Ted Cruz’s eligibility: A civics lesson for the uninformed
3/25/15
0852 am
Rarely do I find and share an article in my blog. I found this gem while researching Ted Cruz’s eligibility and his status as a Natural Born Citizen.
I was going to write another article based on my collective research data but declared that this article was so well written and so easy to understand that I would not improve upon the content and I would be remiss to not share it with my readers in it’s entirety.
I hope you will support the website below and visit their site often as it has many other fantastic blog entries.
Enjoy as I did.
Laws, Codes and Eligibility – A Civics Lesson
By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net
Ted Cruz, as a matter of LAW and U.S. Codes…IS indeed qualified AND eligible to run for the office of president.
The Constitution, clearly states that to serve as president, one must be 35 years of age, one must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years and that one must be a Natural Born Citizen. Just as clearly, the Constitution never defines Natural Born Citizen nor do any of our founding documents but…later laws and codes DO.
The Supreme Court, which has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC and therefore, never issued any DECISION regarding NBC has, for a very long time, held that a Natural Born Citizen or…NBC…is one who is a Citizen at Birth or…CaB.
Further…the SCOTUS has long held that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parents of a U.S. citizen.
Now don’t go all plural on me here as I will explain this.
British Common Law held that children, whether born on British soil or abroad were subjects of the crown if their parents were subjects of the crown and our founders and framers certainly recognized this.
The First Congress stated as a matter of law via The Naturalization Act of 1790 “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Yes…I know that Ted Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen but…this is not the end of the line in our civics lesson. Far from it in fact. The Naturalization Act of 1790 also included children whose MOTHERS were U.S. citizens so long as the FATHER had, at least, been a RESIDENT of the United States…so as not to follow British patriarchy standards used for the purpose of the monarchy.
Later, congress would strike the differentiation so that any child, born in the U.S. or abroad, with the residency requirement intact and A parent being a U.S. citizen would be legally…a Natural Born Citizen.
This is backed up by the Nationality Act of 1940 which clearly states: “In the absence of such legitimation or adjudication , the child, whether born before or after the effective date of this Act, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of the child’s birth , and had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, shall be held to have acquired at birth her nationality status.”
The Nationality Act of 1940 also shows that those born either within the United States or outside the United States (the latter being of note to Ted Cruz) to at least one parent (at least ONE parent) who was a United States citizen at the time of that child’s birth allows the conveying of that citizen parent’s United States citizenship to the child.
And as I stated yesterday…”While the Act of 1940 has been amended several times…the particular law in effect between 1952 and 1986 which covers Ted Cruz’s birth in 1970 shows that a child born either inside or outside the United States must have a (that would be “A” and not two) citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Congratulations Mrs. Cruz…you are the proud mother of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen baby boy.
But wait…there’s more…
I refer you to §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
You can read it here in the link provided.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
So…congress, backed by long-standing recognition of the United States Supreme Court has held that being a Citizen at Birth is one and the same as being a Natural Born Citizen and since that recognition has also been held by the Harvard Law Review as well as Constitutional scholars and numerous law professors as well as valid U.S. laws and Codes…
Ted Cruz, because his mother, meeting every requirement, conveyed HER citizenship on her son Ted…at birth…and every law on the books both then and today along with existing U.S. code IS…INDEED…ELIGIBLE to run for and hold the office of President of the United States of America.
The fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada has absolutely NO legal bearing on this whatsoever. None. Zilch. ZERO. His birth certificate is a legal document showing the time and location of his birth but does NOTHING to establish his citizenship in any way.
U.S. laws and U.S. code…some of it going all the way back to the founders and framers who served in the First Congress of the United States makes this VERY clear. And for those who continue to scream “CONSTITUTION…THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SAYS”…please remember THIS part of it…“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”
It may not be what some folks want to hear…it may not be what they want to know or admit but…while you may not LIKE the laws…you must ABIDE by the laws. Support whoyou like but…Ted Cruz’s eligibility is a matter of U.S. LAW and U.S. CODES…not the stuff of false libertarian or liberal talking points.
During yesterday’s little nonsense firestorm, I implored those citing the “CRUZ AIN’T ELIGIBLE” nonsense to provide links to ANY U.S. laws or codes that would back them up.
None could…simply because no such laws or codes exist. All they did was repeat the same false narrative over and over again and, they continued to cite SCOTUS cases that had not one single thing to do with NBC at all…again…because no such case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court.
Here’s just one more little but important tidbit…
Since Cruz’s father had been a resident of the United States…Ted would have, by the Naturalization Act of 1790…been considered a Natural Born Citizen in accordance to the words of the Constitution and thus eligible to run for and hold the office he currently seeks. And by the way… One last thing in answer to all those who desperately and falsely try to compare Cruz to Obama…because they consider Cruz a threat to their one and only candidate of choice…the exact same laws and codes that make Cruz eligible…make Obama INELIGIBLE because Obama’s mother did NOT meet the requirements outlined here.
Thus ends our civics lesson.
Source of information: Please support this website and see many more informative articles as this one. I like his style!
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2015/03/25/laws-codes-and-eligibility-a-civics-lesson/#more-14081
BCN Note:
Although I feel it will be a longshot for Cruz to win the nomination mostly because many within his own party will do everything within their power to make sure he is never President of the US. He does not tow the typical moderate line and will not be a puppet for the puppet masters to manipulate.
With that said, I do feel it is our duty to allow the Republic of the USA to render any subjects that qualify to run for President to participate.
To negate a Natural Born Citizen from running for President would be totally against the intent of our forefathers and would minimize their protective measures taken many years ago to give any natural born citizen the right to be President of the greatest country on Earth.
Sooooo… Run Cruz, run reader, run NBC it’s your right, it’s your duty.
Now, move ahead with the knowledge to inform others and pass this article to a friend.
