TED CRUZ AND OUR CONSTITUTION
by William Heino Sr., ©2016
(Mar. 22, 2016) — In the entire history of the United States, as never before, the meaning of “natural born citizen” is more understood now in defining our Constitution due to changing world events. Outside forces are instrumental in continuing further to the collapse of our Constitution, now asking good Americans to hasten and sponsor its demise. (Merriam-Webster; demise: A gradual transfer of sovereignty.)
As citizens, “We the people..” in support of our United States Constitution, cannot let well-intentioned citizens support theories unsupported by the Constitution, and the reasoning behind its adoption, U.S. law, and the Immigration Act, in order to promote a candidacy for President of the United States.
Article II of the United States Constitution states, “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 However, the 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.”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 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 will make it a point to remind listeners, “…Constitutional Rights are under assault every day,” and the law as it is,… “under the Constitution.” Along with that, his understanding of Immigration and Nationality law is unclear. One of the requirements of naturalization is, “… and do you have an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)?” Senator Cruz‘s actions and lingering Constitutional questions of his candidacy are in direct contrast to his proclamation, “I will not apologize for defending the Constitution… we pledge our support for the Constitution.” Are these statements not confusing from one who either misunderstands or disregards the reading of the Constitution, one who is clearly unqualified to run for President of the United States? Trashing the Constitution, debating 229 years of American law.
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 which 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, 40 years after entering the United States as a “alien,” meaning any person not a citizen, only then in May of 2014 did Senator Cruz renounce his Canadian citizenship.
How else do you differentiate two distinct persons at birth, one born to a United States citizen living in, for example, Canada? He is a Canadian at birth. The other is born in the United States. Are we to call them both “natural born citizens“? 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.
The United States Supreme Court settled the issue of “natural born citizen” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The argument presented was that a person, Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese parents, was not a citizen, as his parentage made him subject to the Emperor of China. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
This leaves the question of Ted Cruz, having been born in Canada, as to how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule? Does this not make Ted Cruz subject to the Prime Minister of Canada?
And further troubling is Senators Cruz’s response to a question of family citizenship, which was, “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.”
Never before has “natural born citizen” been more understood than it is now.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.