If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 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 French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).
Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Minor, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.
So if my brith certificate on the bottom is small letters say u.s.a in small letters not United States nowhere on it I should be born in a republic state of the union not United States corporation under 28 U.S.C 3002 15 a
US v Wong Kim Ark was a Biased decision based on the Personal circumstances of the Presiding Justice, Horace Gray, who redefined ‘under the jurisdiction, thereof’, to mean anyone born under US Jurisdiction. However, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, requires, by the use of the word AND as the conjunction between those Born or Naturalized and under the Jurisdiction thereof, means BOTH conditions must be met under LAW. Had the conjunction OR been used, then only one of those conditions has to be met to be a born citizen, but the word AND requires both conditions.
Example: Vehicle title When purchasing a vehicle by two people, the Title can Read, Name of One Party and Name of Second Party. With this title issue, when the vehicle is being sold, the Signature of Both Parties is required to be a LEGAL Sale. One Party can not Sell or Transfer the Vehicle, it requires BOTH signatures.
Now, If the Vehicle Title Reads: Name of First Party or Name of Second Party
This condition allows either party to SELL the vehicle and does not require both Signatures to be a LEGAL.
This has nothing to do with a Lien against the Vehicle. The Lein Holder is not identified as Title Holder, but any Leins must be resolved before a Sale by Both or Either, according to how the Title is issue.
In Law, the use of Conjunctions is extremely determinative.
ie: If the penalty reads a Fine and Time in Jail, then you get both
If the Penalty reads a Fine or Time in Jail or Both, then the Judge has the discretion, to issue only a Fine, or only time in Jail, or Both. But where AND is used, the Judge has NO discretion.
BTW, Grays Biased existed due to his appointment. Gray was appointed to the Bench by Chester A. Arthur in 1881 after succeeding James A. Garfield. Arthur also was not an nbc, he was born to an Irish Immigrant father, and this information was known at the time but was a lot more difficult to circulate in 1880 than it is today. Had he ruled Wong was not a born citizen, that would mean Arthur, who appointed him was not a citizen, and not a legal Candidate for the Office he was holding. and would make all proclamations and appointments, ie to the Supreme Court, invalid. ERGO, Gray chose to protect his personal power and position over the Country and the Law. This is what happens when you have people who are not eligible holding office they are not qualified for.
Mr. Martisko, you are correct. The use of the word ‘naturalized’ denoted a Lawful event under the United States Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The word “or” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition means “A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things…” Seeing the word “naturalize” is a Lawful term used in the Constitution then the word “born” being subsumed under the Constitution must also be a Lawful term.
The Preamble clearly states “…to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It was not ordained and established for anybody else but #1) those who were made ‘citizens of the United States of America’ by its ratification at the time of its ratification, and #2) whose children born of parent(s) who were made citizens of the United States of America after the fact stated in #1 and #3) those who were Naturalized under the Laws of the United States and of course, #4) their Posterity (children).
One other way for a citizen of the United States of America to be made such is by an Act of Congress making statutory citizens of the Peoples under Congress’ control and then that Territory being accepted into the Union known as the United States of America. Such resent occurrence was Hawaii and Alaska becoming the 49th and 50th States of the Union.
As a side note, the natural born Citizen must have both parents’ citizens of the United States of America at the time of the child’s birth to be considered as natural born within the meaning of the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
The 14th Amendment affirms the above facts as stated for the 14th Amendment upon ratification, became part of the Constitution and one or several parts of the Constitution cannot be in conflict with one another.
A child born of alien parent(s) while upon the soil of America is an alien for the child has no ties to the United States Constitution thereof.
Message emailed to President Trump today:
God Bless You, Mr. President, for all you do to defend our traditional values as legal US-citizens.
You have taken on a parasite paradise called “US Government”, aka, “The Swamp”, almost single-handedly, and you inspire your supporters to join you confidently to help renovate an otherwise disheveled American landscape pre-Trump.
