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.
Both of the Chief Election Officials (Secretaries of State) in Arizona and Kansas used the letters from the Hawaii Registrar to approve Obama for the ballot in those states. Since Governor Romney won the electors in those states, the issue is moot.
Any further civil action would result in a ruling of failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
We’ll have to continue to wait and see whether the Hawaii Letter of Verification complies with FRE or not when Judge Wingate rules in Mississippi.
"The official elite R leadership are traitors to the core."
So to the point little jeremiah that I repeated your statement. They absolutely know. Just read S. 2678 and SR 511, and the amendment bills from Conyers, Menendez, Hatch, and a California Republican whose name I forget. Read the Washington Post, what they haven't scrubbed, for many discussions around the ineligibility of McCain.
“It might be reasonable to ask, but my bet is that a court will tell you that it does not issue advisory opinions...”
If Cruz runs, his opponents may well file suit arguing he doesn’t meet the required criteria. That gets laughed at when the person was born inside the USA (Obama), but won’t be so easy when it involves someone born outside of the USA. Nor will it be a request for an advisory opinion, but a genuine lawsuit with some doubt about the outcome.
It would not involve a court deciding an election, but a court determining if a person born to a US citizen mother while in Canada is qualified. Alternatively, if the US Senate issued an opinion, it wouldn’t be binding, but it probably would suffice for a court to duck the issue.
Remember, both McCain and Obama HAVE faced genuine court cases. They did not turn out the way birthers wanted, but the lawsuits were justified and ruled on.
Not so. The SOS approved the ballot without reading the letter of verification, and the Kansas ballot already had Obama on it prior to the letter of verification.
Since Governor Romney won the electors in those states, the issue is moot.
There's nothing moot about having a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on any ballot.
Well have to continue to wait and see whether the Hawaii Letter of Verification complies with FRE or not when Judge Wingate rules in Mississippi.
What happened to your "moot" argument since Romney won Mississippi?? Whatever ruling finally gets made won't be made on the basis of the letter of verification, especially when there are so many procedural grounds available.
4Zoltan, I believe you didn't mean to exclude the 14 year residency requirement? As Dr. Ramsay explained, the 14 years were no accident. They helped to insure that a candidate, greater than or equal to 35 years of age, was resident and 21 years of age three years before the revolution, and thus was one of those who experienced, and very likely to have participated in the revolution.
The grandfather clause and natural born citizenship were to try to insure that a president was a descendant of those who fought for our freedoms.
What is moot is the remedy of removing a candidate’s name from a state ballot for being illegal in an election that the allegedly illegal candidate lost anyway.
The Mississippi lawsuit was morphed by Orly Taitz from a primary election ballot challenge into a federal civil RICO action.
You are correct, the federal judge in Mississippi has the Letter of Verification to take under advisement only as an exhibit to accompany a copy of the whitehouse.gov image of the Long Form in a reply to a Motion for Sanctions, nothing more.
While I suspect, depending upon his time zone, that Mr. Lamp will correct you, and know him to be very well informed, I'll save him the trouble. The 14th Amendment avoids any inference relating to natural born citizens - by design. Its principal author, Congressman and Judge John Bingham, addressed the house, twice, to explain the amendment, the first amendment to address naturalization after Article 1 Section 8 authorized Congress to create an Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Here are Congressman Bingham’s words from Congressional Archives:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every 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 "
Wong Kim Arc, reasoned upon the 14th Amendment, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Wong Kim, born in San Francisco, was made a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Justice Gray cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett. His foray into English common law was not relevant to Wong Kim's citizenship status (he visited China and was refused reentry by our State Department) pointless, except the extent to which it provided talking points in case President Chester Arthur's birth as a British Subject was ever discovered.
