Has the Texas GOP Researched the Meaning of “natural born Citizen?”

OR WERE THEY JUST SCRAMBLING FOR AN ANSWER?

January 9, 2012

Can the "Grand Old Party" learn a thing or two about Article II of the Constitution?

Dear Editor:

The following was sent to the Texas GOP by way of its “contact” form to Chairman Steve Munisteri:

COMMENTS:

Dear Chairman Munisteri:

In 2008, the DNC certified an ineligible candidate, Barack Obama.. This defrauded the American people and violated the basic rights of voters to set in motion Obama’s subsequent usurpation. This constitutes the greatest crime ever perpetrated against the American people! Our so-called “representatives” in government, the courts and the media are complicit. To this day they continue to cover up this Constitutional crises threatening our nation’s founding principles.

Article II, Section 1 Clause 5: “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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

A Natural Born Citizen requires BOTH parents to be Citizens. United States Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett, 154 U.S. 116, 167 (1874).

States are filing Temporary Injunctions against State Chairpersons of the State Democratic Parties nationwide to prevent a repeat of this offense on the 2012 Primary Ballot. In the past few days, a Georgia Judge denied Obama’s Motion to Dismiss and set Trial Date. Other States have similar Obama actions pending.

Can the voters of Texas expect you to vet every REPUBLICAN Presidential Candidate? Will you promise to ascertain that they are in fact Constitutionally qualified for the Office of President of the United States? Are you aware that Rick Santorum’s father, Aldo Santorum, was an Italian Immigrant and Willard Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born in Mexico? We voters are aware! You MUST obtain their Naturalization Documents to certify each of their fathers were in fact Naturalized American Citizens prior to their births! Along with their Birth Certificates and Residency requirements, this will assure that Rick and Mitt both meet Constitutional requirements as Natural Born Citizens prior to being Certified for the Texas 2012 Primary Ballot Access.

So as to prevent future Court Action we would appreciate you confirming ANY and ALL Republican Presidential Candidates to certify them as Natural Born Citizens prior to January 19, 2012.

Constitutionally yours,

Don Chesley Stevens

————————

and his response was:

From: Republican Party of Texas
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 3:19 PM
To: thephileous@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: New TexasGOP.org Contact

Actually Don, Federal statute changed in 1934 by amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization act so that a Foreign born person has immediate derivative citizenship and is considered a citizen at birth if they are born to one parent who is a USA citizen and thus are considered” Natural Born”. Note Constitution does not say “Native Born” which would require being born in USA. Natural just means at time of birth.. This is why John McCain, George Romney and Lowell Wiecker could all run for President despite being born in Panama, Mexico and France. When Obama was born the act was amended in 1952 requiring at least one parent to be US citizen and live in USA at least 10 years before birth and 5 years after 14. If Obama’s mother met this requirement he is considered “Natural Born” USA citizen even if born in Kenya (Name Redacted)

19 Responses to "Has the Texas GOP Researched the Meaning of “natural born Citizen?”"

  1. Chris Strunk   Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM

    If there are only two classes of citizens : Native or Natural-born Citizens as the first class and Naturalized Citizens as the second class and as summarized quite clearly by the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett that I quote above, then George was a Naturalized Citizen and Mitt in a NBC.

  2. Chris Strunk   Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 4:19 PM

    Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101; Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827.

  3. Chris Strunk   Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 4:08 PM

    When there is doubt of the status of citizenship Congress has an obligation and duty under Article 1 to determine the persons status by statute. As soon as ther is a question requiring Congress to sort out citizenship status from the person born in a nation of citizen parents who is a de jure native or natural-born Citizen without any doubt everyone else is naturalized by Congress and in keeping with the mandates of the “Law of Nations” in Article 1 section

    Para 3 – To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    Para 4 – To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Para 10 – To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    The allegiance of one or both parents is of prime importance to both the States as to inheritance, standing and jurisdiction in court and as to Commerce conducted between foreign nations that would setup claims established under contract and the immutable Law of Nations very well defined as a collection by Vattel well before the Revolution.

    In New York city you could purchase a NY birth certificate for a reasonable price and conduct business and vote accordingly. So what of the allegiance of the parents how does that fit in folks? When trying to sort out the citizen status of a person the status of the parents is essential and the questions raised are proof that the person is NOT NBC as a prima facie matter of fact.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14351125794313877914&q=Minor+v+Happersett++Vattel&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

    When there is DOUBT sort them out!

    see this holding:

  4. Chris Strunk   Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    When there is is doubt sort them out!

  5. Chris Strunk   Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 3:30 PM

    Part of reading closely is doing just that. THere are two classes citizens who are without question NBC and all the rest because there are questions- SCOTUS created two classes in Minor v Happersett

    TWO CLASSES —– “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    http://openjurist.org/88/us/162

    section 9 – The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

  6. dude911   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:04 PM

    1. Congress cannot change the Constitution. Federal Statutes cannot change it, only amendments to the Constitution can do that.