General-President Washington: American REVOLUTION
Developer-President Trump: American RENOVATION
While the Democriminals from the Party of Crime work to invalidate my (and millions of others) vote for you in 2016, with today’s cartoon Impeachment Inquiry et al, EVERY US GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SINCE 08-28-08 IS, IN FACT, IMPEACHABLE FOR PASSIVELY OR ACTIVELY ALLOWING FAKE presIDent SOETORO-OBAMA II! https://www.thepostemail.com/?s=jb+williams+on+2008+DNC+conspiracy
And who is ultimately responsible for consenting to OBAMA II’s IMPEACHABLE LEGACY OF LUNACY 08-28-08- TODAY? Treason Queen Pelosi? Hillary RICO Clinton? Oceans of yellow journalism from the Yellow Stream Media? (Contempt of Congress Kook) COCK Holder?
ANSWER: We the People, THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE US CONSTITUTION!
I encourage you, Mr. President, to lead We the People, just as fellow New Yorker John “natural born Citizen” Jay would encourage you, just as fellow New Yorker General Benjamin Mooers would encourage you, just as fellow New Yorker veteran Robert Laity now encourages you, just as millions of legal US-citizens would naturally encourage you today, TO FULLY IDENTIFY FAKE presIDent SOETORO-OBAMA II BY REVOKING FAKE EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 ET AL, and ARREST NANCY + BARRY + HILLARY FOR ELECTION FRAUD ET AL IN 2008, 2012, 2016 AND TODAY!
DEFEND ONE US CONSTITUTION, ONE US FLAG, ONE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, ONE BORDERED NATION, LED BY ONE DULY ELECTED JOHN-JAY-“natural born Citizen” PRESIDENT!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
The question of Obama is forefront.. He was not constitutionally eligible for the office of president.. His Hawaiian birth certificate has been proven beyond doubt to be a computer generated fraud.. There was a birth certificate for him filed and sent to England by British East Africa Protectorate ( now Kenya) .. If this is genuine, then he is not even an American citizen, as his mother , at the time of his birth was not old enough to convey citizenship to this child.. Then he is not even an American citizen.. If he was not eligible according to our Constitution , then all appointments he made are unconstitutional, and NULL & VOID.
Burnel. Obama was not a natural born Citizen as mandated in the Constitution at Article II, Section I, Clause 5 because he did not have both parents as citizens of the United States of America at the time of his birth. He may have attained United States citizenship by the process of derivation, but that would only be a citizenship by Naturalization which does not conform to the requirements in the Constitution as stated for the status of “…natural born Citizen.”
As a layman it is common sense to me that to be a “natural born” citizen requires one’s parents to be citizens. Otherwise, the sense of patriotism instilled in a child could well be missing and something we don’t want in a President. But, for what it is worth I did come across the below pdf containing circular reasoning from the Congressional Research Service, by an attorney named Jack Maskell, entitled “Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”. I believe we got here, in large part, due to many courts who failed to use proper terminology.
Yes, that document has been analyzed by an attorney here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/08/26/the-elg-ellipsis-the-maskell-myth-and-pi/
Laster, In Minor, the Supreme Court opinion stated that the founders did not define what an NBC was in the text of the Constitution. They then made it clear, unanimously, that an NBC IS one born IN the United States to a Mother and Father who are BOTH U.S. Citizens. PERIOD!
The Court went on to state, as Mr. Charlton relayed, “Some authorities go further…without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. However, the court qualified this by saying that ” to the first there is no doubt, as to the second of these, there is DOUBT”. In other words, the Court opined that there is NO DOUBT that an NBC IS one born in the U.S. to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. The case is a binding precedent and has NOT been revisited. The Court had an opportunity to do just that in Laity v, NY and Obama and again in Laity v NY, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. They declined to do so. The precedent STANDS. Arthur, Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Swartzenneger, and Kamala Harris were/are NOT eligible to be President. “Parents Citoyens” is plural. It means BOTH parents must be citizens not just one.
Just a note the title should be ‘4 Supreme Court Cases that REFERENCE the definition of “natural born citizen”‘. The case do not define but reference the actual existing definition.
The Who What When Where Why and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term in Our U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution
May I propose the LAW OF NATURE to compliment the LAW OF NATIONS herein.
