TERM HAS BECOME “MAINSTREAM”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 8, 2017) — An attorney’s letter responsive to an appeal filed by New York State citizen and petitioner Robert C. Laity referred to the objection to his client’s placement on the New York presidential primary ballot as a “‘birther’ challenge.”
On October 3, The Post & Email reported that in late August, Laity appealed an August 10 ruling issued by the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department of the New York State Unified Court System deeming his challenge to the constitutional eligibility for president of Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, and former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as “moot” since the election is now over.
The case, Laity v. State of New York, et al, began as a ballot challenge in February 2016, after which the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) said that rendering a decision on presidential constitutional eligibility was “beyond the ministerial scope” of its authority.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” a requirement not expressed in the founding documents for any other office. The citizenship requirement for U.S. representatives and senators is stated as “a Citizen” for a given number of years in each case.
Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a mother born a U.S. citizen and a father who at the time held Cuban citizenship. Between late 1968 and 1973, Rafael Bienvenido and Eleanor Cruz ran a business tied to the Canadian oil boom of the era, during which Rafael claims he became a Canadian citizen.
After The Dallas Morning News reported in 2013 that the younger Cruz was born with dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship, he claimed to have been unaware that he retained Canadian citizenship and renounced it approximately ten months later. After placing an inquiry, The Post & Email was informed by the Canadian government that renunciation documents, like birth and death records, are not released to the public without the subject’s written consent.
During the primaries early last year, Trump questioned whether or not Cruz was eligible to serve as president, and, according to The Washington Post, “said Cruz ‘may not be a U.S. citizen.’”
Cruz has released no documentation showing that he possesses U.S. citizenship, but as a sitting U.S. Senator, it is presumed that he does. His presidential campaign acknowledged a certified letter of inquiry about his qualifications but yielded no other response.
In May of last year, The Post & Email was told by a highly credible source that information had come to light that Eleanor Cruz adopted Canadian citizenship at some point while living in Alberta but that the time frame in which she allegedly did so was not known.
During the 2016 presidential primary season, legal scholars appeared to be split as to whether or not Cruz meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement, with one, Victor Williams, filing his own challenge as a write-in presidential candidate to Cruz’s eligibility.
The two-page letter submitted by Daniel M. Sullivan, who represents Cruz, states in response to Laity’s appeal that “the case is moot, and obviously so” as a result of New York’s primary election having taken place on April 19, 2016.
Sullivan’s third paragraph contends that “there is no substantial constitutional question here. Even if the ‘birther’ challenge Petitioner seeks to mount were a serious one (and it is not), this appeal does not present it. The Third Department merely affirmed the trial court’s decision refusing to address the merits of the petition…”
The term “birther” was coined as doubts arose as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama during the 2007/08 campaign cycle. Used as a pejorative, the label was affixed to now-President Donald Trump in 2011 for having questioned Obama’s claimed birthplace in Hawaii, pressing the White House to release Obama’s “long-form,” or more detailed, birth certificate to prove his eligibility.
The New York Times, Business Insider and many other mainstream news outlets have insisted that Trump’s questioning of Obama’s birthplace amounted to a “conspiracy theory.” The media’s position did not change despite its knowledge of a criminal investigation conducted under the auspices of the Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) over an eventual five-year period which determined that the long-form birth certificate image posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011 is a “computer-generated forgery” in March 2012.
“Birther” is now an entry in the Oxford English Living Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary, both of which invoke Obama’s name. Cable-news pundits have also used the term in recent years, although major media refused, and may have actually prevented, its on-air guests from seriously discussing whether or not Obama’s life narrative were true in light of numerous contradictions and the findings of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.
The court opined that Laity’s objections are “moot” and that “The substantive issue presented would not have evaded judicial review had petitioner timely commenced this proceeding, which would have enabled Supreme Court to hear the case before the presidential primary election and petitioner to take an expedited appeal therefrom.”
As attorney for the Respondent, Assistant Solicitor General Jeffrey Lang filed the following three-page response to Laity’s most recent appeal with the New York State Court of Appeals.
[Editor’s Note: Laity said that the “September 28, 2016” date which appears on page 1 is a typographical error.]
Outside of specific candidates, in his lawsuit Laity petitioned the New York State Board of Elections to change its presidential citizenship requirement from “Born a citizen” to the actual language which appears in Article II of the Constitution, “natural born Citizen.”
On page 2, Lang addressed that point by stating, “This claim is not justiciable because it amounts to a challenge to future presidential elections, and thus is not ripe. The claim is premature because any harm ‘is contingent upon events which may not come to pass…'”
On October 3, The Post & Email contacted the NYSBOE through its website to ask why its wording differs from that of Article II of the Constitution but received no response.