The term “native born citizen of the US”, one which Obama claimed as his own status on fightthesmears.com, was adopted by the authors of the 14th amendment to refer to residents born on our soil. The 14th made some residents born on our soil, excepting American Indians, whose allegiance was to their tribes, into “native-born CITIZENS of the US”, having nothing to do with natural born citizens of the US. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but hard to avoid. American Indians are “native-born”, but weren't at the time, made “native-born citizens.”
Obama was well “lawyer-ed” on the subject, having Larry Tribe, his Harvard Advisor, and Constitutional Law specialist on his campaign committee. (Larry may have had no choice, having been caught plagiarizing much of a book he published, and bailed out by Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law). It was Larry who wrote the sneaky SR 511 misdirection paper, now in the Senate Archives, claiming that McCain’ birth on land about which sovereignty questions remain, should be overlooked, because the framers would have wanted that interpretation. The Canal Zone was finally incorporated in 1937, the year after McCain was born. Larry may have written the statement in “fightthesmears”, Obama’s campaign website. Obama didn't lie. He didn't claim natural born citizenship. He told us he was born British. Hidden in plain sight was the tactic that depended not upon a low-information citizenry, but upon the careful and precise use of legal terms with which very few were familiar.
All I’m saying is that in two plus years with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, not one single minute of congressional committee hearing time has been devoted to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
Also any one congressman or woman can get the impeachment ball rolling by submitting an impeachment resolution. Neither of those things has happened and that doesn’t fit my definition of “doing everything they can.”
An Impeachment Resolution against Obama has been submitted on the issue of Obama exercising war powers without Congresssional authorization by South Carolina Representative Walter Jones but no resolution on Obama not being a natural born citizen.
Again, once again - the status of those made American citizens under the 14th is of full citizenship. Not naturalization, which is something different. Their citizenship is tied to their place of birth with now American territory, or previously their lack of recognition as full persons. No distinction is drawn between those with parents born in America and between those with parents born outside of America. I can only conclude from this that the purpose of the 14th was not to naturalize all these people, but rather to establish their native citizenship within America.
Mr. Expat, you have changed a few important words in your analysis of Minor v. Happersett; Words, with which you have obvious facility, matter. You contradicted the very citation you quoted:
From Chief Justice Waite: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” You claimed “...there were doubts about whether children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents were natural-born citizens.”. Nice try.
I'm sure you knew better, which suggests that you may be a more refined apologist from the former office of misdirection run by Anita Dunn, at least one of whose employees was honest enough to admit to be assigned to sowing confusion at Free Republic. Or perhaps you simply made a mistake?
You also misconstrued the challenge before the Minor court. In the decision, Justice Waite explains, referring to the 14th Amendment: "Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision."
We were formed from semi-sovereign nation states, each of which had its own constitution, and each defined naturalization differently. Our framers considered it improvident to force states to accept "an uniform rule of naturalization" before the Constitution was even ratified, making it an explicit power of Congress to settle the issue later. The only citizen defined in the Constitution was a natural born citizen. Framers knew well that language changes over time and specified, as Justice Waite invoked in Minor v. Happersett: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, ..." Definitions have never been in the Constitution, but explicitly refer to the common law and language at the time of our framers.
To resolve Virginia Minor's challenge, it was essential to confirm her Constitutional citizenship as it existed before the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment never mentions suffrage. Thus Justice Waite said: "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." It sounds tautological, but was carefully constructed logical reasoning. Mrs. Minor was a Constitutionally defined "citizen", because she was a natural born citizen. To complete his construction he needed to confirm the common-law definition, repeated dozens of times as dictum -"it was never doubted" - to prove that Mrs. Minor was not given suffrage by the 14th. There were no dissenting opinions. (this analysis owes much to Leo Donofrio).
