Sen. Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Candidacy, But Is He Eligible?

GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS, MAINSTREAM MEDIA PARSE WORDS, FAIL TO REFER TO HISTORICAL TEXTS ON MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

by Sharon Rondeau

Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother. Cruz’s father reportedly became a Canadian citizen before he became a U.S. citizen in 2005

(Mar. 23, 2015) — On Sunday evening, it was reported by various sources that on Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz would announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential nomination.  Cruz’s campaign accordingly sent out an email alert stating that Cruz would be making the announcement on Monday and advised followers to watch his Twitter account.

Cruz, a Republican, was elected in 2012 by a Tea Party constituency and has become a vocal opponent of Obama’s policies.

According to the AP, Cruz announced his candidacy on Twitter and plans to make a formal declaration later today at Liberty University in Virginia. A campaign website displays the logo “TedCruz 2016” and states, “Ted Cruz has spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution — our nation’s founding document and the supreme law of the land — which was crafted by our founding fathers to act as chains to bind the mischief of government and to protect the liberties endowed to us by our Creator.”

During his customary 7:10 a.m. Monday slot on the Fox & Friends morning program, businessman and possible 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump told the show’s co-anchors that Cruz might be able to win the presidency. However, he cautioned that Cruz’s constitutional eligibility might still be in question, stating (paraphrased), “Whether or not the courts will have the courage to tackle it remains to be seen.”

Trump was referring to clause 5 of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which states that only a “natural born Citizen” can be eligible for the presidency.

The media generally makes no distinction between the terms “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” which are utilized differently in the U.S. Constitution. While senators and representatives are required to be simply “a citizen” for a given number of years, the term “natural born Citizen” was included in Article II solely for the presidency at the urging of John Jay, who later became the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice.

Since 2007, many questions have arisen concerning whether or not Barack Hussein Obama meets that eligibility requirement given that his birth in Hawaii is as yet unproven and his father was reportedly a citizen of Kenya.  While the major media has been loathe to discuss whether or not Obama meets the eligibility requirements, it began raising questions surrounding Cruz’s eligibility almost two years ago.  The Republican National Committee (RNC), however, has failed to address the issue.

During his interview, Trump also claimed that Cruz has borrowed a phrase he often uses which includes “make America great again.”

Trump claims responsibility for the White House’s release of an image on April 27, 2011 which it purported to be a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate from Hawaii.

On Monday morning CBC News reported:

What differentiates Cruz from his competition, however, is that he was born in Canada — Calgary, Alta., in fact — to an American mother and a Cuban-born father. His heritage made Cruz a dual citizen at birth. Under U.S. law, being born to an American mother automatically gives you American citizenship, while being born on Canadian soil makes you a Canadian.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t preclude dual citizens from running for the presidency, but it requires presidents to be “natural born” citizens, which is commonly believed to be Americans born with citizenship even if they weren’t born on U.S. soil.

So, Cruz is perfectly eligible for the White House. Two lawyers who represented presidents from both parties at the U.S. Supreme Court also recently wrote in the Harvard Law Review that Cruz meets the constitutional standard to run.

CBCNews Canada was referring to two former U.S. Justice Department solicitors general, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, whose “opinion” published in the Harvard Law Review last week is that Cruz is eligible.

Cruz formerly served as solicitor general for the state of Texas under then-Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott.

Last fall, Cruz’s spokesperson declined to respond to The Post & Email’s inquiry regarding whether or not Cruz was registered as a United States citizen upon his birth in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970.  On August 19, 2013, The Dallas Morning News released an image which it said was a copy of Cruz’s birth certificate from Canada and reported that Cruz was born with dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship.

No proof has ever been presented that Cruz was, in fact, registered as a U.S. citizen upon his birth.  The U.S. State Department cannot release a U.S. birth registration without the subject’s written consent.

Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship last June.

While Obama claims a birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website has been determined by a law enforcement investigation to be a “computer-generated forgery.” The investigators also determined that Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form is fraudulent. Despite the passage of three years and a second presidential election after which Obama claimed victory, the media has declined to investigate the findings of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.

Several constitutional scholars have opined that a simple birth in the United States is not enough to qualify a person is a natural born citizen.  Historical texts from the Congressional Record and other sources, including several U.S. Supreme Court cases, invoke the citizenship of a person’s parents in determining whether or not the person is a natural born Citizen.

According to The Federalist Blog:

Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could require being born to a British subject depending on the era in question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was abandoned for the principle of expatriation.

It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.

