RESPONSE APPEARS BELOW
From: E Dee Monnen
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 11:27 AM
To: ‘help@FocusontheFamily.com’
Subject: Ted Cruz endorsement
Dear Dr. Dobson:
I am disappointed that you are endorsing Ted Cruz for president. Although on the surface he seems like a great Christian leader, his candidacy is a slap in the face to our beloved Constitution. And because millions of Americans shed blood for this piece of paper, we citizens have a duty to make sure our political leaders follow it passionately.
Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and for him to masquerade as one in order to run for president speaks volumes about his character and integrity. If one person robs the United States (Barack Obama) and a second person (Ted Cruz) sees how easy it was to get away with it, so he robs it, too, then we have no rule of law. Obama, a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen (explanations below), was allowed to break the law because no one with “standing” sued him. Only a fellow candidate for president had “standing” to sue candidate Obama. None of the other 2008 or 2012 candidates would sue, so Obama got away with this travesty. Cruz spotted an opening and jumped onto the pseudo natural born citizen bandwagon.
Cruz, like Obama, falsely claims to be a natural born citizen by virtue of being a U.S. citizen at birth. Furthermore, he knows he doesn’t need to debate this topic with top law professors, because the only people who can threaten a Cruz candidacy are fellow candidates. How convenient, eh? Using Ted’s own “at birth” definition, he faces another problem. Upon Ted’s birth in 1970, his parents did not file the CRBA form (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) to declare Ted a U.S. citizen. That form was not filed until 1986. Is the act of declaring one’s citizenship at the age of 16 the same as declaring one’s U.S. citizenship at birth?
Below I provide a few references to the term “natural born citizen.”
A ruling in the Tenth Circuit 1951. Zummer v. Acheson (look it up). It states the following: “There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.”
Minor v. Happersett 1875. This decision states: “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [plural] who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens…”.
Attorneys who are “originalists” have a stricter interpretation of “natural born citizen.” They believe the framers’ definition of natural born citizen ought to be the only definition we should use. We would then need to know how the framers interpreted the term when the Constitution was ratified. The framers (along with John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) were known to have used The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) published by Emer de Vattel. It was a law book found in Jefferson’s library collection which was the beginning of the Library of Congress. In his book Vattel states, “Natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [plural] who are citizens.” This definition means Barak Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are not qualified to be president or vice president because one or both parents were not citizens at the time of their births. For those who question Donald Trump’s status as a natural born citizen under this originalists’ definition, know that his Scottish born mother was naturalized in 1942, four years before Donald’s birth.
Below is a list of credible lawyers and law professors who question the citizen status Ted Cruz.
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Jurisprudence and Constitutional and Monetary Law holds four degrees from Harvard including a law degree. Article Post & Email interview with Dr. Vieira.
Dr. Herb Titus, Distinguished conservative Law Professor and founding Dean ofthe College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. In his own voice – video
Laurence Tribe, Liberal Constitutional expert from Harvard Law School, “I don’t agree that it’s settled law. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as I believe Ted ought to know.” Story from Breitbart
Thomas Lee, Professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School. Mr. Lee points out in his LA Times editorial that the matter is not settled.
Mary Brigid McManamon, Constitutional Law Professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School. Her article in the Washington Post
Robert N. Clinton, The foundation professor of law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. He teaches constitutional law, federal Indian law, cyberspace law and copyrights. His writings
Mario Apuzzo, Attorney who represented plaintiffs on the issue of being “natural born.” His writings
Larry Klayman, Attorney who represented plaintiffs on the issue of being “natural born.” His writings
Rep. Alan Grayson, Congressman, Attorney and Democratic Senate candidate US News & World Report
Sincerely,
E Dee Monnen
Focus on the Family responded to Ms. Monnen’s letter:
Thank you, friend, for your email to Focus on the Family. We appreciate your taking the time to write to us.
It was good of you to get in touch regarding Dr. Dobson’s endorsement of Senator Ted Cruz for President. We should clarify that he isn’t with Focus on the Family any longer. In 2003, Dr. Dobson initiated a leadership transition process here at the ministry, which came to a close on February 26, 2010. For more information about Family Talk, as well as details about how to contact them, we encourage you to visit their website.
On a related note, Jim Daly has a recent blog post titled “My Thoughts on the Presidential Election.” In this you’ll find Jim’s perspective on the presidential field.
Thanks once more for writing. Please don’t hesitate to let us know if we can help you or your family in the future. God’s best to you!
Ian Carter
Relationship Services
