Skip to comments.Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
The state of Arizona considered Hawaii’s answer to be adequate. That suggests courts would as well. You can postulate fraud, but you have no evidence that Hawaii deliberately misled Arizona.
“§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.”
Let me repeat:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
“No, what Hawaii has officially verified is that they cannot verify any birth facts for Obama.”
On the contrary, per Hawaii law:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
The telltale sign for me was when Hawaii refused to let officials from Arizona see the original public records.
According to the Article IV Section 1 "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution:
The Constitution clearly stated that a state does not have to take another state's word for it, but that public records may be "proved." Arizona went to Hawaii to prove the records for itself, and Hawaii blocked them.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
We all know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which means that Arizona's constitutional right to prove public records for itself supercedes Hawaii's state privacy laws, which they are using to hide Obama's records, regardless of what Hawaii deems sufficient "for all purposes."
Before receiving anything from HI, Bennett said Obama’s name would go on the ballot as long as HI sent ANYTHING. And he was true to his word. HI sent a verification that they have no valid BC for Obama, and Bennett put Obama’s name on the ballot as he had promised.
If courts would have considered it good enough, then why didn’t MDEC request Obama’s actual birth facts to be verified so they could submit to the court the same response that Bennett got? The validity of the BC and the truth of the claims made on it were central to the MDEC court case, which is what they used as the reason for making their request. But then they deliberately failed to ask about any birth facts or the validity of the BC. What they got was totally irrelevant to the central question, as defined by them. You think those guys are just stupid, or do you suppose they knew that a judge would HAVE to rule that a response like Bennett got would actually damage their case?
If they have a record they have to verify the existence of a record. They also have to verify any submitted facts that they can certify as having actually happened (that is, those facts are claimed on a legally valid BC). Let’s look at how that would play out.
Suppose I sent in a long-form to HI that said Mary Poppins, female, was born in Honolulu, on Big Island, on Jan. 1, 2013, to Little Bo Peep and Osama Bin Laden. I signed as the informant but there wasn’t any birth weight for the child and there was no doctor’s signature saying that mother and child had been examined. So the record is non-valid. It exists but it is non-valid.
Then suppose that you requested a verification that Mary Poppins, female, was born in Honolulu, on Big Island, on Jan. 1, 2012, to Little Bo Peep and Osama Bin Laden.
Onaka looks at the request application to see which BC is being asked about and sees that he’s got one that claims the same things as are listed in the request application. So he has to verify the existence of the BC.
If he issues a verification saying that they have a birth record for Mary Poppins, does that mean he is verifying all the other stuff as true?
If he responded by saying they don’t have a BC for Mary Poppins when they actually do (and the law says nothing about whether the record is valid or not) would that fulfill the requirement of the statute, that they verify the existence of the birth record if it exists?
“The telltale sign for me was when Hawaii refused to let officials from Arizona see the original public records.”
They didn’t need to. They merely needed to verify the facts, which they did. And Arizona was content. Had Arizona - which does NOT love Obama - not been content, they could have sued Hawaii in court to release more.
You live in a fantasy land, where a state verifying something is proof that the state doesn't verify something. I don't doubt your sincerity, but you probably aren't sane enough to cross a street without help.
If you don’t verify something specifically, then you are not certifying that the event happened that way. What Onaka verified is the existence of a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama, II. A verification of “male” would be a certification that Obama was born male. A verification of “Aug 4, 1961” would be verification that the birth was on Aug 4, 1961. Etc. But Onaka didn’t verify any of those things. Of the things on the actual verification application, the ONLY thing he verified was that they have a birth certificate under that name.
Why? Why did Onaka leave out all the critical birth facts, after Bennett reiterated in his letter that he wanted the items on the request application verified?
You can’t have a certification that just says, “What you said is true”. A person could claim they had said ANYTHING, and could show that signed blank check from Onaka saying it was all true!! That’s not how legal documents work. If a verification is to be considered legally the same as a certified birth certificate, there is NO WAY that a signed blank check would be acceptable. What is verified is what is ACTUALLY STATED AS BEING VERIFIED.
And that’s NOT male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.
Why not? Why were those things not verified?
Must of clicked the “I have already previewed or do not wish to preview” box when I really meant to preview my comment so I could edit it and clean up my sloppy html code! LOL!
Sorry about that. Hopefully there aren’t too many stupid mistakes in there.
First I find it interesting that you and Rodgers picked up the same diversionary type squirrel “pretend” argument..
**Uhh, lets pretend that some other country decides to usurp the citizenship of our country by suddenly declaring all US citizens to now be the citizens of country X. Then lets ask if any of those “former” US citizens can be qualified under the Constitution because they are no longer US citizens by virtue of country X laying claim to them**
Is this the question that you are asking? And are you seriously trying to participate in this discussion by making up some kooky scenario like this and presenting it as a SERIOUS question?
Or are you trying to cover for the fact that you can produce NO official *LAW* recognizing dual citizenship as a legitimately legal US class of citizenship? It is not in the history of this country, not now not ever. Because dual citizenship, specifically referencing Presidential eligibility under the Constitution is what this discussion is about. A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.