As a professional engineer (PE), I work with the forever laws of nature (gravitational attraction at 32 ft/sec/sec anywhere on planet Earth, wind pressures, seismic tremors, water hammer, etc.) AND the changeable convenient contemporary laws of man (building codes, permit requirements et al).
Nature Rules, and men follow!
When Ben Franklin stated, “A [Constitutional] Republic, if you can keep it”, what he was also saying was, “A [Constitutional] Republic, if you can THINK it”, was he not?
Franklin knew at age 81 that human beings are a flawed and sinning bunch. He may have fully realized that all healthy human beings are very much alike, physically, since they/we all must eat/sleep/excrete, we breathe that same air, we all normally have two eyeballs, same internal organs, etc. However, Ben Franklin may have worried in also realizing that our life-acquired brain-senses of passion, justice, ambition, lust etc. may be violently different, even between two biological brothers.
Why is that?
ANSWER: The different invisible thinking within life-sensitized human brains, and that, the only thing humans can possibly control in this real world is their invisible thinking.
Our entire governmental structure of “Knowledge Pirates” 08-28-08- TODAY has abandoned both the man-made legal restrictions on who can and who can not be president, via the “natural born Citizen” clause of Ben Franklin’s verbiage within the U.S. Constitution of 1789, AND the Founding Fathers’ attempts to ensure that the life-sensitized THINKING of the human brain of any presidential candidate/incumbent president/ex-president would be “American First”, pro-Constitution, pro-Christian values, pro-law and order et al.
Readers to this wonderful website by fellow Knowledge Patriot Sharon Rondeau can only use their eyes to read what I’m writing herein and form my conveyed thought in their own brain; if someone reads my written comment aloud to them instead, the same mental thought will likely be conveyed to the recipient’s brain via sound waves striking their ear drums.
Not only were man-made laws abandoned on 08-28-08 by Nancy Pelosi in order to permit abandoned-sperm Barry Soetoro to illegally enter the White House, a Law of Nature was also abandoned on 08-28-08, and remains abandoned today in 2017, by our entire governmental structure (except for Terry Lakin et al) in allowing the passionately vengeful hateful anti-American life-sensitized invisible brain traitor-thinking of Barry Soetoro to enter the White House.
Ben Franklin must have worried just how long his Republic would function before the governmental caretakers of that original Republic model would be “fundamentally transform” it into chaos by the collective evil brain-thinking led by the government-protected likes of Barry-Hillary-Valerie-Pelosi et al.
Our nation’s Republic “trashformation” arrived formally 08-28-08.
In the Law of Nature envisioned by Ben Franklin, even the life-acquired invisible brain thinking of Barry Soetoro IS ILLEGAL because it is made up of TREASON REASON.
While Ben Franklin would be saddened to see America mis-led 08-28-08- 1-20-17, he could resuscitate his hope in mankind by daily reading The Post and Email, wherein, relentless Knowledge Patriots work everyday to fully identify The Pelosi-Soros’ Soetoros [Barry and Michelle] so as to attempt to remodel the frames of mind of all 320,000,000 American citizens to this structure of invisible thinking: our nation’s entire governmental structure 08-28-08- 1-20-17 abandoned its citizens and must be punished accordingly; that Barry Soetoro is a government-covered-up criminal and must be identified and punished; that all those who now actively resist President Trump (“the law and order candidate”) are opposed to law and order and, therefore, must be forcefully held accountable.
LAW OF NATURE: It’s the “America First” brain, stupid!
Do you think these humans will ever possess “America First” invisible thinking; are they praying, or preying, as they block their host nations’ established public ways?
Knowledge is Power, so, let us American Knowledge Patriots unleash it on Main Street USA and avoid Congress Conmen altogether! THINK OUTSIDE THE DC/PC/BS BOX!
“THERE IS NO ‘PRESIDENT’ OBAMA”: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-Obama/
These cases point to the fact that Cruz was not a Natural born citizen. He may have gained citizenship through his Mother however his Father was not an American and there for he was not a natural born citizen. Look at the cases listed above. To be a Natural born Citizen one must be born in this country to parents (as in both) who are Citizens. Cruz had an American mother but was born in Canada to a Cuban Father. He misses two of the criteria for natural born citizenship. He does not even have the excuse that McCain had of being born on a U.S. Military base.