Bradley County News Network 
Gentlemen: I think you might want to read the attached analysis before going all in for Ted’s (and Marco’s, Rick’s and Bobby’s) eligibility.  The first attachment is the most in-depth, constitutionally based analysis of the eligibility issue I have ever read.Â
I have dozens of papers by numerous authors on file on the eligibility subject and would happily share them if you desire. A note of caution – Be very careful regarding which eligibility analyses you value. Just like the Dems over the past 6-7 years, the R’s and R candidates have commissioned various sources to write papers distorting the real constitutionally based meaning of the term natural born citizen. I do enjoy reading your blog. Charlie RushSilver Point, TN 38582
From: Bradley County News To: cfr.tntech@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:44 AM Subject: [New post] Ted Cruzâs: A civics lesson for the uninformed #yiv6380274910 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv6380274910 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv6380274910 a.yiv6380274910primaryactionlink:link, #yiv6380274910 a.yiv6380274910primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv6380274910 a.yiv6380274910primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv6380274910 a.yiv6380274910primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv6380274910 WordPress.com | Bradley County News posted: “Ted Cruz’s eligibility: A civic lesson for the uninformedRarely do I find and share an article in my blog. I found this gem while researching Ted Cruz’s eligibility and his status as a Natural Born Citizen. I was going to write another article bas” | |
LikeLike
I agree. Thanks.
LikeLike
…blessingsthank you for the hard work.so enjoyed your article
LikeLike
Reblogged this on 912 Project Buffalo and commented:
Civics 101.
LikeLike
Please articulate a basis on which Ted Cruz is eligible that does not allow Congress to make the Governator eligible to become the Presidentinator.
You can’t.
The English Common Law (ECL) makes every person born in the realm a natural born subject, but excludes from that category every person born outside the realm. Because of the concern for hereditary titles and properties passing down, Parliament expanded by English Statutory Law (ESL) the category of natural born subject.
By Reception Statutes or Constitutional Provisions, the original thirteen independent states all adopted ECL for the determination of legal questions. Thus, at the founding of the Nation, ECL governed states’ practices regarding determination of natural born status. But ESL was NOT adopted en masse as was ECL. So the expansive ESL categorization of natural born was not brought whole cloth into the American Republic.
When the States and the People stood up a new, general government, they limited the power of that central government, making it one of donated powers only. As to immigration and naturalization, the States and the People only provided the following with respect to donation of powers. In Article I, Section, Congress is authorized to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Naturalization, of course, is not immigration, though it is related. Naturalization is the transformation of an alien into a citizen. So Congress has the donated power of the States to make into citizens those that were not citizens.
Yes, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (repealed) provided that certain children of Americans born abroad had the status of “natural born citizens.”
What does the decision to include that provision in America’s first federal naturalization law tell us?
Perhaps it tells us that Congress asserted the power to extend “natural born citizen” status to persons that were not NBCs under the ECL.
Perhaps it tells us that, even then, the question of whether such persons were NBCs was an obviously unsettled question, or worse, a question to be answered in the negative, and for which no power of correction lay in the Congress.
I have addressed the particulars of Ted’s problem in a series of posts. They are here:
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2013/09/but-what-if-ted-cant-be-president.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/deuces-wild-and-foreign-born-americans.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/cruz-mccain-george-romney-ineligible.html
As it turns out, I am heretical among the birther crowd because I reject Vattel’s Law of Nations and the jus sanguinus doctrinal determination of natural born citizen as governing here. Their invocation of Vattel approaches fetishistic proportions, as I snarkily note here:
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/vattelic-fetishism.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article I shared is pretty on spot and explains his status very well! Thanks for your comments.
LikeLike
—– Forwarded Message —– From: Charles Rush To: Michael Delgiorno Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:38 PM Subject: Fw: [New post] Convention of States: Letâs talk about the crisis it could create Michael: I enjoyed listening to this mornings info-mercial for the COS meeting tonight in Nashville. Â
I do wonder why the leaders of the COS agenda in middle TN are not willing to meet with those who have a different view of the potential COS positives and negatives in a public forum.  What/Who are they afraid of?
 What would be the harm in the general public knowing that in addition to conservative COS proponents there are other proponents of a COS convention such as: The Revolutionary Communist Party USA, the very liberal Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the George Soros funded group “Constitution 2020”. All have already prepared their own versions of a totally new constitution for this country. Does this not remind you of what actually happened in 1787? From my point of view, in reality, the best result a constitutional conservative could expect from a COS would be, as written by Publius Huldah. “Or should we ‘modernize’ the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has (already) usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?” That result is not something I would be happy with!
—– Forwarded Message —– From: Publius Huldah To: Charles Rush Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [New post] Convention of States: Letâs talk about the crisis it could create WordPress.comDear Charlie, I am trying to get forums in Tennessee but convention supporters donât want me speaking. Iâm trying to get a sit down face to face meeting with Michael Del Giorno. COS and other convention supporters wonât let me speak at their events; TP leaders who support a convention wonât let me address their members. So other Tennesseans must step up – if they would demand that I be allowed to speak, such would help.  But I have very little support in Tennessee. If other Tennesseans would also speak out against a convention, such would help. Sen Mike Bell should be PUBLICLY challenged to participate in an event where he and I are each given 45 min. to speak and then we take Qâs from the audience. And when he starts to attack & smear me, instead of agreeing to participate in an event with me, he should be reminded of Socratesâ words, âWhen the debate is lost, slander is the weapon of the loserâ.Â
Is there an organization which would put on such an event and PUBLICLY invite Mike Bell and me â and would PUBLICLY disclose if Bell refuses? It could be done so that it would seem an act of cowardice for him to refuse. PH     Â
From: Charles Rush Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:26 AMTo: Publius Huldah Subject: Fw: [New post] Convention of States: Letâs talk about the crisis it could create Update: Con-Con discussion starts at 11:05 AM today and is scheduled to end at 12 noon. Charlie —– Forwarded Message —–
LikeLike
I am putting together a coalition on FB. It’s called Stop CON CON TN. I started it yesterday and already go a few hundred signed up. I would like to see a couple thousand and then approach COS with the possibility of a debate. I have organized several debates and had decent turnout on all occasions. Do you have a website or Fb page where I can view your credentials. Please forgive me for not knowing a lot about you. You can contact me privately at bradleycountynews@gmail.com, I need to get to the floor of the legislature, the radio etc. Any experience in this arena. Spread the word and direct people to my Stop CON CON TN site. Thanks!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Winning the War against Islamic Fascism.
