About that Lie that SCOTUS Never Defined "Natural Born Citizen"

*********

The most conservative Governor in the nation, Maine's Paul LePage,  Endorsed Donald Trump Because He's A Natural Born Citizen And Eligible.  Even though he was a US citizen, his daughters were born in Canada and researched the subject years ago to see if they could run for President.

Also, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question.

___________________________________________

State chairwoman of the Illinois National Republican Assembly claims Cruz implied that he knew he was NOT a natural born citizen when he was running for Senate.

“I said to him — on my bucket list, one day I hope to work for the first Latino president of the United States in Washington, D.C. — so I looked right at him and I said, ‘I believe someday you might be that guy.’ He looked back at me and he chuckled, ‘I wasn’t born in America … I was born in Canada.’ We laughed about it.”

But asked about his eligibility after his CPAC speech in a Q&A with Fox host Sean Hannity, Cruz said, “I was born in Calgary, my mother was an American citizen by birth, under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”

CRUZ ALSO SAID in an interview with the GOP TEXAS STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER that Barack Obama was NOT a Natural Born Citizen and that the Constitutional definition of NBC was “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” 

*********

The biggest lie is that there is no Supreme Court ruling, or definition of "natural born citizen."  despite actually being settled in numerous SCOTUS cases and other writings of the Founders.  

Here is your cheat sheet to stopping a potential future foreign takeover of the most powerful office in the world.

The first draft of the Constitution did not designate "natural born" citizen (NBC) but was changed following a letter from inaugural Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to Geo Washington arguing that foreign powers could easily find ways to take over the Presidency if they weren't NBC.  

John Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would 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.

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787 (emphasis mine):

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; 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.

NOTICE there is an exemption for mere “citizens” alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – but a “natural born” citizen is something else.   If it only meant naturalized citizen, then WHY WAS IT CHANGED?

Historian and Founder David Ramsey explicitly addressed this in his writings in 1789:

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; butt his is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id.at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7.He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Even GLOBALIST LIBERALS, wrote in the Kent-Chicago Law Review in 2005 argued that the Constitution needed to be AMENDED to do away with the fact foreign born children aren’t “natural born citizens.

the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

There is the reality that Republicans could go through the entire primary process, only to have their nominee thrown out, if not substantially delayed (unable to start a campaign for the general election in time).  Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) will also file lawsuit if @TedCruz nominated by GOP.

The immigration of Act of 1790 Mark Levin cites was REPEALED, because it erroneously legitimized foreign born kids to US parents (plural) as NBC. (Mark Levin the supposed "expert" claimed it was still in effect by the way.) It specifically corrected this in the Act of 1795 and we have the House Committee notes explicitly explaining that it was because of this very issue.

The Supreme Court DID explicitly address the issue of NBC in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”);

A second SCOTUS case (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)), citied Minor and quoting without criticism its common law definition of a natural born citizen. This means in a SECOND case they didn't argue against the earlier finding.

There are actually many many other acts, laws, and documentations clearly show Rubio/Cruz/Jindal ineligible.  

Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -

• Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
• Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
• Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
• Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
• United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
• Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:

"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180 by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, 

Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.

Now to REALLY blow your mind.  There have been numerous attempts since 1975 to change this by Congressional LAW.  Since 2003, there have been 8 attempts alone.  IF EVERYONE ALREADY “KNEW” NBC was merely naturalized citizens, why have there been people trying to change it for the past 40 years?  (Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution)

Ironically we have testimony of a famous foreign-born leader whose mother was American, and his father foreign. He was granted honorary citizenship and was asked by reporters if he would run for President of the United States. He said, “I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father's marriage. There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter."

You know him as, Winston Churchill.


Current Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a foreign father in a foreign land.  Her mother brought her to the US when she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen"  according to her biography. 

One last note. WHY is there an exemption for foreign born citizens in Article II "alive at the ratification" of the Constitution if they too would automatically be natural born citizens? The Founders were some of the most highly educated men in the WORLD as well as our country. They didn't use words casually. So merely consider that this WAS important to them and for a reason.

Otherwise, Iranian Born, Chief of Staff and Communist Valarie Jarrett – is also eligible since BOTH of her parents were Americans.