    2. The Constitution is specific that a Natural Born Citizen is a requirement for POTUS. Anyone born with British citizenship can never be a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, period. The birth status of a natural citizen need not be determined in a court, or litigated and redefined by Congress, natural citizens hold no other loyalty to any sovereign nation but to the USA at the time of thier birth.

    3. They swore an oath to uphold our constitution. They have violated thier oaths, and expect all Americans to just forget it. Its time to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Its time to get rid of corrupt political parties. Our nation is based on 3 branches, not 2 political parties. Every person working under either of the 3 branches have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, and violating that oath is an act of treason.

    If they cant uphold it, they dont deserve to serve it.

  7. Rule of Law   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM

    A gentle correction Mr. Strunk. There are three METHODS by which a person may attain US citizenship. There are no classes of citizens. We are all citizens under the law no matter the method. The Supreme court recognizes the following: citizenship via jus soli, citizenship via formal naturalization and derivative citizenship via citizenship by descent through one US citizen Parent, jus sanguinis and Consular Record of Birth Abroad filed with the Immigration service to officially register the child as a citizen. Just because you are born oerseas to a US citizen or have both parents be US citizens does not mean you automatically gain US citizenship. There is an extra step involved and there is significant discrimination between the methods if your US citizen parent is your mother or your father. Always has been. Derivative citizenship is what trashes the assertion that somehow the 14th amendent has re-written Article II section 1 clause 5 and the definition of natural/native born citizen. NBC has only one definition which is not in doubt, a person can claim NBC if that person was born on US soil (jus soli) to US citizen parents (jus sanguinis).

    It has been brought to my attention that all US lawyers and Judges believe that citizen and natural born citizen are equivalent with out a shred of legislation or Supreme court cases to back it up. It is an assumption on their part. If true, it is dismaying that those tasked with managing the law would so friviously alter a fundamental definition such as NBC without cause or case to do so. This certainly explains why it has been so hard to get the lawsuits heard on the merits. The Judicial system is actively working against the will of the people to have these candidates vetted properly. The battle just became harder, but hopefully people will adjust their lawsuits accordingly. There are few judges in the US who truly understand NBC and why it matters to the health of the nation.

  8. Rule of Law   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM

    Mr. Munisteri has refused to acknowledge the Constitutional eligibility challenges filed against Romney and now Santorum. More are coming since it looks as if the Texas Primaries are being pushed out due to redistricting. The 1934 Act that Munisteri refers to as giving Obama a pass governs the claims of US citizenship by children of naturalized parents. You may read the act for yourself at the following link
    (see http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48041.html)

    There are three documents that address Natural/native born citizenship:

    1) the Candidate’s long form Birth certificate
    2) the candidate’s mother’s long form Birth certificate, naturalization papers or Consular Record of birth abroad document
    3) the candidate’s father’s long form Birth certificate, naturalization papers or Consular Record of Birth Abroad document.

    Mr. Munisteri has been informed that the Constitutional eligibility challenges will stand until these documents are sent to the Texas Secretary of State from the originating sources by the candidates under challenge.

    As long as there are questions about ANY candidate’s claim to natural/native born citizen status they will be challenged to produce proof. If they have the documents, no problem, send them to the TXSOS as soon as possible to have the challenge removed. If they cannot produce the documents or will not, then they don’t get on the ballot.

    The Texas Secretary of State is aware of the challenges. If she chooses to put the names of the challenged chandidates on the Texas State Primary ballot WITHOUT resolving the demands of the challenges to verify the documents governing NBC herself, the next step is to file a lawsuit charging her with misprision of felony. She was informed that the state parties have not vetted the candidates and Munisteri’s email responses to Mr. Stevens certainly attests to that. Any claims to have done so with out producing the three documents is tantamount to perjury which is a felony. By placing ineligible candidates on the primary ballot she has corrupted the electorial process and it is her job as the Elections Officer to protect the voting franchise of all Texans.
    This will end up in the Texas Supreme court and if they decide to pass on it, it will go higher. There is every likelihood that the challenge will be dismissed as so many others have. That too serves a purpose. It tangibly demonstrates that we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic where all citizens have representation and the government works for the People. It will provide proof that the Judicial system is just as corrupt as the political parties and that we now live in a Plutarchy.

    I don’t know about you, but I NEVER gave consent to have the nature of our Government changed from a Constitutional Republic to a Plutarchy? Did you?