LikeLike
I don’t care about whether he is an NBC, ABC, or CBS. It’s everything he says that makes me detest him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couple of items you completely ignored in your write up:
1) The 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed. Only 5 years after it was signed into law. The founders were still around then & they KNEW certain portions of the 1790 Act was hogwash!
2) You stated that folks gave you NO FACTS showing that he was ineligible. I seriously doubt that, but — if they haven’t, please allow me to provide you some:
Note: it states ‘shall be considered as Citizens’, not NBC — From the 1795 ACT:
“SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed. ”
3) Where is Senator Cruz’s ‘CRBA’ application? The one that MUST BE submitted by his mother to transfer her citizenship to the child?
Read thoroughly and use the embedded links provided.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
LikeLike
Of all people, I thought you would follow and stand with our Constitution…You can not just pick parts of the Constitution to follow…Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Obama are NOT Constitutionally eligible…For all you Cruz anti Constitutional supporters; IF you think Cruz is eligible take it up with the Supreme Court. They have already made it clear TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH. So don’t go arguing with me about this it is a Supreme Court decision and you will have to dispute their opinion not mine. None of this is my opinion. It is copied and pasted from Supreme Court ruling.
A person (CRUZ) BORN OUT OF THE JURISDICTION of the United States (Canada) CAN ONLY BECOME A CITIZEN BY BEING NATURALIZED either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, OR by authority of Congress, exercised either by DECLARING CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS to be citizens, as in the enactments CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP UPON FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN (Cruz) of citizens (Cruz’s Mom)……(Excerpt from) The ARK Opinion of the Supreme Court written by Justice Gray And this is only 1 of at least 4 Supreme Court cases that say the same thing.
Historical, legal, and other papers discussing meaning of “natural born Citizen”…Neither Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Obama is one:
https://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards
If I was given a nickel every time someone posted that phony Harvard Law Review article, I’d be a rich man…The two lawyers who wrote it were once employed by the BO/BS regime…That alone should tell you all you need to know about the credibility of the article…They attempt to merge the definition of citizen with the definition of natural born citizen to give the false pretense a foreign born citizen, such as Cruz, is eligible to be President…The fact People refer to this disingenuous article instead of actually reading the U.S. Constitution and the history behind the Founding Fathers writing Article II Section I Clause V shows People have no understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the meaning of natural born citizen…
The Harvard Law Review uses the NATURALIZATION Act of 1790 to validate their claim…They fail to recognize that the Act of 1790 was repealed and replaced with the Act of 1795, making the first act null and void…They also fail to recognize the name of the act that they are using it is the NATURALIZATION Act, a naturalization act can only be used for naturalization…They also fail to recognize the wording of the act…It says, “shall be CONSIDERED AS natural born citizens”…It did not say, “they ARE natural born citizens” or “SHALL BE natural born citizens”…It says, “shall be CONSIDERED AS”…They were not to be treated as second class citizens, because they were naturalized citizens and not natural born, they were to have all the same privileges and freedoms as naturalized citizens, except for the one the Constitution clearly withheld from them, the office of President…
Rebuttal to Harvard Law Review by a Constitutional Scholar: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html#uds-search-results
To further understand how our Founding Fathers came to the conclusion of what a Natural Born Citizen is, you must dig deeper as to where they received their information and the only way to do this is to research and study Vatell’s Books, “Law of Nations”, Book One, Chapter 19…
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788
LikeLike
Leaving out the fact that Cruz mother had been a resident of Canada for 4 years prior to birth and the cuban daddy this negates the nbc. Cruz mom left the US and had residence in Canada thus making Ted a Canadian. Ted is a anchor baby for his Fidel
LikeLike
Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788
LikeLike
[…] https://bradleycountynews.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/ted-cruzs-a-civics-lesson-for-the-uninformed/ […]
LikeLike
The author of this article fails to take into account that Cruz was BORN in Canada, His father was a Cuban Citizen when Cruz was born. Cruz held DUAL citizenship until 2014. That is a LONG ways from being ‘natural born’ as the Constitution REQUIRES. OUR forefathers stimulated that to assure alliance to our Nation NOT his daddy’s as we see the treasonous Obama currently doing. READ the following please & Learn. !! Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father. BOTH PARENTS must have been U.S. CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH in order for a Presidential hopeful to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our U.S. Constitution!! Natural born” is VERY different from any other category of citizenship, i.e. “native born”, “naturalized”, or “citizen by statute”.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
Below is part of the discussion of the Congress of 1866 which wrote and passed the 14th Amendment, and according to the intent of the framers of that Amendment, which is the “Law of the Land”, as democrats like to say, neither Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jindal, Santorum and even Mitt Romney, are not eligible to be President of the United States, according to the terms set forth in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution which requires a President to be a “natural born citizen”. The left will argue that the courts make the law, but as we all know, it is the legislatures that write laws, the courts affirm their Constitutionality, and the executive, executes those laws. The fathers of all of the above, were not citizens of the United States at the time of the births of their sons, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, and never applied for U.S. citizenship. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was still a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, Marco Rubio’s father never applied for U.S. citizenship until 1997, and George Romney was born in Mexico, to parents who had relinquished their U.S. citizenship, and therefore George Romney was a Mexican citizen by birth and was never naturalized, which means that Mitt Romney is a Mexican citizen by birth. We cannot ignore the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment because Obama was elected, and now seek to elect another ineligible candidate to compensate. We must as Americans. elect only “natural born citizens” to be President. We cannot have a President with a dual allegiance! Obama has proven this detrimental to the welfare and propriety of the United States of America.
