Skip to comments.Cruz likely eligible to be President
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible to run for president. While many people assume that, its probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitutions Article II requirement that only a natural born citizen can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasnt clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Well, I won’t back a candidate until after the first debate, but I do believe Cruz is eligible, and I would love to see him run. He’s a solid conservative.
The 14th amendment has zero, zip, dada to with Article 2, Sec. 2. It was aimed at removing the 3/5ths clause making Blacks and Indians equal, under the law, to any other American.
NBC has a known definition and any otherwise a contrivance to fulfill fantasy and subvert the Constitution.
No one is certain what “natural born citizen” means?
I can’t scream it loud enough, or make the letters big enough.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...CAN I KEEP GOING!!!!!??????
Natural Born Citizen is very simple and very clear. ONLY born on American soil, and ONLY if both, BOTH, I’ll say it again, BOTH parents are American citizens.
Anything else causes huge legal problems.
The best way to think of Natural Born as meaning a second generation American where both parents were American citizens PRIOR to the child’s birth. End of discussion. Anything else is misguided BS.
Hmmmm, tag team trolls......
He’s infinitely more eligible than the dude in the seat now.
I’m probably as much of a birther as anyone, but IMO, the precedent has been set and Cruz will be eligible.
Ooops, meant to include you in that last post n00b.
Seems to me that the term Natural Born Citizen plainly means that you were born in the United States of America.
Was Cruz really born in Canada?
I remember seeing Ted Cruz at a local Republican Club meeting 2 or 3 years ago. In a private conversation with the Vice-Chairman of the county Republican party, he said he could see Ted Cruz eventually being a presidential candidate.
No way he can win unless he gets his people to handle the vote count.
Thanks to the Kenyan/Indonesian occupying the White House, it looks like the NBC requirement is moot. So no matter what the circumstances of his birth, Cruz is eligible.
After Obama, anybody is eligible, it doesn’t seem to matter.
Likely? As in a definite maybe? That’s decisive, lol.
Thanks to Obama, everybody is eligible.
Yes,.and.of a.non citizen father.
I thought Superman was a white guy?
No kidding. I'm expecting to see a Soros/Frank ticket in 2016.
Yes, he is almost certainly eligible to be President.
For those who haven't seen it, here is a pretty fair list of known relevant quotes from early America, and early American authorities. These include quite a few people very close to our most important Founders and Framers.
I understand this is a long post. But for those who want to know the evidence from early America as to what "natural born citizen" meant, THIS IS IT.
Some quotes are from translations of our Constitution into other languages, particularly French. We were pretty close to the French. 3 of our first 4 Presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) were dual citizens, holding French citizenship WHILE THEY WERE SERVING AS PRESIDENT. This fact, along with the fact that they never required Presidents to live more than 14 years of their lives on US soil, completely destroys the meme that the Founders and Framers pulled out all the stops to ensure no hint of any "foreign allegiance."
The first thing that anybody translating the phrase would do, if they had the slightest doubt what it meant, would be to ask for clarification. So the foreign-language translations are probably a pretty good source for what people understood the phrase to mean. But they are far from the only source.
While I may have omitted some known quotes that didn't really say much of anything very clearly, I've tried to include pretty much all relevant quotes. I have not included quotes from David Ramsay, a favorite of birthers, because Ramsay's treatise on citizenship was the centerpiece of a self-interested sore-loser campaign, he was not trained as a lawyer and therefore was not a legal authority, and (more importantly) he was voted down 36 to 1. This votedown was the source of the 1789 quote from James Madison, the "Father of Our Constitution." Future President Madison led the Ramsay smackdown.
The claim that a person born on US soil also needs citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. As you read this list of quotes from early America, you will see why I can make such a strong statement. There are FAR, FAR more similar historical quotes, but I have cut it off before the year 1850 in order to keep in EARLY America. The last Founder (James Madison) died in 1836.
Natural Born Citizen Quotes From Early Authorities
French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"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.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
No one except a natural, born a citizen (or possibly, No one except a natural-born citizen)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term citizenship.
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
The 5th section of the 2d article provides, that no person except a natural born citizen, shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the Kings obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States " (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
No one, unless he is a native citizen (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State.
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:
No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (1837)
Born a citizen.
The President must be a citizen born in the United States " (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. 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.
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
Where are the opposing quotes from early America that say that citizen parents were required for any person born on US soil? Aside from physician and historian David Ramsay, who was neither a core founder nor a legal expert nor even a lawyer, and who was voted down 36 to 1, in a vote led by Father of the Constitution James Madison, THERE ARE NONE.
The claim that it takes both birth on US soil and citizen parents to make a natural born citizen is an absolute historical and Constitutional FALSEHOOD. And it is time that those who care about those Constitution stop indulging those who care so little about it that they are prepared to twist it for their own ends.
Here is a summary graphic that sums up an accurate understanding of "natural born citizen:"
He was born via cesarean section, so he is ineligible, according to low-information voters.
Nope. Only if democrat.
violating the constitution with no amendment is NOT precedence.
I’m one of the original birthers from way back before Obama was elected and I think the birther movement has gone so far off the rails that no one will be eligible enough for them.
As far as Cruz is concerned, I don’t know and until he runs, I don’t care.