In the state of Arizona, presidential candidates must declare that they meet the three requirements set forth in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the first of which is expressed on the declaration as “natural born citizen.”
The Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states on its website:
The qualifications for President of the United States are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. A candidate for president must be 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and must have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
The State of Florida includes the term “natural born Citizen” for the president under the category of “residency requirements.”
The State of Montana asks a candidate for public office to “affirm” that he possesses, “or will possess within constitutional and statutory deadlines, the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Montana.”
The California Secretary of State’s office issues qualification summaries for presidential candidates in four categories, citing the verbiage from Article II, Section 1, clause 5 at the beginning of each.
My mistake, I assumed you were talking about citizenship at birth. A child born in the US to two citizen parents and Irish citizen grandparents would have dual citizenship
Mark Bellison, A person born in the US to US Citizen Parents is a 100% “Natural Born” American. For an NBC to take on foreign citizenship it would have to be a voluntary act of subjecting him or herself to the foreign jurisdiction and would amount to an abrogation of the person’s status as an NBC and the right to run for President or VP., this insofar as the Presidency can ONLY devolve on someone without ANY foreign attachment whatsoever., an NBC.
Bendore, Give up. I am a subject matter expert on this issue. You are simply, wrong. Persons not born in the United States to two US Citizen Parents cannot be President.
The persons you speak of are “Citizens” by virtue of naturalization statutes. Courts that recognize those people as NBCs are simply, wrong.
Did everyone miss this in earlier post?
“Citizenship through descent from Irish grandparents”
“If one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland, but neither of your parents was born in Ireland, you may become an Irish citizen. You will need to have your birth registered in the Foreign Births Register”
So a natural born citizen could be a dual Irish/US citizen through his grandparents.
bendore, read my post. It is the logical conclusion of your nbC insanity.
Bendore…you are making stuff up. The FACTS do not support your wishful thinking.
Anyone born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of their parents or born abroad to at least one US Citizen parent is recognized by the US Government and all US Courts to be Natural Born US Citizens who are eligible to serve as US President regardless of whether any other country also recognizes them as a citizen despite the protestations of Birthers.
However for political considerations it is wise to renounce one’s citizenship in any other country before running for the office of President.
Robert Laity, Thanks so much for your input and clearing up the fine points for me. I’ve been following this scam/fraud for several years and knew it was a scam and that spray from a skunk was more pleasant. That Senate Resolution 511 was a scam, smoke and mirrors, and a dog and pony show. Being that both Obama and Hillary were involved said it all.
Again, a resolution is like having no teeth, it’s all gums.
Jeff Harrison, Both Obama and McCain are ineligible. The 2008 election was between two frauds. No Resolution can make an NBC out of someone who is not an NBC. If the same questions were asked about Obama that were asked of McCain (ie. Was he born in the US and Were both his parents US Citizens) Obama would have been exposed. That is why no investigation of Obama by the Senate was undertaken. The Senate thinks that Americans are airheaded and that they did not see through that effort in misprision of felony. As I have explained in the past, McCain was NOT born in the US nor in any of it’s incorporated territories. McCain was born in Colon, Panama, a foreign nation. That is where the hospital wherein he was born was located.,in Colon, Panama. We had a treaty with Panama called the Panama Canal Zone Treaty of 1903. The provisions of that treaty allowed for Panama to retain Colon and Panama City as Panamanian. Anyone born in Colon, Panama was therefore born in Panama. Panama was never a US Colony. EVER. The PCZ was never an incorporated territory of the US. EVER. A territory must be incorporated (made part of the Whole) in order for one born there to be able to claim NBC Status. Currently there are NO Incorporated territories in the United States except for Palmyra Atol. Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa and Guam are all unincorporated (not part of the US but under it’s control).
Robert Laity
I think you have excellent remarks about NBC. Would you be so kind to remark about
Obama’s and Hillary’s Senate Resolution No.# 911 (whatever that number it was, I can’t
actually recall…). To me it was about to giving McCain and Obama cover. Funny they
didn’t do a resolution on Obama. How come?
As I recall, McCain did not remark nor call Obama out for being a non natural born citizen.
Robert Laity, if you have read my past entries, you will find that I agree with your thoughts and especially Bob68.
The geek website was definitely off, that is why I posted a narrative from someone who posted on the geek website.
If Ted Cruz had been born exactly the same as he was (in a foreign land to a foreign father), but just a mere few decades earlier (before the naturalization statutes were relaxed), he would not have been a citizen of the USA at all, let alone have any tenuous claim of being a natural born Citizen (i.e., at most, he clearly is only a statutory born citizen).
Those who supported Ted Cruz’s campaign must contend that being born anywhere in the world to just one American citizen parent is enough to make one a natural born Citizen and be eligible to become President. If these blind followers of Cruz were thinking clearly they would realize the horrible implications to our national sovereignty of such a belief.
