Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Donald Trump Needs To Sue Cruz's Delegates Into His Receivership And Nail GOP Leadership For Voter And Mail Fraud

In December 2015, Reince Priebus claimed to Neil Cavuto that RNC party bosses don't pick winners or losers, and was already called out that he and his cohorts were engineering a brokered convention (in Priebus own lame confessional denial) to stop Trump.  (Context starts at 1:48 on the video clip)

By March 2016, Priebus completely contradicts that statement and promotes the concept that he is guilty of VOTER FRAUD, and Swindling Citizens by pretentious Representation of which the RNC delegates selected are done so by votes cast by those participating in Primary elections and Caucuses.  The BIG SCAM by Priebus and others of the RNC leadership is a 20 year imprisonment FELONY offense under U.S. Code!

8 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 

If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 763; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §34, 63 Stat. 94; Pub. L. 91375, §(6)(j)(11), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 778; Pub. L. 10173, title IX, §961(i), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 500; Pub. L. 101647, title XXV, §2504(h), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4861; Pub. L. 103322, title XXV, §250006, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2087, 2147; Pub. L. 107204, title IX, §903(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 110–179, §4, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2557.)


TRUMP HAS ARTICLE III STANDING to SUE and demand every delegate collected by Rafael Edward (R. Ed) Cruz.

To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”. 

On Wednesday November 19, 1794, President George Washington implored that we pro-actively affirm the Constitution of the United States in order 
"to enable us at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that prosperity....already conferred, and to verify the anticipations of this Government being a safeguard to human rights." 

Defending ALL of the Constitution is an act of safeguarding human rights, ours as well as others or others as well as ours.  It should always be viewed in that context, so that anyone who calls us racists for affirming and upholding the Supreme Law of the Land (which the Constitution calls itself in Article 6), such who call us racists should be labeled as lying agitators, or, as the deceived who are manipulated into being useful idiots advancing the lying agitators longer term agenda to take away their rights and freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution...take your pick.  

The Constitution states that:
"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

But to enforce this in Court, one must have Article III Standing to sue. 

Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 (1962) @ 204 ,208

United States v. SCRAP 412 U.S. 669 (1973) @ 686, 688

Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United 454 U.S. 464 (1982) 471 - 474 and 476 Supra (footnote 13)

Whitmore v. Arkansas 495 U.S. 149 (1990) 154 - 155

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992) @ 560-561, 574-578

Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville 508 U.S. 656 (1993) @663 - 664

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona 520 U.S. 43 (1997) @64
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens 529 U.S. 765 (2000) @771-773

For example,

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) @ 204.
"Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing. It is, of course, a question of federal law."

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 550 (1992) @ 573-74
“‘[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest IN PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large--does not state an Article III case or controversy.’”

Article III standing is based on “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 550 (1992) @560

Donald Trump has 100% 

Article III Standing to SUE and win!!!

And more than that, he needs to demand that the Court awards him all of Ted's illegally obtained delegates, so that on the first vote at the RNC, they are BOUND to him.

That is his path to victory over the RNC Fraud...Corporate Raid Tactics!

 It is the right of those of us who have a U.S. Citizen Father and a U.S. Citizen Mother at the time of our birth on U.S. Soil to EXCLUSIVELY run for or be President of the United States. Those who argue for Cruz and other illegals to be POTUS argue to violate the Constitutional right of Natural Born Citizens of the United States to run only against other U.S. Natural Born Citizens, having only ONE NATIONALITY, THE UNITED STATES, FROM BIRTH TO WHEN THEY RUN, so therefore 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."

And since,
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution." 
it is also the obligation of the United States Supreme Court by emergency petition from either Donald Trump or his attorneys to spike Cruz as effectually disqualified and subject to DOJ prosecution, and in criminal default of loans, and having committed wire fraud, voter fraud, and a whole host of felonies, and possibly to attach blame also to the RNC leadership under RICO.


"The dishonest, and ambitious, excite the rage of parties, to promote their own designs; but the patriot directs their force, like that of fire, to the profit of the State, and not to its destruction"
Atticus, Independent Chronicle and the Universal Advertiser, Boston, Massachusetts, October 18, 1787


There is serious question of someone born in Canada with a then Cuban naturalized into a Canadian Father, who does NOT naturalize to the USA until the child is 34 or 35, that he even has a United States Citizenship to even be a United States Senator
(especially if he maintains a Canadian Citizenship as a U.S. senator until May 2014, hanging on to it years after he already publicly declares he knows he is Canadian).

Ted could not state that he had only a "local allegiance as a foreigner", he is a BIRTH CITIZEN of Canada who waited until age 43 to renounce that citizenship, and waited over 10 months after first being "exposed" as a foreigner in 2013 to even formally renounce alien allegiances, while in the United States Senate. No...no conflict there, was there Senator?

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) 22,23

@ 22
"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. "

"... first, that the alien, after coming to this country, should declare on oath, before a court or its clerk, that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereignty... and, fourth, that at the time of his admission, he should declare on oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign sovereignty. "

And what did Rafael "Ted' Cruz have to do in May 2014? He had to perform a legal necessity that was the same as a legal action of NATURALIZING by swearing off a BIRTH CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE SINCE BIRTH TO CANADA, THE NATION OF HIS FATHER'S THEN CITIZENSHIP.

Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and this is affirmed indirectly by the 12th Amendment and the intent of those who argued the opening clause of the 14th Amendment when they deliberated voting on that Amendment’s language in the United States Senate.