Ted Cruz Lies on His Website

Ted Cruz's website boldly lies "NO CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR BELIEVES CRUZ TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT."

However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A few include:

• Catholic Law University Review PDF (Also explains why other scholars get it wrong)
  (Layman Washington Post article by same Delaware Law School professor/historian)
• University of Chicago Professor Posner
• Chicago Kent Law Review (from a Leftist, Globalist, New World Order perspective)
• Governor of Michigan
• Michigan Law Review
• Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona 
• Maine Governor Paul LePage  (Daughters born in Canada and researched issue years ago)
• Governor Huckabee and Senator Santorum
• Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe
• Fordham Law Professor
• Former Chief Judge of the State of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law at Touro Law School 
• Winston Churchill (In EXACT situation as Cruz with US mother, and foreign birth & father)
• Founder/Historian David Ramsey 1789 Constitutional Explanation of "Citizenship"
• 1795 Congressional Notes (explaining repeal of 1790 "natural born" Act) PDF
• Libertarian REASON magazine
• Independence Institute
• Case Western Law Professor (changed mind to now doubt earlier position Cruz eligible)  

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question but a Constitutional one.

Read More

Ted Cruz Just Undermined America. And the Constitution.

*****UPDATE*****
There is also now serious legal questions as to whether Cruz's mother ever filed a US Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CBRA) to lay claim to Ted's US citizenship right.  Canada did not allow dual citizenship until 1977 (seven years after Cruz was born in Canada) and without such a document, Cruz would ONLY have been born a Canadian citizen.  If so, since he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2 years ago, he would actually be ineligible to be US Senator also.
*****************************************************************************

Ted Cruz has now demonstrated that no matter HOW conservative and honorable a candidate starts out to be, they will eventually be corrupted by power.

I used to remember Texas Senate-hopeful Ted telling tales of how much he loved America.  How he wanted America to be unified.  How much he loved Reagan.   With his lack of charisma and Harvard aloofness, it humanized him a bit.  It also seemed sincere.

As an transplanted Southerner, there is a wicked temptation to want to trash everything and everybody in New York or California.   Which is strange because most of those Southerners CLAIM to be Christian and are exhorted to embrace not only reason, but also humility, compassion and love.  You'd never catch Ronald Regan trashing Raleigh or Richmond.   Or Trump trashing Texas.

I have to admit - I saw it coming about 3 years ago when, on MEET THE PRESS (a sure telegraph of how Democrats are going to attack him) he claimed that "he won't get into legal arguments" when asked about his citizenship and Presidential eligibility.  I guess that whole expertise in constitutional law is only useful when you need material for a filibuster.  God forbid you should use your education and expertise to educate the public.  I wrote about it at the time (2013) pleading for him to be more like George Washington than a Washington politician.  Apparently Ted doesn't read Politijim.  Or isn't - in reality - a constitutional conservative.

I was told that in private fund raisers - here in Texas - his naturalized citizen father was telling supporters that their lawyers told them "there is nothing to" this whole birther issue.  Since then, it's been revealed Ted also lied about loans from Goldman Sachs (where his wife worked), all the while attacking them as crony capitalists.  The bright side is at least it isn't a forged birth certificate I guess.

Apparently the ideological co-opting that Trent Lott crowed about is inevitable.  Even for born again, God-fearing, constitutionally grounded Senators from Texas.

Additionally, in the past week Cruz has adopted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's political tactics.  During the FOX BUSINESS debate he was asked about his eligibility to be President.  He sarcastically responded, "I’m glad we’re focusing on the important topics of the evening."

Yes, Ted.  Upholding the Constitution is important.  Even if it interferes with your personal ambition.

In that one response, Ted Cruz weakened the United States of America.

It proved his love of the constitution as nothing more than a prop to be used to become President.  Well - at least we  have no illusions that he isn't as principled as he advertised.  God forbid he should be honest with the public and simply explain his legal rational.

Worse, when he suddenly stated that Trump wouldn't qualify because Donald's MOTHER wasn't born on US soil - he showed his true colors.  He lied.  NO WHERE is a definition of 'natural born citizen' anything other than a US soil born child to two US citizen's, regardless of where those parents are born.  With that statement he proved that either he is completely ignorant of the real constitutional arguments - or he is a liar.   There isn't any other explanation.  Neither are comforting.

