Ted Cruz Is In The US Senate Illegally (and not eligible for the presidency)

I am conflating part of my response to PrairieLady2 (#108) with my response to Lurkinanloomin's (#112).

Where is the constitutional provision that says, "'Natural Born Citizen'" shall be defined in the future, according to the convenience and candidate preferences of people who shall be called Birthers, even if every court with jurisdiction and which has entertained such claims will have rejected them.

Now, if, as in the Omen movies, Satan were to father the Antichrist who would be born of a jackal, that would seem a clear violation of the NBC clause and disqualify the Antichrist from becoming POTUS. Query as to whether this covers Chelsea Clinton Whatshername?

In essence, you are begging the question. We all agree that there is an NBC requirement. We disagree on what constitutes an NBC. By repeating what we agree on lanl, you are ducking and dodging the real question because the meaning of NBC is not at all so obvious as you seem to assume. No one really cares about the philosophical speculations of some Swiss philosopher predating the revolution much less predating the adoption of the present constitution.

Common law has much to recommend it as amply demonstrated by Blackstone but, by its very nature, it is modifiable by courts and legislators as they respectively see fit. You cannot elevate common law to the level of constitutional law. To this very day, the Brits refuse to have a written constitution lest their government be limited. Having a constitution to chain our government was a bedrock principle of our revolution against the Brits.

Natural law (a politically correct title for God's Law) makes it impossible to "legalize" baby butchery or the butchering at will of those already born except in punishment of crime. It is silent on such trivia as who might be a "natural born citizen." Catholic SCOTUS Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has tried to introduce natural law to our nation's laws and I applaud him for it but it is misunderstood by anyone imagining that it dfines NBC. Natural law is the vernacular of great Church scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas who died centuries before Columbus reached the shores of any North or Central or South American lands and centuries more before there were United States of America or a constitution thereof. As much as I admire St. Thomas Aquinas, he was not an expert on natural born American citizenship nor did he pretend to be. He would not have known that there was a North and South America or that there would be a nation known as the USA.

More extreme Catholics than I (all three of them) might see the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as a major source of natural law. I recognize that we live in a non-denominational republic under God and that the Founding Fathers were unlikely to have delegated such authority over American law to the Roman Pontiff. Given the views of Pope Francis, keeping his ideas on globaloney generally and as to climate change and immigration and opposition to capitalism, out of our constitutional law is a good thing.

Here’s what I don’t get...

Beck has been pushing Skousen’s 5000 Year Leap for ages. A good read. But he insists that Cruz is eligible when Skousen, in his constitutional textbook, The Making of America, teaches that a natural born citizen is not foreign born.

Beck believes one book but not the other?

Makes me go, “Huh?”

Not sure why Beck doesn’t espouse this. I guess because it doesn’t fit the narrative. End justifies the means?

**********

The Making of America by Skousen, author of The 5000 Year Leap

p. 528

“To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

This provision gave the American people the RIGHT to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.

A temporary exception was made for a number of the most valiant patriots. It will be appreciated that there were many persons of foreign birth who helped to create the United States, and these would have been rendered ineligible for the office of President had this provision had not been inserted in the Constitution. Seven of the signers of the Constitution were foreign born: James Wilson, Robert Morris and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania; Alexander Hamilton of New York; William Paterson of New Jersey; James McHenry of Maryland; and Pierce Butler of South Carolina.”

Under Birther notions as to NBC, the whole camel (Obozo) has been in the tent for seven years now despite dozens of ill-conceived lawsuits making Birther claims that have been uniformly rejected by the courts.

I have a doctorate in law and practiced for decades before retirement. Lawyers are not called upon to "think ahead of the Nation's future." We take the law as it is and apply it to the facts and, perhaps, obtain results that move the markers ever so slightly. This glacial approach is very much the essence of the common law but common law may be overturned at will by the same courts that made that law common by court decisions in the first place or by our democratically elected legislators. Common law simply fills what otherwise might be gaps in the law. For example, hunters have mortally wounded a deer which nonetheless winds up on a landowner's property as it dies. Wh gets to eat venison? Hunters or landowner? If the legislature does not like the court decision, it can enact a law to the contrary.

We also have a concept in trial law and elsewhere which we call "the burden of proof." That burden is always fully on the shoulders of prosecutors in criminal law who MUST prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or not at all. In civil matters, the burden of proof on "the preponderance of the evidence" (50.1% vs. 49.9%) is on the plaintiff making a claim. Likewise, neither Ted Cruz nor any other candidate has an affirmative obligation to PROVE eligibility. The burden is on those who challenge his eligibility.

Yes, abortion IS "an issue of importance" to me. Ay other intentional killing of 60 million + and counting of my fellow Americans will draw similar interest from me. Roe vs. Wade is a barbarous violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process clauses and the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause and also a gross violation of Natural Law. Herod Blackmun himself in his infamous Roe vs. Wade opinion admitted as much as to the 14th Amendmet and then dismissed the 14th Amendment claim by subordinating the constitution's provisions to the Roman law of Paterfamilia, under which it was allowed that the father (not the mother) of the family had an unquestioned right to order the killing his offspring under 21 years of age. Obviously, he reasoned that Paterfamilia is something the Founding Fathers took for granted as American law. What?????

You pay no price for error which, if allowed to govern, would vod Cruz's candidacy. That is not how it works or was intended to work. I have a lot of problems and issues with Obozo and many others as probably do you) but, sadly, my problems and issues do not disqualify anyone. Nor do yours.

You make an unjustified leap of faith in imagining that Cruz has no allegiance to the people or to the nation. I have no allegiance to Obozo or Hillary or Moral Monster Mitt Romney or McConnell or Ryan-o. So what?

If forced, I shall choose God over the USA. So far, I have had both. The USA is another transitory nation. God always was,is, always will be and always remains the same. God, early and often.

This "issue" has long been settled in favor of allowing the inclusion of Cruz, Rubio, Goldwater, TRUMP!!!, Moral Monster Mitt Romney, Obozo and others. Am I out of line to suggest that you think otherwise at least partially because you do not like the settled result? Then our system requires that, if you disagree, you either get courts more in agreement with your beliefs or slog through the purposefully laborious task of amending the constitution to suit your preference.

Whether TRUMP!!! or the Demonrats or the Bavarian Illuminati threaten lawsuits or not should not govern our lives. I won't be bullied by any of them and neither should Ted Cruz allow himself to be bullied by them. We are conservatives: tougher than Manhattan dilletante TRUMP!!!, togher than Comrade Shrillery, tougher than Comrade Bernie and tougher than Adam Weishaupt. we've got 'em where we want 'em if Birtherism is their best shot.

Your last paragraph is simply without support in law.

God bless you and yours!

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.