Obama is a far bigger concern. He had an American Mother. He may even have been born in Hawaii (though that is still very much in doubt). But His Father was a Kenyan national so as such he is not a Natural born citizen either. His election and his presidency has been fraudulent. and he Must be removed from office. Also any one who has gained office by his nomination since the nominations were fraudulent as well.
There is still a question about Cruz’s mother for there are people who have her voting record. She first was either a person living with a British person or married to Wilson. She had a child with Wilson so there is some idea she was a British citizen. IF she was a British Citizen she would not have had to naturalize to Canada and would have been able to be a Canadian citizen and vote in their elections as a British Subject. Let me see if I can find the document I was reading and I will post it here.
FACT: Under Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952–Ted Cruz INHERITED his mother’s citizenship based her meeting EVERY legal stipulation to pass citizenship TO him–he did NOT require “naturalization” to be a citizen–his INHERITED citizenship gives him NATURAL BORN citizenship under Federal/Constitutional requirements. SHE was NEVER a Canadian citizen, NEVER applied for Canadian citizenship and lived ONLY three years in Canada–Canada itself REQUIRES at least FIVE years residency to qualify for citizenship. There is NO Constitutional limitation for Cruz to disown any “Canadian citizenship” that government awarded to him when they changed their citizenship Act in 1977–SEVEN YEARS after Cruz’s birth and FOUR YEARS after he was living in U.S. with his family. Canadian Citizenship Act LAWS prohibited Cruz from receiving any “dual citizenship” privilege until that year, 1977. Still, there is NOTHING within our U.S. Constitution prohibiting him from serving as president despite having a ‘dual’ citizenship.
Breitbart reports that she lived for more than five years in Canada: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
The question still remains: where is Cruz’s U.S. documentation?
YOU are all wrong–no matter whether YOU accept the premises of Wong v Ark, Minor v Happersett herein mentioned–the CURRENT viewpoint of our U.S. Supreme Court/Federal Court system recognizes TWO citizenship levels IN this country–NATURALIZED or NATURAL BORN. The Courts ACCEPT as NATURAL BORN–ANY CITIZEN BORN AN AMERICAN AT BIRTH–either by birth on U.S. soil OR INHERITED CITIZENSHIP!! “NATURALIZED” citizenship is NOT “natural” citizenship and is GRANTED by government rule–a ruling government can TAKE BACK, hence that’s NOT “natural born”. Arnold Schwarzeneggar CAN’T qualify for presidency because his citizenship is GRANTED by naturalization–Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Obama ARE considered natural born under current Federal/Constitutional interpretations. AND, there is NO prohibition contained WITHIN the U.S. Constitution to PROHIBIT a ‘dual citizen’ from serving as president–it’s simple as that!
The U.S. Supreme Court states that children born outside of the country are naturalized: http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/17/breaking-exclusive-co-author-of-harvard-law-review-forum-article-on-cruz-eligibility-argued-in-favor-of-contradictory-citizenship-law-in-2010/
Cruz is not, in my understanding of the Supreme Courts definition of NBC, qualified to run for President. The Democrats will pounce on it.
Agree with the information presented. Senator Cruz shouldn’t be running for President; he has too many disqualifications per the constitution. Fath: Cuban, Moth: USA-DEL; CRUZ born in Canada, have his BC. Understand Senator Cruz’s mother was not in the USA for the 5-year requirement prior his birth; this would also make him not qualified. As seen with Obama, now with Cruz, this law is being ignored intentionally? If elected and swears on a Bible to uphold the constitutional laws, what does that make him? Need to know how we force CONGRESS to enforce Art-2.1.5? Have Cruz stop running for president? It’s not his fault where he was born, but his birthplace stops him from qualifying for president only? Which is messing up the voters who believe he is qualified and can be elected? Maybe we have another Obama violation in progress, not being addressed? Why is Congress disregarding the constitutional requirement; what should be done; they have to know? Recently view Prof Kris Anne Hall’s (Constitutional attorney) response to Cruz qualification; she agrees. How do WE THE PEOPLE stop Cruz from violating our Constitutional 2nd amend?
