AND “THE OBAMA FRAUD”
by JB Williams, ©2014
(Jun. 7, 2014) — Republican U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz represents a perfect opportunity for the American “constitutionalist” to examine the true Founders’ intent and meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, a condition of eligibility for the highest political office in our land, the Oval Office.
Before discussing the case study, I want to state for the record that it is Ted Cruz’s unique condition which makes him perfect for the study, not his vigorous conservative stance in the U.S. Senate. No matter how much I may agree with Senator Cruz’s political positions, I am first and foremost an American Constitutionalist, defined as one who has studied, knows, understands and respects the Rule of Constitutional Law.
Further, I issue this study because I believe that we will either study, know and respect the U.S. Constitution as it was written and ratified, or we will lose our Constitutional Republic and system of self-governance forever. Last, this is a letter sent to Ted Cruz in December of 2013 asking him to clear this matter for the sake of our Constitutional Republic. Cruz never responded to the letter.
The purpose of this study is not to harm Senator Cruz in any way, but rather, to establish the facts about his individual citizenship status as it relates to Article II requirements for the Oval Office, which include the following requirement – “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;”
Fundamentally, the term Natural Born, while commonly acknowledged in many common law courts around the globe, is a term based in Natural Law. It is a condition that exists in Nature, as opposed to only in man-made laws. Not only is it a condition which exists in Natural Law, but as such, it is inalienable by any man-made law or even constitutional amendment.
Simply stated, “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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Many competing opinions have been issued on the “true meaning” of the term Natural Born Citizen. The Cruz circumstance presents an opportunity to delve into that true meaning in great detail and demonstrate in the end, not only what Natural Born Citizen means, but why our Founders made it a condition for the highest political office in our land.
The information presented in this case study should be used to vet all political persons, no matter their partisan leanings. It should be applied equally to all who seek high political office in the United States, without regard for partisan ambitions.
The Cruz Facts
· Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz on 22 December, 1970.
· Ted Cruz was born in Alberta, Calgary – Canada.
· Ted Cruz was registered as a Native Born citizen of Canada on 31 December, 1970.
· Ted Cruz was born the son of father Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, a citizen of Cuba.
· Ted Cruz was born the son of mother Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, Delaware, U.S.A.
· Ted Cruz was not registered at birth as a citizen of the United States. His only existing birth record is his Canadian birth records. There are no U.S.A. birth records for Ted Cruz. As a result, he was born a dual citizen of Canada and Cuba. (I will address the influence of his mother’s condition in a moment.)
· The Cruz family immigrated to the United States from Canada in 1974, when Ted was approximately four years old.
The obvious legal conclusion based on these documented facts is that Ted Cruz is a Native Born citizen of Calgary via his birthplace, due to Canadian laws; and a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba via his father’s citizenship status at the time of Ted’s birth, under Natural Law.
These are indisputable facts based on the Birth Record presented by Ted Cruz (pictured above) and all known U.S. citizenship laws.
This study was initiated in response to a question regarding the U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz — Not is he a Natural Born Citizen eligible for the Oval Office, a question already answered by the facts presented above… But is Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at all, eligible to even hold a seat in the U.S. Senate?
“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section. “Generally speaking, under the Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat,” said ministry spokeswoman Julie Lafortune.
Ted’s father and mother were not foreign diplomats living in Canada. Ted was, therefore, a Native Born citizen of Canada at birth. On this basis alone, he could not possibly be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as a simple matter of legal fact.
To be honest, this was a question I had not even considered until now. Like most Americans, I had “assumed” that Ted Cruz was naturalized under U.S. Immigration laws at the time his parents left Canada and became naturalized citizens of the United States living in Texas. Under U.S. law, it is not possible for any individual to be both “Natural Born Citizen” and “Naturalized citizen.” Ted is one or the other, not both… and the same is true for every individual.
I will no longer make that assumption, but will instead, look at the facts.
Is Ted even eligible for the U.S. Senate?
Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, to hold a seat in the U.S. Senate, one must meet the following conditions – “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
So, the issue is not whether or not Ted Cruz has ever denounced his Canadian citizenship, as it pertains to holding a Senate seat, but rather whether or not, and when, Ted became a Naturalized citizen of the United States?