Minor v. Happersett thus established precedent, and was anathema to Obama's comrades. This is why acolytes of George Soros' Center for American Progress "mangled" at least twenty five Supreme Court cases, corrupting their citations to Minor v. Happersett to prevent searches from turning up Minor v. Happersett. The CEO of Justia.com, the nation's busiest free, on-line legal archive Tim Stanley, admitted the corruptions, but claimed it was "a programming error." If we needed any other evidence for the importance of Minor v. Happersett, this scrubbing of Supreme Court case law erased all doubt. Leo Donofrio with Diana Cotter of The Portland Examiner first exposed this crime - and it is a crime./p>
There is a Center for American Progress conference at a major law school where an eminent professor challenges Stanley, and his associate, the CIO for Center for American Progress Eric Malamud, by pointing out that all his graduates have been taught to question legal document sources, particularly the free, or in Stanley's case, publically subsidized legal sources like Justia. They are assigned cases to research on line and compare their citations, their accuracy. Malamud managed to get Cornell to scrub the key incriminating paragraph from a Cornell Law version of a Supreme Court decision. Malamud almost became director of the US Printing Office. They are all looking for money, which is fine, but honesty and defense of the Constitution have disappeared. They don't realize that their individual sovereignties will disappear with our bill of rights and Constitution.
President Andrew Jackson on this theory could have been impressed for military service in the English army against which he fought at New Orleans, if he had ever happened to visit England; and President Arthur would have been in the same plight.
This quote from Teddy Roosevelt show that at least TR had concluded that Pres. Arthur was a UK subject and dual citizen at birth. Was TR basing this on suspicion that Arthur was born in Canada, or knowledge that Arthur’s father did not naturalize as a US citizen until after Arthur was born?
Leo Donofrio made quite a bit deal over how he and his sister “discovered” the naturalization papers of Arthur’s dad.
Well, if you have evidence of Obama saying that he was born in Kenya, then you can introduce that statement as evidence that he was born in Kenya. Was Obama's statement taped? Is somebody prepared to testify to hearing him make that statement?
However, if you don't really have admissible evidence of Obama saying that he was born in Kenya, then you're continuing to engage in wishful thinking. I'm asking you to take a realistic view of your case. Imagine yourself standing before a judge, with everyone watching, and the judge asks you to put on your evidence that Obama was not born in the United States. What do you think will be the result if you tell the judge, "Well, judge, we don't really have any evidence that he was born outside the United States. Our case is really based upon our hope that you will disregard Obama's testimony and documents indicating he was born in the United States. We want you to give his testimony no weight, we want you to find that the State of Hawaii's records are utterly worthless and fraudulent, and we want you to give no weight to the fact that there were contemporary news articles in Hawaii announcing his birth. Judge, if you can just give zero weight to all of that so-called evidence, then you can find that Obama's evidence is no stronger than our zero evidence."
All I can say is, good luck. You don't really want a trial.
I think if a pitch is to be made, it should be made to the House of Representatives. If they won't help you, then start preparing for 2016.
If I felt certain about the truth of a proposition, but was unable to produce any affirmative evidence to support it and was unable to convince most other people of its truth, I would simply accept that I believe the proposition as a matter of faith. Then, the fact that others didn't join me in adopting that faith would be less painful.
Glad to see you on the thread!
Great reply, but a casual reader might fail to note that the first paragraph of your reply is a quote from the person you are replying to, but that you unintentionally omitted the quotation marks...
I can see by reading the posts here that many people believe that the Supreme Court can do anything it wants anytime it wants, but judges are very conscious of their limitations. The judiciary has no army. it depends on the executive branch to enforce (give meaning to) its opinions. The judiciary has no independent source of funding. It relies entirely on the Congress and the President for funding. Without the continuing support of these other branches of government, the judiciary has no power at all. Without some basic level of continuing support from the public, the power evaporates.
Yep. When a U.S. citizen with dual nationality steps foot into the other country of their citizenship, that country then has a predominant claim to him/her. It’s potential for trouble, period.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) a. Dual nationality is the simultaneous possession of two citizenships.
b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.
c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.
d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country’s laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesnt mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
7 FAM 082 DUAL NATIONALITY AND U.S. LAW — GENERALLY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) Current U.S. nationality laws do not explicitly address dual nationality, but the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a status long recognized in the law and that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
The arguments and the arguers themselves, noobies and the usual suspects, all have a similar dishonesty and lack of integrity. Without fail, my spidey sense always starts tingling.
