HOW CAN A CANADIAN-BORN CITIZEN WITH A CUBAN-CITIZEN FATHER BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” OF THE UNITED STATES?
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2014, blogging at CodyJudy
(Oct. 1, 2014) — http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/09/29/advisors-confirm-ted-cruz-will-run-for-president/
It’s not just the fact that someone who is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ as is the requirement for the Office of the President, its the stating under oath that you are qualified and collecting dollars in a campaign from people who think you are qualified that makes those who run frauds, bullies, and domestic enemies of the United States by the standard of the United States Constitution.
Its really heartbreaking to see a hero become a zero in one fell swoop and an honorable oath becomes a lie, but that’s exactly what U.S. Senator Ted Cruz faces in his decision to officially enter the race for U.S. President in 2016. Of course his greatest defender for doing such as a unqualified ineligible candidate is Barack Hussein Obama. This of course completely turns every word U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has said about the usurper around and places him on the same side of the isle as those who support Obama in the Office of the President.
Of course Sen. Ted Cruz is a U.S. Citizen, but a dual Citizen which Ted Cruz is quite naturally, cannot be President.
“Tens of millions of Americans would be willing to vote for Ted Cruz; to strike him from the ballot on a technicality in an ambiguous case would be momentously undemocratic”, but we don’t live in a pure democracy. We live in a Republic with a standard that the U.S. Constitution actually stands as a standard for.
The argument from this article states that if the qualification for President is so archaic than why doesn’t Congress change it? Well, McCain thought the same way and sought for a change. He managed a non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution because he, like Cruz, was not born in the U.S. . McCain retained a birthright citizenship from Panama and Cruz has inherited one from Canada where he was born.
There are some four U.S. Supreme Court cases that include in the equation, including McCain’s Res. 511, that parents are a factor in deciding along with birthplace a ‘natural born Citizen’. Like the age qualification or ‘discrimination’ as those who want to abolish the qualifications for the U.S. Presidency would have us believe, the qualification for President is different than the qualifications for U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCr420K4i8
See the video and read the rest here.
Thanks for the comments. If the merit of wisdom and fallacy does exist in law by the benefits or lack of benefits of its action, Congress has made no mistake by not changing the qualifications for the Office of President, AND, we are witness to the perils in dereliction of not enforcing it with the multiple scandals, life’s lost, and debt occurred as witnesses over the last two presidential elections.
Please pardon my borrowing from another … there is a limit on intelligence, but no limit on ignorance.
The 0’pologist 0’bots continue to insist that “soil”, i.e., Jus Soli, the circumstance of being born “within the limits” of the U.S. is sufficient and the very existence of parents is of no concern one way or the other.
That IS the same as the Feudal Laws of Allegiance to the Crown / King / Queen…
” … “ … From the feudal system, sprung the law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature of its origin, rests on lands; for, when lands were all held of the Crown, then the oath of allegiance became appropriate: It was the tenure of the tenant, or vassal. Blac. Com. 366.
The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140.
Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance.
The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.
Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance.
When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.
But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.
Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.
Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.
Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.
With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. “
Talbot v Janson 3 US 133 On the 22nd of August, 1795 Justice Rutledge
As the idiots have already declared .” We don’t need no stinkin constitution”. YOU CAN NOT FIX STUPID …… OR APATHY.