As a Native citizen of Canada, Ted would have had to naturalize to the United States at some point, at least nine years prior to seeking office in the U.S. Senate. As the son of a U.S. citizen mother, the process of naturalization for Ted would have been very simple, but it would have still required a naturalization process since he was not born in the United States, nor did his parents register him as a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in Canada.
However, as of this writing, I have been unable to find any records of Ted or his father naturalizing to the United States from Canada. (If anyone has proof of U.S. naturalization for Rafael Edward Cruz, please send it to my email.)
This means that the question of Ted’s eligibility for the U.S. Senate is not yet answered. However, the question of whether or not Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, is indeed answered.
As Natural Born is a status passed from Father to son at birth, Ted could only be a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba, as that is the citizenship held by his natural birth father at the time Ted was born in Canada.
Because his mother Eleanor held citizenship in the U.S. at the time of Ted’s birth, she could have registered Ted as a dual citizen at birth, Canada by Native birth right and citizen of the U.S. through his mother’s citizenship in the U.S. She did not register Ted as a dual citizen at birth, but rather as a Native Born Citizen of Canada alone.
Because his parents immigrated from Canada to the U.S. in 1974, they could have naturalized both Ted and his father Rafael in 1974, or sometime thereafter, making Ted a naturalized citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. However, we have so far been unable to confirm that any such naturalization process ever happened.
Is Ted a Native Born Citizen of the United States?
No… because he was born a Native Born citizen of Canada alone.
Is Ted a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?
No… because his father was only a legal citizen of Cuba at the time of Ted’s birth in Canada.
Is Ted a Naturalized citizen of the United States, eligible to hold a seat in the U.S. Senate, but not eligible to hold the Oval Office?
We simply do not have adequate documentation to either confirm or deny Ted’s naturalized U.S. citizenship status. But if we are able to confirm that Ted is indeed a naturalized citizen of the United States, we will have also confirmed that it is not possible for him to also be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
The issue of whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible for the Oval Office has been completely answered and the answer is no…
But the issue of Ted’s eligibility for the U.S. Senate remains open to further investigation. An update on this matter will be issued once adequate documentation can be found and confirmed.
What about Obama?
Applying the same sound legal standards to Obama just applied to Cruz, the answer is again a resounding no…
Barack Hussein Obama was born the son of a Kenyan Father who held at no time in his life U.S. citizenship. Obama’s birthplace is still in question, as is his mother’s identity and legal status at the time of Obama’s birth.
Like Cruz, Obama may or may not be a legal “citizen” of the United States. But like Cruz, he is absolutely not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
Why is this important?
First, because we are either a nation which respects the rule of constitutional law or we are nothing at all.
Second, because if Ted Cruz, or any other ineligible candidate becomes the GOP nominee for 2016, it will divide the pro-American vote between those who know and care about the constitution and those who do not.
The surest way to see another Democrat seize the Oval Office in 2016 is to run a blatantly unconstitutional candidate for the GOP.
Last, it is very unfortunate that people like Ted and Rubio are more focused on their personal political ambitions than the best interest of our Republic. Obama could be taken down so easily by anyone in this position. Once they proclaim themselves ineligible for office, it naturally follows that Obama is also ineligible. But as long as no Republican will stand up and rightly disqualify himself, the charade of Obama eligibility continues.
Any real American patriot would have already taken these simple steps to end the Obama fraud.
Brilliant article on the subject. Excellent analysis.
Has anyone passed this information to Paul Sadler, the Democratic senatorial nominee whom Ted Cruz defeated in 2012? It seems to me that Sadler, as Cruz’s opponent in the Texas 2012 senatorial race, has unquestionable standing to pursue a Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court, challenging Cruz’s eligibility to serve in the US Senate.
