today. Even a hand-scribbled letter gets more attention than email.

[IrishPennant]

Thanks - Tag me...I’m in!

[LucyT]

Thanks, Irish Pennant.

Yeah! Good for you!