I kinda had a sense of what was happening, even with all the missing pieces, but it's obvious to me now. Dealing with people, I tend to question everything anyway and look to motive and for the information and trails that explain it all.
With the information in your posts, those missing pieces to the puzzle, along with the well written civics lessons (for which I am especially grateful), all those trails and motives come together.
Thanks for taking them on and for showing us the truth about what's happening here. Your scholarship and patriotism set a high standard that I and we all would do well to emulate.
Only the most shameless Fogblower or fellow traveler would dare to come on FR and hold up Malihi citing “as discussed in Ankeny” (clear meaningless dicta) as being “a trial on the merits” regarding Barry’s NBC status.
For starters, a “trial on the merits” would have included recognition of a plaintiff with standing to challenge Barry’s NBC status (never happened) and full discovery of Barry’s original HI vital records with cross-examination under oath of the custodian of those records.
“judges are very conscious of their limitations”
Sorry. The US Supreme Court has no problem at all with creating law out of thin air. Think abortion, or the “right” to homosexuality...kind of hard to find THOSE in the US Constitution!
If Cruz ran, and one state put him on the ballot and another refused, you would have a valid federal case, just as Florida’s recount methods fell under the federal judiciary.
Are you freelance or do you work for someone? Your persona seems more like you are an intern? Whose office do you work in?
4zoltan, thank you very much for posting the Google link to TR’s book. Thanks, Seizethecarp, for alerting me to it. It is very interesting.
To your point, Seizethecarp, it appears that when TR mentioned Jackson and Arthur, he was referring to the concept of foreign nations granting citizenship to U.S. citizens whose parents were foreign-born. I assume he was aware that Arthur’s father was foreign-born and was not concerned with or even aware of the date of his naturalization.
On a separate note, TR’s feelings about dual citizenship are very interesting. The following is a section prior to his comments about Jackson and Arthur.
I hold that it is the clear duty of the American people immediately to repudiate the doctrine thus laid down by the Wilson Administration. According to this doctrine there are in our country very many citizensand, as a matter of fact, this ruling would apply to millions of citizenswho are “born with a dual nationality.” Two or three years ago it was announced that Germany had passed a law by which she provided for her citizens, who became naturalized in the United States or elsewhere, the means of also retaining their German citizenship, so that these men would preserve a dual citizenship, what the Department of State in this letter of April 2nd last calls “ a dual nationality.” I hold that it was the business of our Government as soon as this statement was published to investigate the facts, to require would-be citizens to repudiate this law, and to notify the German Government that we protested against and would refuse to recognize its action; that we declined to recognize or acquiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship or a dual nationality; that we would hold naturalized citizens to the full performance of the duties of American citizenship, which were necessarily exclusive of and inconsistent with the profession of citizenship in or allegiance to any other nation, and that in return we would extend the same protection to these citizens that is extended to native-born citizens. Such action was not taken. It is a reproach to us as a nation that it was not taken. We should not for a moment tolerate the assumption by Germany or by any other foreign power that foreign-born citizens of the United States can retain any citizenship in or allegiance to the country from which they came. But the present case is even worse. It seems incredible that the Department of State can promulgate the doctrine of dual nationality promulgated in its letter above quoted. Yet it has been asserted and reasserted, both before and since Mr. Bryan left office. It is dangerously close to treason to the United States to hold that men born here of foreign parentage, men who have served in the militia in this country, who vote and hold office and exercize all the other rights of citizenship, and who in good faith are and always have been Americans, should, nevertheless, be blandly informed by the State Department that if they visit the countries in which their parents were born they can be seized, punished for evasion of military duty, or made to serve in the army.
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.