Everyone needs to study Emerich De Vatell’s Law Of Nations and realize that the founding fathers used his translated writings to help as an outline to draw up the Constitution and other laws since the task they had at hand was overwhelming. You can be “An American Citizen” and work in Senate or Congress but you POTUS qualification states you must be “natural born” (of two U.S. Citizen Parents) and NOT be a “Dual Citizen” which Obama is guilty of and in violation of Art. 2 qualifications for POTUS that Pelosi AND Biden signed and falsified in 2008 vetting. Also, you have the RNC cheering Mr. Rubio on for POTUS, Mr. Rubio was birthed in the U.S. while his parents were here from Cuba BEFORE they applied for U.S. Citizenship which makes Rubio a Cuban Citizen but allowed to apply for “American Citizen” status. He can NEVER be a legal “Natural Born” status candidate for POTUS as he IS NOT “Natural Born” since both parents were not legal American Citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz is also not qualified to be POTUS with a similar situation. Many latin friends I have have said “Why can’t Rubio be POTUS, Obama isn’t legal?” Because an illegal act has been allowed by the DNC, that has nothing to do with breaking the law and it does not mean that anyone else can now break the written law because a person was illegally emplaced in a position, it is still breaking the written law. So, NO-he is not legal though he can be in the Senate or Congress. The DNC has twisted the law making people think what they have done is legal and most people don’t investigate any of the laws and don’t know the difference. Our Judicial has been committing Misprision Of Felony for several years and have not allowed any legal Criminal Presentments to Discovery for over 5 years now which is completely illegal. They have obfuscated their duties and sworn positions to keep their jobs and take orders from the DNC rather than follow the law they took an oath to. How will we prosecute them? That’s why America will continue to decline as it has lost the full integrity of it’s judicial and written law, criminal assistants of the DNC and RNC have allowed it and it is now a culture here until the people may ever take back their country from an entrenched coup and judicial lockdown of our right to petition the judicial for political corruption and now they are the corruption. Who’s on first?
You SUGGEST;
“Fundamentally, the term Natural Born, while commonly acknowledged in many common law courts around the globe, is a term based in Natural Law. It is a condition that exists in Nature, as opposed to only in man-made laws. Not only is it a condition which exists in Natural Law, but as such, it is inalienable by any man-made law or even Constitutional amendment.”
I say;
If what you, and many others seem to agree with, then WHY and by WHAT authority did the 1st Congress of 1790 provide for the circumstance that a child born to a married U.S. Citizen father become a U.S. natural born Citizen no matter WHERE in the world the child was born…..???
We ARE a Politically ESTABLISHED Nation Founded on the Rule of Law.!!
A “Citizen”, by DEFINITION, is a MEMBER of a Political Society.
There can be NO SUCH THING as a “natural Citizen”, born or otherwise, outside the context of a Political Determination to acknowledge them. ( Vattel advised and agrees with this view of CITIZENSHIP, just as Aristotle did and just as Queen Anne, Lord Coke and Blackstone did as does.)
A “Citizen”, by DEFINITION, is a MEMBER of a Political Society and the Political Society determines the means of making them and identifying them…!!!
Why is OUR U.S. Congress IGNORED on this subject altogether…????
Why is the Supreme Law of the Land ignored altogether on this subject…???
Even the Preamble is ignored on this subject;
” … We the people of the United States, in order to …., secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Preamble is not LAW, but is a source in construing the Principles and Intents of the Constitution.
A1 S8 C4 of the COTUS;
” … To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, …. throughout the United States;…”
In reverse order;
“NATURALIZATION” in this Constitutional CONTEXT is a NOUN which embodies any and all Political Considerations of CITIZENSHIP within its Political Society”
“an uniform rule” in this Constitutional CONTEXT mandates the Congress to determine by what means Citizens are made and identified, at birth or otherwise, within its Political Society”
(examples of Politically determined “uniform Rules” are, Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli vs none political “uniform Rules” such as “patrilineal and matrilineal descent”)
“Establish” in this Constitutional CONTEXT is “to found, originate, start, initiate, institute” or, to characterize; “Establish”
A2 S1 C5
” … 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….”
Two (2) pertinent points on the POTUS eligibility provision, which I construe in term of its Constitutional statutory construction as an; ” … exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision …”, is;
1st; the Constitution REQUIRES that U.S. natural born Citizens exist, (in order for the Executive Office(s) to be legally occupied), within the Citizenship membership of the Political Society that the ratification of the Constitution established.
2nd; The Clause its-self distinguishes between Citizens and (U.S.) natural born Citizens, to the exclusion of the former post the passing of the Founding generation and the necessity of the existence of and identify-ability of them in order to “legally” fill the Office of POTUS.