For example, imagine that a Chinese man naturalizes as a US citizen, then, without giving up his citizenship, returns to communist China where he starts a business selling his valuable US-citizen sperm to hundreds or thousands of communist Chinese women who wish to birth a natural born Citizen of the USA. These thousands of communist Chinese babies (who would be born overseas to just one US citizen parent) would be legally every bit as eligible as native Canadian-born (and Cuban-American) Ted, to move here in their twenties, then eventually become president.
How can anyone really believe that is what the founders had in mind? This is as bad as or worse than our perverted anchor-baby law. Obviously, their clear goal is to subvert the Constitution, destroy our sovereignty and turn us into just another globalist, elitist run state.
Robert Laity, I agree with you on natural born citizen. I posted what is in the World Book encyclopedia for discussion here, and because it specifically mentions Canada, birthplace of Ted Cruz. Also, I believe the quote from the encyclopedia is saying the same thing you are saying. Please read it carefully again and think about it.
Three pound sledge, Wisegeek is a bit off on what an NBC is. Simply put it is one born in a country to parents who are both citizens of said country. Two Brits in London who have a child in England beget a brit.
Two former Brits, who gave up their UK citizenship when they were naturalized and are now both Americans, who have a child in the US beget a 100% Natural Born American.
Your NBC kids would only be Brits if you claimed it officially, thereby rejecting your previous rejection of maintaining any foreign allegiance when your took you oath of US Citizenship.
Bob 68, One must not merely be born in the USA to be an NBC. One’s parents must also have been US Citizens themselves. McCain is ineligible because, although his parents were both US Citizens, he was not born in the USA. John McCain was born in Colon, Panama. Panama is a foreign nation. McCain has statutory US Citizenship only and is not an NBC. Only people born in a State or an INCORPORATED territory are born in the United States. The Panama Canal Treaty specifically excluded the two major Panamanian cities of Colon and Panama City from the parameters of the Panama Canal Zone. The PCZ was never an incorporated territory of the United States. It was an unincorporated territory for a time. The laws with regard to basic rights and privileges in unincorporated territories are not as inclusive as the laws are in an incorporated territory or State.
David L, There are NO situations in which a Natural Born Citizen can claim to be a citizen of another country or be claimed as a citizen of another country. Natural Born Citizens are born of two US Citizens in the United States. Your example references persons who acquire US citizenship by birth. Natural Born Citizens are citizens by birth (jus soli) as well as by blood (jus sanquinis). NO law can controvert an NBC’s 100% Status. In your example you cite circumstance in which one has an Italian Citizen Mother and/or an Italian citizen Father. That fact alone would disqualify a candidate since one’s parents MUST be US Citizens under the Constitution for their child, if born in the US, to be an NBC.
Jon David, The term “Natural Born dual citizen” is oxymoronic. One cannot BE both.
TF Bow, One born in a Country to parents who are both Citizens of said country cannot claim citizenship to ANY other country, no matter what the other country’s law says. That would open up NBCs of the USA to foreign grasp. People with dual citizenship are NOT NBCs nor can they EVER be. Courts that have ruled that being merely born here confers NBC status are wrong.
To all on this P&E website:
1. The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution: not sharia law, not the communist manifesto, not Mein Kampf et al. Does everyone herein agree?
2. Our nation’s government and all its people can either follow the U.S. Constitution and its existing Amendments, or formally amend the U.S Constitution as it currently exists. Does everyone herein agree?
3. In order to limit, or altogether avoid, any engrained foreign sympathies from influencing the decisions of any U.S. President/Commander-in-Chief, the Framers of 1789 deliberately included the requirement that any presidential candidate and any incumbent president MUST be a “natural born Citizen”. Does everyone herein agree?
4. So, it appears to reasonable minds, that the Framers had two components in mind when they included the “natural born Citizen” art-phrase, namely, “pedigree” and “philosophy”. “Pedigree” requires being born on American soil of American citizen parents, this being the SIMPLEST and least contestable meaning of those three consecutive words, and “philosophy” attempts to ensure, as much as possible, that the daily invisible thinking of any president will remain pro-American (= “America First”) and never subordinate such engrained pro-American philosophy with pro-foreign-sympathies (= “Illegal aliens and offshore foreigners First”). Does everyone herein agree?
5. Experience has shown that Congress will never defend said simplest meaning of “natural born Citizen” and publicize/indict/prosecute NEVER-presIDent SOETORO-OBAMA II (SO2) for ineligibility-ID-fraud 08-28-08- TODAY, therefore, ONLY UNITED KNOWLEDGE PATRIOTS HEREIN AND ON MAIN STREETS ACROSS AMERICA WILL EVER PUBLICIZE/INDICT/PROSECUTE SO2. Does everyone herein agree?