LikeLike
Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788
LikeLike
Although I want to see Cruz win,
The Naturalization act of 1790 and Especially the Nationalization act of 1940, are based on false precepts that the meaning of natural born citizen had not yet been defined.
First, it is not likely that our forefathers would have used a term that as of yet had no meaning.
Second and most importantly A book that our forefathers referred to often, and one that was held in high esteem, did in fact state the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Namely “The Law of Nations” by E. Vatttel. This is available to read and download in PDFs form from the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov
LikeLike
George Mason said it best.
Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788
LikeLike
There are also SCOTUS cases that state who are native born citizens and who are natural born citizens. In a SCOTUS case “McCreery’s Lessee v Somerville, (1824) the court stated that daughters of a non US citizen father were native born citizens. Just like Obama and Cruz,
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
You stated “While the Act of 1940 has been amended several times…the particular law in effect between 1952 and 1986 which covers Ted Cruz’s birth in 1970 shows that a child born either inside or outside the United States must have a (that would be “A” and not two) citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
What 8 USC 1401(a)(7) [now 8 USC 1401(g) actually says is “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: …
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; …” [See: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title8/chapter12/subchapter3&edition=prelim%5D
Nowhere is the term “natural born citizen” used in that passage.
Furthermore, it appears that our higher court’s have taken a different interpretation of the nature of the citizenship of foreign born children of US citizen parents than you do.
In 1898, Supreme Court Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark stated “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, … by authority of Congress, exercised … by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens …” [See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!
In 1951, Chief Judge Phillips in delivering the opinion in the case of Zimmer v. Acheson for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said of someone who was born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, acquiring their citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401), that the nature of their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/227742/zimmer-v-acheson-secretary-of-state/?q=ZIMMER+v.+ACHESON&type=o&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc%5D
In 1956, Judge Hamley, in delivering the opinion in the case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a case pertaining to two men born outside the United States to a naturalized US citizen father, noted that Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401) is “a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/240243/wong-kam-wo-and-wong-kam-yin-v-john-foster-dulles-/?q=Wong+Kam+Wo+%26+Wong+Kam+Yin+v.+Dulles%5D
And in 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”
It appears that the position of the courts for well over a century is that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship wholly through Congressional statutes are “naturalized” citizens.
LikeLike
I wish Obama would have received the same scrutiny that Cruz is getting!
LikeLike
He did, tens of thousands of we the true Constitutionalist were preaching to the choir and over 200SCOTUS cases were denied stating mainly, we the people, we the voters had no standing…So tell me Bradley County News, where the hell were you at 8 years ago???
LikeLike
Fighting right along with you! Was very closely involved in an NBC case in Atlanta to challenge Obama’s eligibility to run for a second term. Fought and even got labeled birther by local media for my stand on the NBC Issue. I research daily and my views may change as I become more educated.
LikeLike
It’s the 1970 law that reigns! Remember we are a country of the supremes laws of the land, not from an oligarchy that dictates law! God bless you! I know you are trying!
LikeLike
The 1795 Act cancelled and corrected the 1790 Act and replaced “natural born citizens” with “citizens”…They realized they made a mistake and had trodden on Article ll, Section 5 unintentionally…
Click to access STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency – c. (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose “fathers” have never been permanent resident in the United States.”
Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada his parents; Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson (US citizen) and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Cuban citizen) Rafael Cruz immigrated to the US in 1957 and waited until 2005 to become a “naturalized” US citizen. Why did Rafael Cruz wait 35 yrs to become a US citizen and 35 years after Ted Cruz was born?
Click to access 86757.pdf
If Ted Cruz truly believes his Mother being a citizen is the sole criterion for him to be a natural born citizen, despite him being foreign born from Canada, then why did he feel the need to renounce his Canadian citizenship in 2014?
I can not help but laugh every time someone states: Ted Cruz is a ‘U.S. citizen’ because his mother was…I am not surprised though…
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1994-title22/html/USCODE-1994-title22-chap23-sec1731.htm
“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” (FOR DUMMIES) 2 Citizen parents at the time of the birth of the child on American soil. I don’t like things complicated and this is the definition that the Founders had when they put this in the Constitution…WHY??? To keep the office of the president from FOREIGNISM.
For God & Country…
Well, well, well it looks like Cruz’ Harvard law buddies have no standing!!! The state department has refuted Cruz Harvard buddies law review on his eligibility…If you haven’t noticed just about every article being published on Ted Cruz’s Article II ineligibility cites the recent Harvard Law Review publication that declares foreign-born persons eligible to be president so long as they were born to one American parent…They write that there’s no question about Cruz’s eligibility to run for president…
The major problem with that assertion is the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual refutes that position.
Business Insider notes at the end of the article that both Clement and Katyal refuse to comment on whether they are in communication with the Cruz Campaign or if they know Cruz’s campaign is directing reporters to the article.