  9. pwrpencil   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    “When Obama was born the act was amended in 1952 requiring at least one parent to be US citizen and live in USA at least 10 years before birth and 5 years after 14.”

    5 + 14 = 19 ≠ 18

    Obama’s mom was 18 when he was born. If he was born overseas then he his disqualified by their argument.

    He is already disqualified by not having two citizen parents.

  10. Chris Strunk   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

    What I like about the Texans I served with inb the Military is that they always had bigger hats boots and stories that were available to be retold as even a bigger yet more exciting story. The last crop of Republican Texas gave us read my lips and weapons of mass destruction and when the liar to the North of Texas passed the NAFTA with the silver spoon in his mouth papa Bush said he was glad to have that done because he knew he could not have sold it like Bill did. HW and Bill are still fast buddies and pal around together.

    The Texas Republican Party proves the case that the constitution is under attack and not even a memory in the minds of most politicians who spend their time pissing in the wind and down our back but call it rain.

    Congress per se under Article 1 Section 8 was given the power to make all laws concerning naturalization, and that is what was spoken of in the party letter. That the difference between de jure meanings and de facto meanings of a term is that the de facto meaning requires factual based explanation and hair splitting in order to prevent confusion with something else, while de jure requires no more than establishing the condition opf existence as its own meaning and status. According to the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett, and it is well worth reading for the benefit of the history and power of reasoned discourse

    That SCOTUS clearly defines ONLY TWO (2) classes of US Citizens: Natural born being the de jure state of being born in a state of the several states of citizen parents being without ANY DOUBT NBC, or a citizen who is naturalized by Congress using statutory devices ONLY.

    The Republican Party remarks of the latter condition defined by the power of Congress to determine who may be de facto naturalized as opposed to a dejure natural-born citizen. Texans read my lips born in a state of citizen parents..

  11. JustThinking   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    Well didn’t the Texas GOP just let the cat out of the bag, admitting that Obama was born in Kenya!!! (If you missed it, the last part of the GOP’s letter stated, “If Obama’s mother met this requirement he is considered “Natural Born” USA citizen even if born in Kenya”). If all that BS that the Taxes GOP letter stated is true, then why did Senate Resolution 511 resolve that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to 2 US citizen parents on American soil (a US military base (which actually was not true because he was born off the base)). Why didn’t S 511 just resolve that McCain and Obama were both natural born citizens for the 2008 election even though they were both born in foreign countries, because both of them were born to mothers who were US citizens?

    Apparently the Republicans feel that if the Democrats can elect an ineligible candidate and have the usurper serve as president, they should be allowed to do the same with McCain, Romney, Rubio, and maybe even Jindal or Schwarzenegger, no matter what the Constitution says.

  12. MinutemanCDC_SC   Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 4:26 AM

    Don Stevens, they are not so much dumb as arrogant. They REALLY DON’T CARE what the Constitution says. They have their piece of the power pie, and nothing you could write concerns them in the least (so long as it is not a terrorist or criminal threat). NOTHING.

    Those 535 traitors against the Constitution have no respect for it, no taste for it, and no use for it. By mutual consent, they reinterpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean… no ratification by 38 states necessary. They have conspired together to betray the U.S. Constitution, and they have all agreed together to stick with the BIG LIE. If anyone were to dare to step out of line and speak the truth about Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, or any of the other lies they support and defend, he would be locked out in the cold, like Lou Dobbs at CNN.

    They have given up on the United States of America, and they are aligning their own platforms with their view of inevitable and irresistible destiny:

    dhimmitude, or subjection and slavery and tribute to Is|am;

    collapse of the U.S. dollar and economy, followed by integration of U.S. finance and commerce and the Fed into/under Eurocentric global governance;

    transfer of any remaining U.S. production to China, support to India, and outsourcing of the service sector to low-paid drones – the latest wave of illegal aliens;

    surrendering the U.S. military to be mercenaries for the Arab states;

    turning the U.S. government into local supervisors managing the peasants (and any remaining means of production) for the globalist overlords and the computerized maximization of the bottom line;

    and (gradually, incrementally, progressively) doing away with the useless eaters, that is, anyone who cannot contribute more than he consumes.

    Jesus is coming soon. There is no one else left who can deliver us.

  13. uwho   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

    If it is true that the Federal statute was changed in 1934, then why did they attempt 8 times to pass a bill to make obama legal? THIS CAN’T BE TRUE. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes again.