My big concern is several questions: why did Cruz seal his records, if he has nothing to hide?
I have seen a copy of Cruz’s and his mother’s birth certificate and am satisfied with those.
But second concern: know there was TALK that his mother had voted in Canada, and they had a business as well!
That said, understand you have to be a Canadian citizen and could not have a dual citizenship in either of those
If so and if Cruz was born, after his mother gave up her American citizenship, is he still considered born to an American Citizen? I would not think so, but cannot find this information out about his mother???
I have asked Canadian vital statistics authorities about obtaining naturalization records, but they are protected by law, as are certain records here. Cruz’s mother does not speak in public, although Cruz has stated at rallies that she did not assume Canadian citizenship.
The political parties clearly are not vetting their candidates.
In 1968 and 1964 the courts decided that Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney was eligible to run for President. George was born in Mexico to American citizens. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory (before Arizona became a state). He was qualified to run for President. So, how do you explain that?
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 by Congress tried to change the definition of NBC but in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1795 they removed the definition. Essentially Congress in 1790 tried to amend the Constitution through this action but, apparently they realized that was not one of their powers. The only way this term can be defined legally is through an amendment to the constitution approved by the states.
People, read the initial post carefully and you will not find a Supreme Court opinion that upholds Cruz or Rubio’s claims to natural born citizenship – it just isn’t there. Write me at SpartanburgShoemaker@Gmail.com, and I will give you the documentation for my research – below is the Executive Summary: Please read the short explanation of the problem and forward it to people who care about our Constitution. Besides trying to change the meaning of the plain language in the Constitution, the GOP, like Linus, is about to have the football pulled out from under them again as it falls into the trap I think the Left laid for it years ago, to wit, a 2016 “October Surprise.” You know, that’s the quadrennial scandal that pops up every four years during a Presidential election year if the GOP is competitive and sometimes during off-year elections to embarrass the GOP candidate and persuade ordinary people to vote against a dangerous SOB. Attached is the entire analysis (original, but I had help) documenting what I assert in the Executive Summary.
Have the Eligibility Requirements to be President Changed?
No, but now we have Republicans running for President who simply are not eligible –
and here’s how that has happened and why they are still not eligible
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A natural born citizen has two American citizen parents (If only one, there had better not be another parent who is not an American citizen); was born on land under U.S. jurisdiction, has reached 35 years of age and spent 14 years in the U.S. The intent of the natural born citizen requirement was avoidance of dual loyalty to protect the US from foreign influence. In 1787, no one looked at the mother because she automatically took the citizenship of the husband – that is no longer required and this change in our laws must be factored in. The would-be President should not have been raised by parents of different loyalties. As citizens, we should enforce this requirement by the way we vote and not depend on courts. Of course there is nothing wrong with bringing suits and contacting our Secretaries of State – we should try to get our Party, State and Federal officials to do their jobs, but we see how that turned out with the current pretender and should not rely on scared, politically correct officials. We can enforce the natural born citizenship requirement by voting for qualified candidates. That’s the beauty of our system and it will work if the sovereigns, that’s us, insist on our Constitution being followed by voting only for those who will follow it. We must believe in its importance and enforce its provisions.
Christina K. F. Jeffrey, Ph.D.
Spartanburg, South Carolina
February 29, 2016
Below is a Post that I recently made …
Mr. Charlton replies: Mr. Roberson, thank you for your post and compliments; but as I don’t what the comment section to be misunderstood as a forum for commenting on other blogs, I have decided not to post what you said. I remain the good friend of every patriot, even if we do not always see eye to eye on every issue.
A Constitutional problem?
