Could This Be the Future of the 2016 Presidential Race?

“CONSEQUENTIAL NEWS” ANNOUNCES DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES FOR FAILING TO MEET “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” REQUIREMENT

by Ken Post, ©2016

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen”

(Jan. 9, 2016) — [Editor’s Note:  The following “announcement” is strictly fictional and was written by the author of a letter directed to the Republican National Committee (RNC) in November 2014 expressing concern that a constitutionally ineligible candidate for president could be nominated in 2016 and disqualified by a lawsuit in an “October surprise.”

Presently at issue with many Americans is whether or not Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father who became a Canadian citizen while operating a business in Calgary, qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States; Sen. Marco Rubio’s status is also questioned because of his birth in Florida to Cuban-citizen parents not yet naturalized.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution restricts the presidency to only a “natural born Citizen,” the suggestion for which came from Founding Father John Jay in a letter written July 25, 1787 to George Washington, who was presiding over the Philadelphia convention which produced the Constitution.

In his letter, writer Ken Post told the RNC, “I and millions of other citizens were taught that a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is a citizen born of citizen parents (plural)…Senators Cruz and Rubio are hinting at runs for the 2016 Presidential race.  Neither meets the two parent requirement…the Democrats could use the issue as a devastating October surprise.  They could challenge and disqualify the Republican nominee in court.”

Post received no response to his correspondence despite numerous follow-up telephone calls.

In late November, 9th District Florida Rep. Alan Grayson has said that he will file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility should Cruz receive the Republican nomination.  At that time, Grayson stated on Alan Colmes’s radio show that he believes “the president of America should be an American.”

According to U.S. News & World Report on Wednesday, Grayson suggested that another obstacle to Cruz’s alleged “natural born ” status is that his mother obtained Canadian citizenship while she and her husband ran a business in Calgary, during which time their son Ted was born.  Grayson said that he had seen no proof that Cruz’s mother was ever a U.S. citizen, which is Cruz’s claim to presidential eligibility.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has also questioned Cruz’s eligibility in the past, including last Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post, where he raised the specter of a lengthy court proceeding to determine Cruz’s status.

Although Cruz received a Canadian birth certificate, he has said that he “never had a Canadian passport.”  After his spokeswoman stated in August 2013 that to Cruz’s knowledge, he had never possessed Canadian citizenship, Cruz was forced to acknowledge it, after which he renounced it in May 2014.

Documents released by Breitbart on Friday evening appear to indicate that Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh Cruz, was born in Delaware in 1935.  Breitbart further reported that while Eleanor and her husband Rafael appeared on a 1974 Canadian “Electors List,” they may not have been registered nor eligible to cast a vote in Canada, similar to illegal aliens’ inclusion in the U.S. Census despite their ineligibility to vote.

Cruz’s father has said that at one point, he became a Canadian citizen; he naturalized to the U.S. in 2005.

In 2010, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told a congressional subcommittee that the high court was “evading the issue” of presidential eligibility in the wake of numerous lawsuits claiming that Barack Hussein Obama was not a “natural born Citizen.” Thomas’s response to a question posed by Rep. Jose Serrano appears to indicate that Thomas believes a person must be born in the U.S. to be considered a “natural born Citizen.”

Members of Congress have insisted that because Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, he is eligible, although like Cruz, the foreign citizenship of his father has arisen in some circles as an obstacle equal to or more important than birthplace.

While a birth in Kenya or Indonesia for Obama, as has been reported, is considered by most to be disqualifying, Cruz’s birth in Canada has been downplayed by his campaign, which stresses that he was born to an American mother and that “the law is very clear” as to his qualifications.

Three years ago, however, Fox News’s Carl Cameron reported that Cruz was ineligible to seek the presidency due to his birth outside of the United States.

In the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, the majority opinion stated, in part, that “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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate and Selective Service registration form have been determined by a team of criminal investigators to be “computer-generated forgeries.”

As Obama said of people questioning his origins, Cruz has called the questions over his eligibility a “side show.”  Following the release of his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, Obama denounced “sideshows and carnival barkers” for doubting his life narrative.

Since 2008, those questioning Obama’s eligibility or background have been labeled “racist” by a sycophantic mainstream media.

Post’s hypothetical news release follows.]

<< Consequential News >         October 2016
Breaking – Republican Nominee Decertified

The Supreme Court today decertified the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election.  It confirmed the historic, natural law definition of a Natural Born Citizen, a person born of both a citizen mother and a citizen father on U.S. soil.  It cited historic documents, writings of the founders, and previous Supreme Court rulings particularly Minor v. Happersett (1875).
 
Scholars and legal experts are now arguing that the nominee’s vice presidential selection is also out.  They say that since all actions of a usurper, an ineligible occupant of the Office of President are automatically ‘null and void’, it would be logical to extend the ruling to the ineligible nominee’s pick of VP.
 
Republican officials are in a state of shock but many citizens and small conservative groups say they’d been warning leadership of this very scenario for 2 years.  “They have no one to blame but themselves.  They drank the Kool-aid provided by ‘progressive Democrats.”

 
When asked to explain, they gave us a history lesson.

 
“The natural law definition was widely taught until the subject largely disappeared from civics lessons in the late 60’s/early 70’s as ‘progressives’ gained control of education curriculum.  The void was filled with misinformation, disinformation and unsupported assertions that created uncertainty and ‘reasonable’ doubt.  By the time Obama became a candidate, Republican leadership had either swallowed the misinformation or thought they could hide behind ‘reasonable doubt’.  They willfully ignored the teachings, statements and YouTube videos of constitutional scholars and experts like Herb Titus [Harvard Prof of Law & Constitution, Solicitor to Supreme Court].  They refused to challenge Obama’s eligibility even when Democrats admitted ineligibility by replacing ‘constitutionally eligible’ with ‘qualified’ in nominee ballot applications to the states.”

 
“We continued to caution leadership after Obama’s election.  We reminded them that Democrats tacitly acknowledge the historic definition.  Beginning in 1975, Democrats introduced legislation redefining and neutering the Natural Born Citizen requirement on 8 occasions.  They challenged Sen. McCain’s NBC status in his presidential bid.  And it was discovered after Obama’s first election that they’d altered references to relevant rulings in Justia, the online database of Supreme Court cases during 2008 candidate races.  But Republican leadership ignored.  And legislators deflected warnings, many citing the Congressional Research letter of J. Maskell and other discredited misinformation.  Others appeared intimidated by fear of media ridicule as ‘birthers’.”
 
“Anticipating the possibility of a non-compliant Republican nominee, many of us warned leadership that Democrats could weaponize the Natural Born Citizen requirement so long as Republicans refused to establish Obama’s NBC status in court or by congressional means.  Students of the Constitution like Mario Apuzzo ESQ debunked the Harvard Law Review article proclaiming Senator Cruz’s eligibility.  The article authors based their argument on the Naturalization Act of 1790, completely ignoring the Naturalization Act of 1795 that rewrote and replaced the first.  But leadership would not hear that they could be wrong.”

 
“As Senators Cruz and Rubio announced candidacies for the 2016 race, we flooded Washington with emails, letters and faxes.  We challenged reporters and other media including Fox News for conflating ‘Citizen’ and ‘Natural Born Citizen’ thereby reinforcing the misinformation and disinformation.  We were completely ignored.”

 
“Republican leaders ignored the Constitution they claimed to support.  And that’s how history will judge them as the consequences of their arrogance play out.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.