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