If we consider together US Constitution (especially 14th Amendment) and The Oath of Allegiance, we’ll get the only inference:
Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is a person that born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
This inference has a foundation that only one (the US) jurisdiction is allowed for US Citizens (NBC or Naturalized) – because Naturalized citizens according The Oath of Allegiance are allowed to have only the US juricdiction; but citizens of both groups (NBC and Naturalized) have absolutely the same rights and protection according Constitution except only one thing: only NBC have a right to be POTUS (President Of The United States) . It means that according Constitution dual citizenship isn’t allowed for any citizen (NBC or Naturalized). Because of that Mr. Obama coudn’t be NBC. See details with a short introduction through
or immediately here:
One can say that there is in reality a practice of dual citizenship in the US that was allowed by laws accepted by Congress during a history of the US. I don’t see any other way to constitutionally reconcile both things – the inference from The Oath of Allegiance and a current practice of dual citizenship – than to state that in my opinion all this practice contradicts US Constitution (or The Oath of Allegiance contradicts Constitution – your choice); so (in my view) there is a great Constitutional problem that demands an attention of SCOTUS.
FaxYourOpinion.com allows you to send a FAX to elected officials for $0.10 per single page FAX. There is also a single $0.40 transaction fee. A FAX to all US Senators (100 destinations) costs $10.40. This may be the least expensive such service available.
What everyone is missing is Nancy Peolis “certified” that Obama is eligable to run for President as a Democrat. Our constituition may say he is not. But the legislative body “certified” him. Thus creating a constitutional crises. This is not ulike the Gore vs bush in the 200 election. In which the Legislative body disagrees with the Judical branch. THE RULING given in bush vs gore basically takes the supreame court out of the picture. So if Nancy Pelosi actually certified Obama knowing he was not a “natarual born ctizin” she did so with disregard to the constituition. This should eb where the pressure is mounted. Let ehr explain this.
Is there a simple and expedient way to send via email or FAX your article to every Rep and Senator in the U.S. Congress? Is there a centralized service that would FAX or surface mail this essay to every member of Congress for a reasonable cost? I think email gets lost in the inbox and easily deleted. A FAX or hard copy letter would be the best, imo. Of course one could do both, email and FAX or mail a letter.
The main question is: why is congress allowing it to happen?
The simple solution is: present your certified birth certificate.
Why must you present a birth certificate to enroll your child into school or to get your driver’s license, but you can become president of the United States without one?
Go to 32:50 into this radio program, sit back and listen, and you’ll understand why standing and jurisdiction IS THE BALL GAME against Obama (there’s no need ever to get to the merits):–
Good summation. I referenced Article II, Vattel, and Minor v. Happersett in a letter to my local paper, and an Obot wrote back that “more authoritative sources” are needed.
People like that would tell John Jay himself to produce more reliable evidence. They say, in effect, it all depends on what the definition of “is” is. But some are educable, so we must keep educating.
Dear Mr. Charlton,
I hope this is not an innapropriate question to this article, but I think you have a large following and we need to know what next and that you have the knowledge and resources to inform us. Orly addressed the question awhile back and then I read a comment just recently from another scholar with a different answer. Now the question, Once the character in the White House is impeached or whatever the ruling will be to depose him, what will be the proceedure to replace him. Orly said something to the effect that Biden will be Pres for 3 months then a re-election. I hope my memory is not too far off. I apologize if it is. The other scholer said he believes that the Democratic House would have a vote and probably vote in Hillary. My education only took me as far as the Vice President takes over, but I can see that this entire administration is fraudulent so that seems unthinkable. Second, what happens to those in the Democratic National Committee, ie., Pelosi, that endorsed him as the candidate meeting Constituional requirements. We need to know how to prepare ourselves for this what I believe to be an eventual outcome. Would this be a good article to comment on? I thank you in advance for your response. Sincerely, Fran
Mr. Charlton replies: Fran, I am not all knowing; I’ll leave this to the constitutional experts.
It’s SLAM DUNK that Obama’s not a “natural born citizen” which requires 2 citizen parents. The federal judges know this and Team Obama knows this. That is precisely why jurisdiction and standing in any federal court IS the entire ball game against Obama.
Excellent job John!! :) :) :)
Mr. Charlton replies: NBCP, this is not the place for news: its for comments. Send me an email.
Thank You John.
That clears things up a bit.