6. Is anyone listening?
I must give credit where credit is due, found at:
http://www.wisegeek.org/in-the-united-states-what-is-a-natural-born-citizen.htm
The following is a posted comment from an individual who is ‘spot-on’ on the topic of natural born citizen:
anon989814
Post 56
“First, very simply, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that when determining what the Constitution means, every word is important. The writers didn’t simply pad the document with unimportant words. This principle is called Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent – words should be interpreted to give them some effect. So, any valid definition of the term ‘natural-born citizen’ must give some meaning to the word ‘natural’. Saying that ‘natural-born citizen’ is the same as ‘citizen at birth’ ignores that principle, and so is not valid.
So, what does the word ‘natural’ add to the term ‘natural-born citizen’? It’s a reference to ‘natural law’. The term ‘natural-born citizen’ simply means just what it says – a citizen by birth according to natural law.
Who is a citizen by natural law? Any citizen who was not made a citizen by positive law, e.g., naturalized.
The issue that many seem to grasp is the fact that naturalization is not some process that ends with someone raising their hand, and becoming a citizen, it’s any process that results in Congress making someone a citizen. If someone would be a citizen without any laws passed by Congress, then they are a natural-born citizen.
If you don’t understand, then you might say, “Who can be a citizen without any law making them a citizen?” And the answer is a ‘natural-born citizen’, and that is exactly what the court said in Minor v. Happersett. In that case a woman said that she was a citizen based on the 14th Amendment, and was therefore allowed to vote. The court said that no, you have always been a citizen, because you are a ‘natural-born citizen’. The court then went on to define who was a ‘natural-born citizen when it said, “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 parents.”
If any law passed by Congress is required to exist in order for you to be a citizen you have been naturalized by Congress, if you would be a citizen without Congress passing any law to make you one, then you are a ‘natural-born citizen’. Ted Cruz would not be a US citizen had Congress not passed a law making him so, therefore he is a naturalized US citizen, and not a ‘natural-born citizen’. When a person is naturalized, or what is required of them, is irrelevant.
One other thing. It doesn’t matter if one has any other citizenship. Those who argue about dual allegiances are simply wrong. No other country can define who is a natural-born citizen of the US. Example: My wife was born in England. She later came to America, and became a citizen. We got married and had kids. We were both US citizens, and the children were born in the US. They are natural-born US citizens. But, England grants citizenship to all children born of parents who were born in England. So, they were according to British law, British citizens at birth as well. The laws of England do not affect whether someone is a natural-born US citizen.”
Parting thought: All these viscous and ignorant judges that are ruling on presidential eligibility cannot wrap their brains around the difference between positive law and natural law. Too much dirty money and blackmail has swayed their rulings.
From The World Book Encyclopedia
Field Enterprises Educational Corporation
Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago 54, Illinois
The following is from page 6559, volume “P”, Copyright 1958:
Qualifications for the Presidency. The Constitution opens the opportunity for election to the presidency to all “natural-born citizens” of the United States, meaning citizens born in this Country. A person born of American parents in another Country, such as Canada or France, would not be eligible for election. The candidate must be at least 35 years old, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
Gary is right and other comments hold truth except I don’t know of any concrete information available other than what sodium pentothal might produce with whoever Barack/Barry Obama/Soetoro really is.
What I find more disheartening and disappointing is not a single republican or democrat has had the spine to acknowledge there is a criminal element to the Obama/Soetoro tenure that requires a full scale criminal investigation regarding the fraudulent ID documents he produced with the intent to deceive Arpaio and Zullo tribe aside of which I am a proud member………..
To hear anyone on either side of the isle talking about voter fraud without first addressing the former president might as well have “I’m stupid” written across their forehead with a black permanent marker.
To TF Bow: What birth certificate? There is no Obama birth certificate.
David L wrote: “If you look at the signature page image, there is a ghost image so the first page of the letter. Someone needs to clean or change the drum or the fuser unit. This is know as ghosting and is very common.
FWIW, the same thing happened to the White House when they printed the birth certificate out as handouts for the press (AP copy).”
Well darn, T.F.BOW et al anti-birthers had just about convinced me that the “ghosting” on the birth certificate handouts was due to “ghosting” on the original being a common result of the scanning software of the specific Xerox office machine used by the Obama White House. Now I’m back to thinking maybe it was the result of intentional image alteration.
Rafael E. Cruz – No CRBA, No passport records, No U.S. birth certificate.
Rafael E. Cruz – just another undocumented alien.
Rafael E. Cruz: “Your papers are not in order!!!”
If you are not a birther, you may be an afterbirther.