~~~Obama ineligibility litigant David Farrar is all over it:
Every word in the Constitution Matters…..Sen Ted Cruz…~~~David Farrar went on to say:
I am sorry to have to say this to my fellow Tea Party friends and neighbors, whose hopes and dreams for a better future were raised recently with the presidential announcement by and for Sen Ted Cruz, but this guy is playing us all for suckers. When you stop and consider Cruz’s excellent legal background, for this shyster to now suggest that just because he was fully naturalized at birth by statute, with no need to attend any further naturalization procedures at some later time,* as a person foreign-born of US citizen-parent(s), that somehow makes him an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen should shock the conscience of every honest, red-blooded American. Please save your money. This guy is going to get run out of town by his own petard long before the primary election.~~~
Boy! if these two guys are Sen Cruz’s top two lawyers, he’s in more trouble than he thinks.~~~
So according to Sen Cruz’s top two lawyers, since Sen Cruz acquired his US citizenship at birth via Title 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), according to Sen Cruz, himself, with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time; Sen Cruz is an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen.
Their interpretation would have been closer to the truth in 1790 of those foreign-born of US citizen parent(s), but even then, there would have been a considerable discussion as to what exactly is something “considered as” natural law, but not, in fact, natural law mean? Fortunately, we don’t have to confront this question because the 3rd Congress addressed it for us. With the help of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, the phrase in question was quietly changed in 1795 to “being considered as Citizen of the United States,” where it has remained ever since. In other words, as Justice Gray would observe 97 years later, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, in obiter dicta, to be fair: “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized…by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of (US) citizens”…
In other words, as I am sure Sen Cruz knows, or should have known, although as to these two bumkins whom he graciously calls his top two lawyers, perhaps don’t know, and never had a clue, Sen Cruz was naturalized at birth, via the naturalization statute: with no need to attend any further naturalization procedures at some later time. Sen Cruz is a statutory, naturalized Citizen of the United States at birth. He is not, and cannot be, an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, which acquires US citizenship by nature, as a natural political right and not by statute.
The Founding Fathers used the definition of natural born citizen from the only source they knew and respected at the time…That source was Emmerich deVattel’s “Law of Nations”, Book One, Section 212 states: ” The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”… This definition requires the person be born in a Country to two citizen parents…Cruz is foreign born from Canada and his father was not a citizen when Cruz was born…Cruz is ineligible for those two reasons…
It is pretty simple…All persons BORN IN the United States to two citizen parents (plural) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…
That is a natural born…Right there in the Constitution in plain English…“I find no fault with the introductory clause , 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”…
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071%2Fllcg071.db&recNum=332
The Supreme Court already thinks TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH. And I think they have the last say in the matter = 1898 Ark case A person (CRUZ) BORN OUT OF THE JURISDICTION of the United States (Canada) CAN ONLY BECOME A CITIZEN BY BEING NATURALIZED either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, OR by authority of Congress, exercised either by DECLARING CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS to be citizens, as in the enactments CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP UPON FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN (Cruz) of citizens (Cruz’s Mom)……(Excerpt from) The ARK Opinion of the Supreme Court written by Justice Gray.
“Citizenship By Decent”:
Justice Gray addressed this matter in his 1898 opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark. In part IV of his majority opinion Justice Gray, favorably citing a paper by Mr. Horace Binney quotes “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.” Continuing, he further cites Mr. Dicey again, quoting “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”
It is in part upon that basis that Justice Gray observes in section VI of his opinion “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, . . . by authority of Congress, exercised . . . by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, . . .” Clearly then, those who become citizens AT birth by statutory means are “naturalized citizens.”
Therefore, Justice Gray has clearly pointed out that common law does not grant citizenship by descent and that one must rely upon statutory relief in this area if one is born to citizen parents outside the territory of the country if one is even to become a citizen. Indeed, Justice Gray specifically cites foreign born children of citizens who acquire their citizenship through Congressional enactments as an example of “naturalized citizens.”
How then, if Ted Cruz was born outside the Territory of the United States, acquiring his citizenship only by statutory means can he be considered anything other than a naturalized citizen?
Because Ted Cruz didn’t reveal to the Texas voters in 2012 that he was a Canadian citizen and didn’t renounce that citizenship till 2014, so by both countries laws he committed election “fraud.”…
The U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a “natural-born citizen”, which most scholars believe means someone who has been a U.S. citizen since birth…Therefore, this means all U.S. citizens who are not “naturalized” citizens…
Anyone who supports Cruz or Rubio is NOT a Conservative nor a Constitutionalist and a Traitor to our Constitution and Republic…
How does this sentence work everyone?
“He is a Constitutional scholar” – and – “a legal expert from Harvard” – and “he didn’t know he was Canadian for the first 43 years of his life, despite having only a Canadian birth record and NO US citizenship papers at all.” ??? SMELLS OF FRAUD TO ME, NO DOUBT AND ENUFF SAID…
LikeLike
Nothing in Title 8 Section 1401 Grants Anyone “Natural Born Citizen” Status…The Word “Natural Born” Does Not Even Appear in That Naturalization Act/Law…
LikeLike
You are correct. I was born overseas of two American citizens. I have a foreign birth certificate and US issued one commonly known as the Form FS-240. While it is no longer required I obtained a Naturalization Certificate as was required by law at the time.
LikeLike
I would ask that you delve into the federalistblogs under NBC for more information on what the founders intent was. It was understood among all at the time that the sovereignty of the nation must be protected. This measure is the only requirement that does that; POTUS and VP of the US shall be Natural Born Citizens. It was common and long accepted terminology that meant exactly what it says; nothing more, nothing less. For anyone to water down this qualification is to shred the Constitution in it’s entirety and flush it. Something often overlooked is mention of the fact that no NBC could require any legal documentation to become a citizen, as Cruz recently did. I have nothing personal against the man. I appreciate his stance on most matters and hope someone has the good sense to assign him a cabinet position. My concern is for my grandchildren, for future generations of Americans, for the continuity of the Constitution and the sovereignty of this nation. It’s past time to reset the standard put in place by the founders to protect this country… and us from a clear and present danger within, as we currently have in our house. After the mess we’re in now… no one whose citizenship is even remotely questionable should be considered a candidate. A mistake like this should NEVER be allowed to occur again. Let’s just chalk it up to a lesson learned… and leave no room for another situation like this to rear it’s ugly head again.