In December 2013, Cruz was contacted by formal letter from the North American Law Center (NALC) asking him to acknowledge that he is ineligible for the presidency and thereby to confirm that Obama is likewise ineligible to hold the office.

Cruz provided no response to the letter, nor to a letter from The Post & Email written in November in response to Cruz’s claim that Obama was behaving like “a monarch” after declaring that deportations of illegal aliens would be re-prioritized without congressional action.

Like Obama, Cruz has declared his candidacy for the presidency less than three years into his first term in the US Senate. When asked in 2006 if he planned to seek the presidency, Obama wholeheartedly denied it.  Obama has also claimed the declared birth certificate forgery as his own.

In response to the email announcement (pictured above) on Monday morning, a recipient wrote the following to campaign staffer Jason Johnson:

I greatly admire Sen. Cruz and his courage in fighting for conservative values, but as the Canadian-born son of a Cuban father, he is not eligible to run for President of the United States. Moreover, he will do our country a much bigger service and build a more vibrant legacy for himself if he remains in the Senate and strives to recruit more like-minded patriots to that once-august body. Most of the problems and scandals facing us today exist only because both houses of Congress have abandoned their Constitutionally mandated duty to function as one of three equal branches of our government. They have rolled over and played dead at the feet of a tyrannical despot, who himself may not be eligible to serve as President.

I will not support Ted Cruz in the Republican primary. Nor will I vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination.

9 Responses to "Sen. Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Candidacy, But Is He Eligible?"

  1. Rosa Reo   Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:08 AM

    .The most recent decision (1874), by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, regarding a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” is here…….. 19th century SCOTUS decision in Minor v. Happersett confirmed definition of natural born citizen: One born in the country to TWO citizen parents. (MOTHER and FATHER)…This law has NOT been repealed. Therefore it still stands.
    The issue of Ted Cruz’s citizenship has been put before courts in several states, most have decided against the people, and for Ted Cruz. The courts are either ignorant of the “law” or they are complicit in this farce. The American voters should not be a party to this unlawful and irresponsible act from these incompetent or corrupt judges. You can make your voices heard at the polls. DO NOT CAST A VOTE FOR CRUZ.
    It is important for the voters to know who Ted Cruz really is. Please SHARE SHARE SHARE this information with everyone. We already have one usurper in the White House. …………………………………………. Elena Kagan was responsible for preventing law suits being brought before the Supreme Court. The reward for her despicable behavior was a seat on the Supreme Court, by the usurper Obama/Soetoro. God forbid Cruz becomes president. We will be finished as a nation.

  2. Robert Laity   Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:36 AM

    The Law of Nations is not “the rhetorical writings of a political philosophizer”. Vattel did NOT “write” the Law of Nations. Vattel TRANSLATED the Law of Nations from Latin into French, with only some personal interjections. The LON is referred to in Article 1, Sec. 8 as one of the powers of Congress it is, to interpret and define.

  3. slcraig   Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 1:16 PM

    To those that cling to Vattel, and or English Common Law, are those who are AFRAID of construing the Constitution and the Laws made in pursuance of it for their selves.

    On the one hand they call themselves “Sovereign” as a member of “We the People” and then turn to the rhetorical writings of a political philosophizer or spout the interpretations of interpretation of the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality without ever once reading the 276 words of the 1790 Act which DECLARED that it “established an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization.

    They accept the FACT that all of the emancipated blacks became U.S. Citizens with the passage and Ratification of the 14th Amendment but then ridicule the proposition that IT and the Ratification of the COTUS were BOTH “collective naturalization events” even while the 8 U S Code titles it residual effects as such as it spells out every conceivable circumstance of becoming a U.S. Citizen leaving ONLY the circumstance of being born as a U.S. natural born Citizen being un-discribed within the Codes, i.e., persons born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S. ARE NOT PROVIDED for under any provision within the 8 USC. Either such persons ARE U.S. natural born Citizens,( given that the 8 USC deals ONLY with “citizens and nationals”), or such persons are NOT “U.S. Citizens at all given that they are not provided for within the USCodes.

    Where are all the great Constitutional thinkers that would prove me wrong…???

  4. Robert Laity   Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 3:28 AM

    Cruz has now entered the same ranks of corrupt politicians and frauds as Obama.

  5. Robert Laity   Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 3:21 AM

    It is a failure of congress to allow disqualified individuals to even “Run for” the Presidency since if that person wins he or she would NOT thereby be qualified to legally ascend to that Office. That constitutes a fraud on the American People. It has come to pass that BOTH major parties are now proffering ineligible candidates. There is NO OTHER definition of what a Natural Born Citizen than one that holds the HIGHEST possible citizenship status. That can ONLY be someone whose parents were BOTH American Citizens themselves at the time said person was born ON US Soil. There is NO Higher Standard. There are many lower standards.