It was undoubtedly meant to help “ insure experience and attachment to the country”, but the means was an inadequate method. There was no way they could write a loyalty test into the Constitution, or ensure any future President cared about America. Ultimately, that job was left to the voters. Unhappily, modern voters don’t seem to care about America, or any of the principles that America stood upon - so they voted for Obama, and not just once, but twice.
“You can send me a check or money order for that nugget, LOL!”
Well...I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, but you do have my thanks. I will try to phrase things more correctly in the future.
Very interesting speculation. It certainly has some worthy points to ponder.
My mistake, Thomas Johnson was a delegate to the Continental Congress, but he went back to Maryland to serve in the state assembly before the Declaration was signed. He went on to be Governor of Maryland and a US Supreme Court Justice.
But I think having a citizen father would have made her a US citizen. Reportedly John Adams initially was opposed to John Quincy marrying a foreigner.
Her mother was English. I'm quite convinced LCA's son JQA qualified as a natural born citizen. But I just wanted to point out the difficulty after the Revolution of determining just which of the Americans living abroad qualified as US citizens and on what grounds (and also to show that I still remember things from the school paper I had to write on the Adamses many years ago).
“A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.”
Try to come back to reality. They could not have banned what they could not conceive of existing. If the writers of the Constitution could not have imagined dual citizenship, they could not have banned it in a President.
And they did not. There is no mention of dual citizenship in the US Constitution, so it therefor cannot ban a dual citizen from office.
Consider the case of Lynch v. Clarke. Julia Lynch was born in New York while her parents visited America, and she left at around the age of 3 months and never returned to the U.S. The highest court in NY determined that she was a natural born citizen, eligible to run for President (if she returned long enough to satisfy the 14 year residency requirement):
“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
That opinion was often quoted in the years to come, and Lynch was mentioned with approval in WKA.
There is no doubt that Julia Lynch was a dual citizen, and primarily a citizen (or subject) of England. But she was also a natural born citizen of the USA, and her case was never overturned or rejected by any subsequent court. That is, at a minimum, a pretty good sign that in 1844, dual citizenship was not barred by the NBC clause.
Nor could the judge in Lynch find any example otherwise during the years between 1787 and 1844.
The legal meaning of NBC included within it the possibility of a dual citizen, since some countries claim citizenship based on parentage. Had the Framers wanted something else, they could easily have written “born of citizen parents” (4 words) instead of “a natural born citizen” (4 words).
But they wrote what they wrote. You don’t have the right to overturn them.
Don't fall into the same trap as 2nd amendment supporters are being led into.
It's not a matter of "need." It's a matter of being able to exercise your Constitutional rights. You don't have to justify your choice to exercise your rights to someone else.
Arizona has a Constitutional right to prove Hawaii's record, whether anybody thinks they "need" to or not.
If you don't exercise your rights, you run the risk of losing them. I was disappointed that Arizona did not push it further. You say they were content. I think the Obama administration threatened them into acquiesence. One just has to look at all the reporters now coming forward with tales of being threatened by the Obama administration to know that it is going on everywhere.
Wonder if I can get the senate to pass a resolution declaring me a billionaire?
“Unhappily, modern voters dont seem to care about America, or any of the principles that America stood upon - so they voted for Obama, and not just once, but twice.”
Yeah, I gave the voters a pass the first time they elected him because they obviously were ignorant of him due to the Main Stream Media’s success in covering up his anti-Americanism during the first election cycle. However, it just boggles my mind that, even AFTER they have all had plenty of time to discover what an anti-American scumbag he is, they went ahead and reelected him!
This is certainly not the America that I grew up in. Obviously, our public education system has failed these poor saps. That’s why my wife and I are homeschooling our daughter.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Arizona wanted Hawaii to verify that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii. They did. Arizona doesn’t need to see the original document, and that isn’t what Arizona asked.
It seems pretty obvious to me, reviewing the letter, that Hawaii says Obama Jr was born there. And if Obama Jr was born in Hawaii, he meets the criteria for a NBC.
That really is all there is to it.
And that is why all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress, and all the courts agree that Obama Jr is President of the USA. Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar...
“Thats why my wife and I are homeschooling our daughter.”
Good on you! Given the current school system, that is an important decision!
We home schooled our kids until the 9th grade. My youngest is now in 10th grade, but we talk a lot about history and science and politics. I think her biology teacher has been frustrated that she won’t accept the teacher’s opinion on evolution without question...
Blah, blah, blah indeed.
No, Vladimir Putin is not eligible for the presidency under Article Two or the Twentieth Amendment (or the Twelveth Amendment). Mr. Putin claims to have been born to two Russian parents in St. Petersburg, Russia. But I have not seen an image of his long form birth certificate to confirm that information.
Has any court or any action of Congress ever ruled Obama to be ineligible?
Does the Hawaii Letter of Verification from Dr. Alvin Onaka prepared for Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett state that “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama,II WAS BORN in Honolulu, Hawaii?”
Are you aware of the meaning of the word “Verification?”
Has any member of Congress ever requested a congressional hearing on the issue of presidential eligibility and natural born citizenship over the last four years?
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.