LikeLike
Hey look beyond foreign law and look at what our SCOTUS And current law have depicted! TED CRUZ is eligible! Relax,it’s current law that governs ou country!
LikeLike
Bradley County News, you need to go take a Refresher Course in Reading Comprehension, or finally go to school and learn…What do you not get about man made laws and natural God given laws???
Over the last couple of months, I have been constantly bombarded in conversations with Cruz Supporters, with various “expert” articles citing “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952” as the ultimate “proof” that Sen. Cruz is a “natural born Citizen”…So I decided to re-research through the Public Law 414 (which evidently none of these “experts” chose to do) created by this Act, and amazingly, it says right there in black and white why Sen. Ted Cruz IS NOT a “natural born Citizen”……which is what I have been saying for a couple of years, about Cruz and Rubio and even Bobby Jindal…..and I have been preaching to the choir for several years that Obama is not eligible either…
This is “copied and pasted” directly from the document:
“IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952
PUBLIC LAW 414 JUNE 27, 1952
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
CHAPTER 1 NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION—
Sec. 301. Nationals and citizens at birth.
Sec. 302. Persons born in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 303. Persons born in the Canal Zone.
Sec. 304. Persons born in Alaska.
Sec. 305. Persons born in Hawaii.
Sec. 306. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 307. Persons living in and born in Guam.
Sec. 308. Nationals but not citizens at birth.
Sec. 309. Children born out of wedlock.
CHAPTER 2—NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION
Sec. 310. Jurisdiction to naturalize.
Sec. 311. Eligibility for naturalization.
Sec. 312. Requirements as to understanding the English language, history, principles and form of government of the United States.
Sec. 313. Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government.
Sec. 314. Ineligibility to naturalization of deserters from the Armed Forces of the United States.
Sec. 315. Alien relieved from training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States because of alienage barred from citizenship.
Sec. 316. Requirements a s to residence, good moral character, attachment to the principles of the Constitution, and favorable disposition to the United States.
Sec. 317. Temporary absence of persons performing religious duties.
Sec. 318. Prerequisites to naturalization—burden of proof.
Sec. 319. Married persons.
Sec. 320. Children born outside of United States of one alien and one citizen parent.
Section 320-
CHILD BORN OUTSIDE OF UNITED STATES OF ONE ALIEN AND ONE CITIZEN PARENT AT TIME OF BIRTH; CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED
SEC. 320.
(a) A child born outside of the United States, one of whose parents at the time of the child’s birth was an alien and the other of whose parents then was and never thereafter ceased to be a citizen of the United States, shall, if such alien parent is naturalized, become a citizen of the United States, when—
(1) such naturalization takes place while such child is under the age of sixteen years; and
(2) such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of natural- ization or thereafter and begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of sixteen years.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to an adopted child. ”
Since through all of these experts from the Harvard Law Review to whomever else the Cruz Supporters post articles from, we are constantly preached that “Since Sen. Cruz acquired his citizenship through birth, not through naturalization, he is a ‘natural born Citizen'”…..as they cite this law…Well, I contend that if the actual Section that describes EXACTLY the circumstance of Sen. Cruz’s birth is in the Chapter “NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION”, he is a NATURALIZED Citizen…I rest my case…
And by reading that “subsection (a)” real closely because that “alien parent”, Rafael Cruz the father, didn’t become a Citizen until 2005, LONG after little Rafael’s 16th birthday, so the ONLY way that little Rafael becomes a Citizen AT ALL, if he is a US Citizen, is through naturalization a.k.a.- NOT “natural born”…
Naturalization is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country…It may be done by a statute WITHOUT ANY EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities…This describes Cruz and Rubio both…Neither is a “natural born Citizen” as required to serve in the Office of Commander in Chief…Usurpers…..No Doubt…
Remember:
People are trying to distort the truth knowingly or accidentally on what Naturalization means and what a true Natural Born Citizen is really all about…Not one of the laws below makes you a Natural Born Citizen…NO MAN MADE LAWS MAKES YOU A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…
18th century
Nationality law in the American Colonies Plantation Act 1740 Naturalization Act 1790 / 1795 / 1798
19th century
Naturalization Law 1802 14th Amendment (1868) Naturalization Act 1870 Page Act (1875) Immigration Act of 1882 Chinese Exclusion (1882) Scott Act (1888)
1900–1949
Naturalization Act 1906 Gentlemen’s Agreement (1907) Immigration Act 1917 (Asian Barred Zone) Emergency Quota Act (1921) Cable Act (1922) Immigration Act 1924 Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934) Filipino Repatriation Act (1935) Nationality Act of 1940 Bracero Program (1942–1964) Magnuson Act (1943) War Brides Act (1945) Luce-Celler Act (1946) British Nationality Act (1948)
1950–1999
UN Refugee Convention (1951) Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 / 1965 Refugee Act (1980) Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) American Homecoming Act (1989) Immigration Act 1990 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (1996) Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997) American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) (1998)
21st century
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) (2000) H-1B Visa Reform Act (2004) REAL ID Act (2005) Secure Fence Act (2006)
People try to throw a LAW/ACT via our government trying to prove that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all NBC…All of the above Acts were for immigration and naturalization laws and has nothing to do with a Natural Born Citizens…Again, none of these Acts makes Obama, Cruz, Rubio or Jindal a NBC…
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
LikeLike
ted cruz is NOT a “natural born Citizen” and therefore NOT eligible to be president or vice president. According to our founders and established in a letter from John Jay to Gen. George Washington, a natural born Citizen is one completely devoid of any foreign allegiances and ties. A natural born Citizen is one born in the country to parents (plural) who are also Citizens. cruz is doubly disqualified, he was born in a foreign country to a foreign (cuban) father.
http://drrichswier.com/2014/11/07/ted-cruz-eligible/
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment.We are a nation of laws and we must obey the laws of the land. Although the term NBC is not specifically covered we have the Constitutional guidance that clearly states “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…” Therefore under past and current law, Cruz is eligible!