  14. John Sutherland   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    When Mitt Romney’s father George Romney ran for President in 1968, nobody seemed to care that he was born in Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico. The media just assumed that because his parents were allegedly US citizens he was too. The media never really questioned the possibility that Romney’s ancestors, who voluntarily left the Utah territory before Utah became a state in 1896, may not have been citizens within the meaning of the Fourteen Amendment. They, like many other Mormons, may have left because they opposed the conditions forced on Utah to become a state, like the elimination of polygamy. They, like many other Mormons who were in Utah during the so-called Utah War, may never have accepted the authority of the United States over the Utah territory. In other words, the Romneys may not have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States such that they were born citizens under the Fourteen Amendment.

    But it is clear from Mexican law that George Romney was a Mexican natural born citizen. According to the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, there are two ways in which a person can acquire the Mexican nationality, by birth, and by naturalization.

    1. Nationality by birth

    The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth — that is, natural born Mexicans — are:

    – those individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;
    – those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;
    – those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization; and
    – those individuals born in Mexican merchant or Navy ships or Mexican merchant or Army aircrafts

    And even if the Romneys were American citizens at one point, they may have relinquished their citizenship rights when they left the country. Many Native-Americans and Hispanics also left the Utah Territory for Mexico before it became a state. If those individuals or their descendants attempted to return to the United States like the Romney family did in July 1912, would they be U.S. citizens capable of running for President?

    This legal question needs to be researched thoroughly before we can accept the GOP candidacy of Mitt Romney.

  15. John Sutherland   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 11:18 PM

    Commander, I’m not certain from the evidence you provided that the case on Mitt Romney is closed. There are still a couple of open questions in my mind. First, it is not clear that Gaskell had U.S. citizenship to pass along to son George. Second, Mexico’s citizenship law states that anyone born on Mexican soil, regardless of parent citizenship, is a natural born Mexican citizen. So, even if he had U.S. citizenship, George was also considered a Mexican citizen.

    In all fairness to the GOP field, it would make sense to firmly establish with specific dates, exactly what the parentage of George Romney was when Mitt Romney was born. The same case holds true to Rick Santorum whose father was an Italian citizen.

    It is exceedingly odd (and frustrating to me, I admit), that in a country with more than 300 million people, all of the GOP and DNC candidates in recent years are NOT clearly natural born citizens. I can’t determine if this is some kind of conspiracy to denude the Constitution, or if it is just a coincidence… but then again, in politics, there are no coincidences, are there.

    I don’t want 2012 to be a repeat of 2008 when neither of the major party candidates are natural born citizens.

  16. cfkerchner   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

    Including Mitt Romney in the questions asked is fallacious. George Romney was a basic “Citizen” of the United States when he was born in Mexico since he inherited his U.S. Citizenship under U.S. law per “jus sanguinis”. George Romney did not have to “naturalize” later in life upon his return to the U.S. because he was a basic “Citizen” at birth. George was not a natural born Citizen at birth. The U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 clarified and codified these facts that people born in the circumstances of George Romney, born outside the U.S. to a U.S. Citizen father are basic Citizens of the U.S. at birth. But since George Romney was a Citizen when Mitt was born in 1947 in Detroit MI, Mitt was a natural born Citizen at birth. See this report for more details: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77518311/Ancestry-Ahnentafel-Genealogy-Chart-for-Mitt-Romney-by-CDR-Charles-Kerchner-Ret

  17. ggooch   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM

    The morons at the Texas GOP should be informed that the U.S. Congress has no power to alter or override the original and clear intent of the U.S. constitution by legislation or resolution…….Thank God!

    The Supreme court made it clear in Minor v. Happerset that a “Natural Born Citizen requires TWO citizen parents. The Supremes have the power to define and interpret the U.S. Constitution…..not the Congress nor the putative president, whoever he is.

  18. John Sutherland   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM

    Looks like the Republican Party of Texas is getting ready for the big cover-up and more election fraud. And who says these guys aren’t clever? They are just determined to control the country, regardless of what the law and the people say. Texas better get new GOP management – these guys are either dumber than rocks, or they just don’t give a rip about the law anymore.

    BTW, federal statute is not able to change the federal Constitution – only a constitutional amendment can do that, and that requires the involvement of the state legislatures.

  19. meyerlm   Monday, January 9, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    I have Posted this so many times, my Fingers are Bleeding!!
    WAKE UP, AMERICA~NOBODY CAN READ ENGLISH!!
    These RINOS are MORE Afraid of Losing their “Back-Door, Lobbiest” DEALS than anything~The “Constitution of the United States of America”, IS NOT a Living Document open to Interpatation or Changes-at-Will in order to Dismiss or Diminish a “Problem of the Present!!” It would be veery interesting to find the Author of the 1934 Immigration Act~would you make bet on it being a Progressive, Liberal Dumb-O-Crat??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.