The 1790 Act; by the 1st United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790) addressed the requirement that U.S. natural born Citizens must exist in this manner;
” … And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: …”
In order to “consider” a child born beyond the Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, REQUIRES that they also exist at birth somewhere else, given that the CONTEXT of the provision is PLACE of birth.
Having previously dismissed the thoughts that “naturalization” is limited to the “verb” context and then construe the whole of the effects of the Act on U.S. Citizenship on persons of the Political Society and then combining the effects of the former provision with that which makes a U.S. Citizen of an “alien”; ” … and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States …” … together form and establish the “uniform Rule” of U.S. Citizenship which would read in American terms;
” Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, no matter where in the world the child is born…”, (subject to some conditions and between March 1790 and January 1795 were considered as U.S. natural born Citizens even when born beyond the seas)
The “circumstance” of birth REQUIRES birth parents. It will be noted that the “fairer sex” in neither mentioned in the Constitution or the subject Acts. Under the conditions and customs of the times a “woman” at marriage was bound to the political character of her husband, whatever that may be, ergo, all births of U.S. Citizen children at the time was to two, (2), U. S. Citizen parents. This CIRCUMSTANCE did NOT change until the Cable Act of 1922, shortly after as a consequence of the 19th Amendment and was also entitled the “Women’s Independent Citizenship Act”.
Given that the U.S. natural born Citizen provision exists within the Executive Articles any abridgment, enlargement or other modification of the REQUISITE CIRCUMSTANCES established by which such a person can be identified would require, at the least, an Act with specific words that abridged, enlarged or otherwise modified those circumstances established, with a strong argument that it would rise to the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment to alter it in any way.
That is HOW I construe the subject under the U.S. Federal Law and stand by it against ALL protestations to the contrary, notwithstanding my former positions in State and Federal complaints at USDC, USCA and SCOTUS Jurisdictions, which included “Resorts elsewhere”.
An informative and thought-provoking article.
There does not appear to be sufficient historical and legal evidence to conclusively prove, beyond reasonable doubt, precisely what a natural born citizen is. But there are indications as to what a natural born citizen is not.
At the last minute, the Philadelphia Convention changed the presidential eligibility requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. According to several sources, one of the main reasons for this wording change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency and thereby reduce the risk of “foreign influence”. From this information alone, it appears that (at least in theory) someone who is a citizen can also be a “foreigner” in some sense, but a natural born citizen is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court noted that natural born citizens are “distinguished from” foreigners. Thus it appears that, whatever a natural born citizen is or isn’t, such a citizen is, at minimum, someone who is not a “foreigner” according to some definition of that term.
Moreover, since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth, it appears that the only foreigners the “natural born citizen” provision can possibly exclude from the presidency are persons who were foreigners at birth.
Based on my research, the word “foreigner” was often used, not only in reference to persons born abroad, but also in reference to persons who were citizens or subjects of, or who owed allegiance to, a foreign country. If the framers had merely wished to exclude foreign-born individuals from the presidency, the phrase “native-born citizen” would have been the more suitable and appropriate wording choice.
During the debates over the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard indicated that it was possible for a person born in the United States to be a foreigner, and that federal legislation and the federal courts have (prior to the 14th Amendment) never considered US-born foreigners as US citizens at birth:
I do not presume to offer a full and complete definition of natural born citizen. But it seems to me, the wording change from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” doesn’t accomplish its stated purpose — it doesn’t exclude any foreigners not already excluded by the original “citizen” provision — unless a natural born citizen is, at minimum, a person who is not a “foreigner” — i.e., is neither foreign-born nor a foreign citizen — at birth.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/WhyNBC.htm
This is the fundamental problem I have with Ted Cruz, he has not come out and said I am not qualified to run as president because I am not natural born. He has, however, said, “I’ll leave that up to others to decide”. “Really?” If that is his position he shouldn’t run because he will only serve the constitutional rules he agrees with and to heck with the rest like someone else we know.
Make no mistake, the Republicans fully intend to back Cruz if he decides to run here in Texas. They are already laying the phony arguments for it.
Excellent editorial, JB, thank you.
“Any real American patriot would have already taken these simple steps to end the Obama fraud.” AMEN!