Do you respond to replies or just troll and run?
Wrong that only works for Obama. Let a pubbie try it and you will hear no end to his ineligibility
What, did the red light go off in your mommies basement?
Copy paste is not your friend, troll.
And yes, you ARE a troll.
hey ill talk to ya
Although some of the early comments on natural born citizenship equate the term simply with being born in America, others equate the term with "born a citizen."
And the first Congress immediately passed a law which said that children born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens, too.
This could be interpreted a couple of ways. One way is that our early leaders (which included James Madison, the Father of the Constitution) believed they had the power to define which persons born outside of US soil were natural born citizens as well.
The other is that they already believed they were, and passed a law simply to clarify that.
The rationale driving the requirement that both parents be citizens of the nation at issue has a long history, being intended to avoid a monarch having a taint of divided national loyalties.
Barack Hussein Obama, for example, was sired by a citizen of Kenya, so far as is known, and the anti-British Colonialism rancor that he absorbed from his Kenyan forebears and neighbors was readily transferred to the U.S.A., long and close ally, and in a sense, a socio-political-cultural “clone” of Britain. A divided and highly suspect national loyalty is one his key characteristics.
If Obama is eligible then so is Cruz.
” If Cruz runs for the White House, then one of his opponents in the primary would have standing to sue in federal court to argue Cruz is ineligible. But the smart money would be on a court agreeing that Cruz is as eligible as anyone else who was born an American citizen.”
Nope! We’ve already seen this movie and the courts will proclaim no standing since no one is being hurt as the outcome has not taken place as yet.
I’d consider voting for him to be my leader, and I expect that I’d vote for him.
With regard to NBC...that is a phrase that has no meaning.
Maybe it used to have some meaning at some point in our history, but not anymore.
That being said, I guaran-damn-tee the slithering GOP will say he is not eligible.
Well, you have a free and open forum, what’s on your mind?
Actually, I'm a person who posts the historical evidence.
Which you can't argue with, even though you seem to loathe everything the Founders and Framers actually said.
Those who can argue with it, can only post bogus arguments, almost all of which have been debunked at one point or another. Doesn't stop them from repeating them, though.
If you don't like what the Founders and Framers and early legal experts said, take it up with them. I'm only they messenger. It's not me that you hate. It's our true history.
i was just trying to stop the screaming
Yes, he was born in Canaduhh and is a dual citizen at a minimum and Cuba may yet claim him as well, due to his father’s status at the time of his birth.
Excuse me, but there are lots of Americans who have complete certainty on what the Framers meant by the phrase, 'Natural Born Citizen'.
And Article II, Section I has nothing to do with who runs for the White House, but everything to do with who is eligible to hold the office of President.
No, you lie, obfuscate and disrupt.
YOU, are a troll.
your humor dwarfs me but at least im not a troll or a fairy or some other godmotherless hething
He was born in Canada. Therefore, he is ineligible to be President.
His father was a Cuban national until 2005, and Cruz was born in Canada and lived there until he was 4.
Does that sound like a natural born citizen to you?
Not according to Ginsburg. There has already been a discussion on the record during an oral argument about the NBC clause
But she will be dead before the case would get to the Supremes.
You can't name one single single thing I've ever knowingly posted that was untrue.
And if I have ever been inaccurate in anything I've posted, and it's been pointed out, I've tried to correct it.
That makes YOU the liar (since you've falsely accused me) and it makes YOU the troll.
Here I post ACCURATE HISTORICAL QUOTES. I even mention the ONLY known historical quote from the era that genuinely go against the grain, and explain why I haven't included it.
And you accuse me of "lying."
It's not me you loathe. It's our Founding Fathers and early legal experts. Because I have simply posted accurate quotes by them, and the accurate and accepted understanding of what they said.
And no, it's not a "liberal" understanding. This is the understanding of virtually every significant legal authority in history. It's the understanding of major conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and National Review.
And you seem to loathe all of them.
After Barry the Sequesterer, ANYONE on the planet who can fog a mirror is eligible. That was why the commie ‘RATS put him in there in the first place. It was the commies’ first all out assault on the U.S. Constitution. It worked.
Yes, it is natural, normal and usual to be born in the country where your parents have citizenship. If your parents are citizens of the U.S.A., then it is natural, normal and usual for you to be born in the U.S.A. Why? Because it is natural, it is normal, it is usual for citizens of a nation to live and conduct their daily living routines, in the country of which they are citizens. It is outside of the natural, normal or usual for citizen to live in a country where they are not a citizen. It is also, natural, normal or usual for a child to be of the same citizenship as their parent. To separate a child from their parents’ citizenship(s) is inconsiderate of the family bond of citizenship. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born with dual citizenship. It is not normal, natural or usual for the son of Obama’s father to be a citizen of a country of which his father is not a citizen. Nor would it be normal, natural or usual for him to not also have his mother’s citizenship. His parentage is a double bind and while as an adult he can declare one citizenship over the other, he will always have a citizenship tie to his father’s citizenship country which is why he is not a natural born citizen, as it is not normal or usual for a son of his father to not be a citizen of his father’s homeland.
Nice enough diagram. But it is based on theory unsupported by virtually every legal authority in history. And by history itself.
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.