LikeLike
I know that you believe this but you should really know what current law says, not the Vattels or other laws in another country or by a monarchy that didn’t have our nations best interest at heart!
LikeLike
The Supreme Court defined “natural-born” in Minor v Happersett (1875) as
“born in the country, of citizen parents”.
LikeLike
Then current law should really make you happy! Right?
LikeLike
I love it when people try to distort the truth knowingly or accidentally on what Naturalization means and what a true Natural Born Citizen is really all about…Not one of the laws below makes you a Natural Born Citizen…
18th century
Nationality law in the American Colonies Plantation Act 1740 Naturalization Act 1790 / 1795 / 1798
19th century
Naturalization Law 1802 14th Amendment (1868) Naturalization Act 1870 Page Act (1875) Immigration Act of 1882 Chinese Exclusion (1882) Scott Act (1888)
1900–1949
Naturalization Act 1906 Gentlemen’s Agreement (1907) Immigration Act 1917 (Asian Barred Zone) Emergency Quota Act (1921) Cable Act (1922) Immigration Act 1924 Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934) Filipino Repatriation Act (1935) Nationality Act of 1940 Bracero Program (1942–1964) Magnuson Act (1943) War Brides Act (1945) Luce-Celler Act (1946) British Nationality Act (1948)
1950–1999
UN Refugee Convention (1951) Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 / 1965 Refugee Act (1980) Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) American Homecoming Act (1989) Immigration Act 1990 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (1996) Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997) American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) (1998)
21st century
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) (2000) H-1B Visa Reform Act (2004) REAL ID Act (2005) Secure Fence Act (2006)
People try to throw a LAW/ACT via our government trying to prove that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all NBC…All of the above Acts were for immigration and naturalization laws and has nothing to do with a Natural Born Citizens…Again, none of these Acts makes Obama, Cruz, Rubio or Jindal a NBC…
LikeLike
Your piece on Ted Cruz eligibilty was great. I have 4 points on the supporting references.
Fact: 1. ONLY place in US law w/term “natural born citizen” (NBC) is found is Const., Art. 2, Sec. 1; & it is NOT defined.
Fact: 2. Immgrtn/Nat. Act 1790 was superseded by INA 1795, which deleted the term NBC.
Fact: 3. INA includes 8USC1401, titled “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.” NBC not used, only “citizen.”
Fact 4. Const. 14th A does not mention NBC; only “citizen.” Anyone stating otherwise is misinformed. Look the up yourself.
LikeLike
http://drrichswier.com/2014/11/07/ted-cruz-eligible/
LikeLike
This will help:
http://drrichswier.com/2014/11/07/ted-cruz-eligible/
LikeLike
Why Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen:
Click to access whytedcruzis_notanaturalborncitizen.pdf
LikeLike
[…] Source: Ted Cruz’s eligibility: A civics lesson for the uninformed […]
LikeLike
So where did you stand on Obama’s eligibility.
LikeLike
Does it matter at this point?
LikeLike
Sorry, but you and Craig Anderson are wrong.
Original Intent, as TC so well knows is key. Both parents at time of child’s birth must be citizens of US for child to be a Natural Born Citizen, as confirmed in letter to George Washington from John Jay, quoting Vattel, which was for fidelity and loyalty to fledgling new nation, The USA.
Learned this in 8th grade civics in Carroll County Maryland, named after Charles Carroll of Carrollton who signed our Declaration of Independence.
I paid attention then and now.
Only an Amendment can change this, not Cornell or Harvard law or a Title.
This should help:
Click to access whytedcruzis_notanaturalborncitizen.pdf
LikeLike
Let us slow down and BACK UP for a moment. Here is what we — we the people need to do (in my honest Opinion) —
Forget the ‘natural born Citizen’ thingy. Make it real Simple for these so-called legal scholars, pundits, talk show hosts, SCOTUS Justices, Congress critters, etc…. Ask them a really Simple Question:
What is a CITIZEN? Just a citizen? What defines a citizen?
You’re gonna get all sorts of answers… but make them STAY ON TOPIC — “WHAT IS A CITIZEN?”
Now, ask them, what was a CITIZEN in 1787? What was the definition of Citizen THEN? When they composed our U.S. Constitution — You’re gonna get the “Deer in the Headlights Look”…. and out will come the “Uhhhs… Ummms… stammering & the whole ‘Shabang’!” You’ve got ’em then…
Here’s the simple answer:
A citizen, in the minds of our founders, the framers of our great republic — A CITIZEN was ONLY freemen who had taken an oath of allegience to their state. The State of Georgia, or NY, or NJ, or SC, NC, Virginia, etc — The 13 colonies. Women were NOT Citizens and the concept wasn’t even being considered. It wasn’t even considered for another ‘One Score and 14 years’ (Use that terminology on them to really throw ’em for a loop **Wink Wink ** )
“A Score and 14 Years” after the ratification of our Constitution.
And for snits & giggles… here is the text of once such oath taken sometime between 1774 and 1804. Administered in Bute County NC — Now it is known as Franklin County NC (Louisburg / Youngsville / Franklinton area)
“The Oath – I will bare faithful and true allegiance to the State of North Carolina and will truly endeavor to support maintain and defend the Independent Government thereof against George the third King of Great Britain and his successors, and the attempts of any other persons, prince, power, State, or potentate who by secret are treason conspire copies or by open force shall attempt to subject the same and I will in every respect conduct myself as a peaceful orderly subject and that I will disclose and make known to the Governor (or) some member of the Council of State or some Justice of the Superior Courts or of the peace all treason conspiracies and attempts committed or intended against the State which shall come to my knowledge so help you God.”