  6. phrowt   Monday, March 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM

    The comments made here and on J.B. Williams FB page seem so convoluted as to make ones head spin.
    The Constitution is simple, it states “No Person except a natural born citizen…”. To my knowledge has never been changed by amendment or by “rule of law” which the legislature likes to use that diminishes our God given rights.
    The origination of nbC is from The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, chapter XIX, paragraph 212 (citizens & natives). It states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are born IN the country, of parentS who are citizenS. Does one need a Harvard degree to understand?
    The 14th amendment does not change A2S1C5; only stating “…are citizens of the United States” not natural born Citizens.
    Lastly, the Constitution, to my knowledge, was based on “Natural Law” not common law. Common law, an instrument of man which can give and take certain rights where natural law is the rights given by God which no man should be allowed to violate.
    As I have stated many times, I will not vote for a candidate of any party that is not constitutionally qualified. I hope that message gets through to all that think because the Democrats got one elected the Republicans may as well do the same.

  7. slcraig   Monday, March 23, 2015 at 1:25 PM

    So, under the Harvard standard the DISTINCTION between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizen has been erased by the passing of time, when noting that NO Constitutional Amendment has modified the circumstances by which a U.S. natural born Citizen was produced and recognized at the time of the Founding, Ratification of the COTUS and the passage of the 1790 Act “to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization.”

    Tha PROPOSITION can be argued as INADMISSIBLE under the Marbury v Madison standard that a Clause of the Constitution can NOT be said to be without effect.

    Also, insofar as “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizens are concerned, please note the REPEAL of the 1790 Acts provision allowing for such and it then being replaces by being “considered as” a U.S. Citizen, (being distinctly different than a U.S. natural born Citizen)

    Under the ACTUAL U.S. Constitution and ITS Laws all persons born to the wife of a married U.S. Citizen father post the “collective naturalization event” of the Ratification of the COTUS was born a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world between March of 1790 and January of 1795 and then thereafter only when born anywhere except “out of the limits” of the U.S.

    That condition existed UNTIL the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, which provided for the INDEPENDENT U.S.CITIZENSHIP of women / wives / mothers, and which also required the recogition of a NEW form of hyphenated U.S. Citizenship known as DUAL-CITIZEN at birth, which does NOT reconcile with the language of A2S1C5.

    Please, do not ridicule my interpretations of the statutory construction of the Constitution and its Laws which provided for and established the uniform Rule, (doctrine, common law), throughout the U.S. which PROVIDES that; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.” ……

    Also note that the “declaratory born Citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment IS and was intended to be a “collective naturalization provision” to make U.S. Citizens of those STATELESS persons and is identified as such in the U.S. Code at 8 USC Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)………

    Learn the Law and obey it………… were Senator Cruz a TRUE Patriot Statesman he would NOT be aspiring to the Office to which he is NOT eligible and in doing so he offends the COTUS and exposes his self as a Political Opportunist……..

  8. RoseC   Monday, March 23, 2015 at 1:18 PM

    I am deeply disappointed in Ted Cruz. The fact he is running even though he is not eligible tells me he would go against our Constitution in other matters as well. He has lost my trust and faith.
    The Constitution is VERY clear. You must be born of two citizen parents and be born on US soil to be eligible for POTUS.
    We must make a big stink of this if for no other reason we will be labeled racist if don’t because we said Obama was not eligible. The media will hold this as proof of racism against Obama for the same reasons.
    We must stop him from running because two wrongs don’t make it right!

  9. Kim Gibson   Monday, March 23, 2015 at 12:53 PM

    There are MANY of us that know that Cruz isn’t eligible to run. The requirements are that one is born in the US to TWO US Citizen parents (his father was Cuban). As for what Clement and Katyal gave was just their “opinion”, no research, just THOUGHT & OPINION!

    Even Levin (a Constitutional attorney) stated that Cruz was “Naturalized” and naturalized does NOT equate to Natural Born. Naturalized is that the Government issued ones citizenship where it was not come about “naturally” – jus soli (on US Soil). Cruz knows he’s not eligible either but won’t say anything about it!

    It’s sad that so many “conservatives” are so hell bent to get someone into office, that they are willing to overlook the requirements our Founders put in place!

    I know myself and many others will NOT vote for Cruz because we know he’s not eligible!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.