“ENGLISH COMMON LAW” VS. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND U.S. CONSTITUTION
by William Heino Sr.,©2016
(Feb. 6, 2016) — Prof. Harold Hill sold musical instruments. What is Ted Cruz selling?
We the people as citizens, in support of our United States Constitution, cannot let well-intentioned citizens support theories unsupported by the Constitution, U.S. law, and the Immigration Act in order to promote a candidacy for President of the United States.
The United States Constitution, “No Person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office…”
The qualification being, “No person except a natural born Citizen…” If you are born in the United States you are, therefore, a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, born in Canada in 1970 to a United States citizen is not considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but a “citizen” of the United States.
Why? The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed three years after the U.S. Constitution was written with the wording, “natural born citizens.” However, the 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.” The change was meant to clarify the U.S. Constitution, “No person except a natural born Citizen of the United States,….”
Senator Cruz was born in 1970 to an American citizen while living in Canada. He came to the United States at the age of 4 in 1974.
Senator Cruz has a tendency to remind listeners of his knowledge of Constitutional law issues, and apparently Immigration and Nationality law?
One of the requirements of naturalization is, “Can you speak, read, and write basic English and do you have an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)?” Are we going to stand by and allow an unqualified “citizen” to qualify.. for President of the United States and bypass all 229 years of American law and trash our Constitution?
Another of the many law references for Senator Cruz to overcome in his quest to “establish justice” is the 1952 amendment to the 1857 Immigration and Naturalization Act reads, in part, “…in all other respects, however, the naturalized citizen stands, ‘under the Constitution’…on a legal footing with the native citizen’ save as regards eligibility to the Presidency.”
(The Constitution and What it Means Today. Page 89. Edward S, Corwin. 1978 Edition, Princeton University Press.)
On a whim, Senator Cruz is attempting to rewrite United States history, remaking the Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution,. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and all other foreign power. After living in the United States since 1974, 42 years after entering the United States as an “alien,” meaning any person not a citizen; only then, in May of 2014, Senator Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship.
How else do you differentiate two distinct persons in birth? One being born to a United States citizen living in, say, for example, Canada? A Canadian at birth. The other being born in the United States. Are we to call them both “natural born citizens“? But, natural birth happened in two distinct and different sovereigns. Like all law, you need to define each birthplace with a label allowing for the difference, because the courts will not let you get away with it.
And further troubling is Senator Cruz’s response to a question of family citizenship; his response, “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.”
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them to another, and to resolve…” Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776.
The Declaration of Independence was signed to separate us from the “reasons dating back to England.” There are those who will desperately cling to “English common law” to explain how a carpetbagger from the North can be President of the United States, because “English law is clear and unambiguous.”