He also adopted the "Rules for Radicals" tactics (#5 and #13 if you don't have your Luciferian dedicated copy handy) of ridiculing your opponents argument, avoiding any substantive and meaningful discussion.  Rules for Radicals calls it INTENTIONALLY irrational.

Apparently Ted is fine with any Iranian, Russian or Saudi citizens with at least one citizen parent becoming President of the United States.  Whether or not forged birth certificates are acceptable to Ted is unclear.

Why the hell Trump didn't ask Cruz why the first draft of the constitution was changed from merely a "citizen" being eligible to be President (similar to what is allowable for Congress) to a "natural born citizen" at the request of John Jay  - the first Supreme Court Chief Justice - to George Washington...I'll never know.   I hope someone asks it in the final debate to see the extent of Mr. Cruz as yet unknown constitutional expertise.

But Donald Trump proved to me one thing.  Even at the enormous political risk of being called "a birther", he raised the question.  And he's so far ahead in the polls he didn't need to.  He deftly placed the danger on that of the Democrats picking up the legal attack and running with it.  And they not only WILL - they have said they will immediately challenge the election.   None the less.  Donald has been true to the subject since question Barack's forgeries and didn't lay down when given an opportunity to do so.

Trump is now more of a Constitutionalist than Ted Cruz.  And that shocks me.

It also makes me regret buying into the notion that Cruz was truly driven by principal over politics and substance over self-ambition.   He has done some great things in the Senate.  He certainly has fought hard against much of the RINO agenda.  But perhaps the last chance to finally stop the horrendous hoax perpetrated on America by the Muslim at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, may be lost forever.

Yes, he is a Muslim.  And worse, the REAL President is Iranian born Valarie Jarrett, who now has given Iran escape from sanctions, but permission to continue their nuclear development while flooding the market with cheap, terrorist financing oil.   As someone in the oil industry, the millions of jobs lost with the crash in oil is very much due to Iran's oil coming online.  I had Europeans tell me 2 years ago that they had assurances Iran would be open for ALL WESTERN BUSINESS.  Even I didn't think it was possible.

But look what having a Kenyan born President will do for you.   I'm sure there will still be some who will warn "why should we worry about Kenya!?  They couldn't do anything."  Yeah.  Right.

Don't think for a minute that every well financed enemy of the US isn't now grooming some Manchurian Candidate to get their feet wet in American politics.

Barry Soreto has been bad.   But Ted just opened the door wide for the very thing that John Jay feared.  An open invitation for foreign powers to find a way to perpetually control the White House.  And America.

Call me conspiratorial or fringe if you want.  You already did that when you promised me that the government would never lie about unemployment or satellite data, or that the government could force children to be taken from their families and poisoned against their will.   It happens every day across this country.  Worse, you are now forced not only to subsidize liberal's healthcare, you are now at risk of jail if you don't openly support their lifestyle.   Sure.  Go ahead and convince yourself that I'm the kook it in this equation if helps you sleep at night.

Although it his highly unlikely for Cruz to EVER become President, (his unfavorable ratings surpass his favorables among most Americans and the mainstream media will Sarah-Palinize the undecideds the day he is nominated), he has left me disillusioned that there will ever be a politician who will actually do what it is right, regardless of the personal cost.

But no.  I still don't buy that he is a closet Mitch McConnell.  Yet.

George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and had the qualifications for President changed SPECIFICALLY to disallow foreign born citizens from taking over the powerful reigns of our country in the position of Chief Executive.  It would seem Ted is ok with undermining  our heritage as well as our country.

Until now I didn't think the Goldman Sachs connection could possibly have merit.  But if a strict "constitutional conservative" no longer finds questions about the constitution "important," what's a little favoritism among cronyists who employ your wife?

For my fellow conservatives who hate Trump (I get it.  I really do.)  Or who feel that Cruz is the only "true" conservative in the race - I would ask you what else you would sell out to get your "guy" elected.

And if, at the end of the day, if Cruz is elected, but faces secret CAIR backed Mohammad Magnetic Personality in 2020 who has the media on his side and wins the White House....was it really worth it?

Read More