In closing, Might I suggest each of you go look up YOUR Family in the 1800 Census. You will find that no women were listed. Look at the 1820 Census — 1830 — I’ve already done it. It is not until the 1840 Census that women start to be listed.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010
LikeLike
does it really matter anymore if Cruz is a NBC? Obama is not and he somehow got elected> Throw him out for treason and maybe THEN it might matter about Cruz and the rest of them.
LikeLike
While Obama may be born an American citizen, the whole Indonesia thing raises questions. He is clearly identified as an Indonesian citizen, probably by being adopted by Soetoro. I’m all for giving children with multiple claims of citizenship the ability to select their own citizenship at 18. But you only get one. Cruz by choosing US would not be Canadian no matter what the Canadian’s claim. Obama’s question is when did he take back his American citizenship. If he did after taking college scholarship as a foreign student, I think there is an issue.
If I had to make one change in the law, it would be Americans can not be dual citizens after the age of 18. There are no hyphenated Americans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have a problem with having more than 1 citizenship, I DO have a problem with a foreign citizen getting to be the president of the US! Obama may be a citizen due to his mother being one, but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and that is what is required to be president. They did that for the exact reasons we are having with obama, he is much more foreign in his thinking than american. He NEVER should have been elected, or even eligible, I don’t know who the hell let him in the race, but they should be tried for treason as well as obama!
For normal people who are not running for president, I really can’t see any issues. Let them get as many citizenships as they can, it might let them live a better life at some point.
I know I wish I could get another one right now.
LikeLike
As one of the requirements to serve as president, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states only that the president must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Unfortunately, the Constitution fails to expand on the exact definition of “natural born Citizen.”
LikeLike
Ted Cruz , as a supposed “CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR” you should already know that the natural born citizens clause was written to ensure ALLEGIENCE TO AMERICAN AND AMERICA ALONE
“Natural Born” : one who is born on native soil to two NATIVE CITIZEN PARENTS
you were born in Canada , you could hold ALLEGIENCE TO YOUR NATIVE SOIL
your father was a Cuban citizen , you could hold ALLEGIENCE TO YOUR FATHERS NATIVE SOIL
if Cruz is supposedly going to have ALLGIENCE TO AMERICA thru no other fact than his mothers AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP , why wouldn’t he have ALLEGIENCE to his FATHERS PLACE OF BIRTH in the same way ?
why wouldn’t he have ALLEGIENCE to his own BIRTHPLACE in the same way ??
this is why the founding fathers wanted to eliminate any candidate who could possibly be BEHOLDING to any other nation by native soil or parental birthright
so please simply explain to me how your tenuous (at best) grip on American citizenship assures ALLEGIENCE TO AMERICA , as the founding fathers intended ??
IF YOUR MOMS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP MAKES YOU A “NATURAL BORN” AMERICAN CITIZEN , WOULDNT YOUR FATHERS CUBAN CITIZENSHIP MAKE YOU A “NATURAL BORN” CUBAN CITIZEN ??
“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 the president”
By using the two terms “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” and plain old “CITIZEN” in conflict with each other ( THE WORD “OR” SHOULD TIP YOU OFF) our founding fathers spelled it out clearly
THE TERMS “CITIZEN” AND “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” COULDNT POSSIBLY MEAN THE SAME THING , ESPECIALLY WHEN USED IN THE SAME CLAUSE AND IN OPPOSITION TO EACHOTHER , FAR FROM IT
LikeLike
If Cruz has been born in England, without birthplace citizenship, he would have been clearly an American natural born citizen. Are we really going to let some crazy Canadian law affect American Law on who can be our President. If so Iran will name everyone an Iranian citizen and no one will be qualified to be President.
LikeLike
This article is factually inaccurate on many points. Here are a few:
1. Laws CANNOT lawfully supersede the Constitution, nor can congress.
2. Many sources exist that define NBC which was well understood at the time the Constitution which is precisely why no definition was needed. Lawyers and judges have lied about the meaning for their personal agenda which can be proven by reading writings of our Founders and Vattel.
3. Being a citizen at birth cannot be synonymous with NBC, for if it were, why would our brilliant, well-educated Founders have gone to the trouble to distinguish between the two? It does not make sense on a purely logical basis.
4. The SCOTUS cannot change the intent of the Constitution by judicial fiat. They ONLY lawful power they have is to ensure that the intent of the Constitution is enforced as written. Beyond that, they have no lawful authority to arbitrarily change anything in the Constitution which is why many of their decisions have been overturned by later courts which is proof enough that they are not infallible.
5. Interesting that even the SCOTUS uses the specifc word “parents” when stating that those born abroad of “PARENTS” are NBC. That is consistent with the intent of the Founders who said both parents must be US citizens, not one as many including Cruz argue.
6. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is an unlawful effort to amend the Constitution via legislation which is illegal.
7. Mrs. Cruz was NOT a US citizen when Ted was born, but a Canadian citizen. Note that Canada did NOT recognize dual citizenship at that time, plus his parents conveyed Canadian citizenship to Ted, NOT US citizenship, so a lawful argument can be made that Ted is not a US citizen at all. As an aside, lawyers will argue ANY point because that is what lawyers do by profession; they argue, regardless of the Constitution as they are prostitutes who will say and do anything to WIN on behalf of their client so they can be paid.
LikeLike
This civics lesson isn’t true because his mother denounced her US citizenship in Canada . his father and mother both became citizens of Canada. Voted in elections there for years before little Teddy was born. They lived there for 4 years after his birth still voting as Canadians. Both parents .So how does the still fit into your civics lesson. He is Canadian natural born not U S natural born.
LikeLike