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment]
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) stated:

Part 4 (column 2), page 2890
Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:
Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Only those born with no other nationality at birth of United States Citizen parents on United States soil are technically United States Natural Born Citizens by operation of law as the Constitution uses the term by preceding "born citizen" with the word NATURAL, meaning that it is absent an operation of human law but is after the same sense of indigenous to the land as employed in biology, native to the soil in both seed and location of birth and growth / permanent presence and participation (the same as a plant would have to the rest of the plants around it -- call it the plant's "society", for comparison purposes -- in the field it is found "born" and growing in, forest it is found sprung up from the ground and growing in, or what have you).  

Cruz At Minimum A Naturalized Candidate Illegally Running

In regard to Ted Cruz's ineligibility to run for or be President of the United States  {P.O.T.U.S.}, let alone be a Vice-President,  we have Maine's current Governor LePage's daughters by example.

The relevant Canadian Citizenship Laws of Canada are summed up by Canada as:

"History of citizenship legislation
This section contains policy, procedures and guidance used by IRCC staff. It is posted on the IRCC website as a courtesy to stakeholders.

The requirements for citizenship under each of these acts vary. It is important to understand the way in which each of these is interpreted, because the provisions of these acts determine a person’s entitlement to citizenship.
Canadian Citizenship Act [January 1, 1947]
Up to January 1, 1947, there was no legal status of Canadian citizens, only British subjects. This Act gave legal recognition to the terms “Canadian citizen” and “Canadian citizenship”. The Act established who was and who could become a Canadian citizen. There were many provisions for loss of citizenship, including retention provisions for the first and subsequent generations born outside Canada. The Act also contained provisions which provided special treatment for British subjects. In general, Canadian citizens who acquired citizenship of another country automatically lost Canadian citizenship (dual citizenship was not recognized).

[Remember, Rafael Cruz had to make a point to RENOUNCE his Canadian Birth Citizenship in May of 2014.  In effect, is the act of renouncing Canadian Birth Citizenship tantamount to a public and legal confession that Rafael Cruz as an illegal alien might be occupying a seat in the Senate?]

Citizenship Act [February 15, 1977]
The Citizenship Act, effective February 15, 1977, replaced the 1947 Act with a more equitable statute. For example, British subjects no longer received special treatment and dual citizenship became recognized. There was only one provision for automatic loss of citizenship, limited to persons born in the second or subsequent generation outside Canada unless they took steps to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday."

 That means Ted Cruz's own kids, though born in the United States are recognized by Canada as birth citizens of Canada until their 28th birthday.  Since they are Birth Citizens by derivative citizenship from R. Ed Cruz, they can at anytime move to Canada before their 28th birthday, as Canadian Citizens, and at age 21 on their own they can register and live and work and vote as Canadians the rest of their lives as if they never had any United States Birth Citizenship issues.   How the hell does this make R.Ed Cruz's kids or himself a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen?  It is proof that he is a FRAUD, a LIAR, a Globalist CON-ARTIST merely currently employed in the United States Senate.


"The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.
Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."

When Ted was born in Canada, his father was then a citizen thereof.  There was no claim made upon him to be a citizen of the United States by his mother.  And unless Ted took advantage of the Ronald Reagan Amnesty of 1986, for all we know, Ted never entered the United States as a citizen of any other country than that of Canada.  The man needs to come clean, because with regard to Presidents and Presidential power, the Court has already said that

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power
to the United States,
or the prohibition of power to the States,
is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 

Since Cruz cannot even establish a claim of birth on United States soil and State citizenship at birth, he has no ability to establish a right to delegate or prohibit by the meeting the basic minimum Natural Born Citizenship that being a President or Vice President of the United States requires under Article 2 and the 12th Amendment.  

By example, I have previously cited that we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.

 On March 2, 2016, Maine’s Governor LePage destroyed any claim by Cruz saying he was legal to run for POTUS. 

I put together a transcript of the above video from about the 10 second to 47 second mark. It may need to be tweaked a little.

[at 10 seconds]
Howie Carr: "...and as you know, Senator Ted Cruz is coming in on, uh, on Friday, and I sure he [inaudible] say unto himself: 'Why didn't LePage endorse me? He's the most conservative governor there is!' And uh."

Governor LePage: "Very simple. Very simple. I am the most conservative governor, [pause] that there is. The first [inaudible] senator, is not ready. Number one. Number two, is I also have two daughters that born in Canada, and they had to be naturalized, they couldn't be natural.
And so, I have a question here.

Howie Carr: Really? You don't think your daughters could run for President?

Governor LePage: "They can't! I KNOW they can't. I've already looked into it.

Howie Carr: Really? I didn't, I didn't ..so how were th-, what uh years were you in Canada?
Governor LePage: 1972 until 1979.

Maine's Governor LePage's  two daughters, Lisa and Lindsay, were born in CANADA in 1975 and 1976.  

  Rafael Edward Cruz, Jr. was also born as a Canadian Born Citizen (as his own birth certificate says)

  In other words, the significance of what Governor LePage says, is that his daughters are governed  by the same Citizenship laws of Canada as R. Ed  / "Ted" is, and both are naturalized and known to be ineligible.

PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952,

SEC. 320. (a) A child born outside of the United States, one of whose parents at the time of the child's birth was an alien and the other of whose parents then was and never thereafter ceased to be a citizen of the United States, shall, if such alien parent is naturalized, become a citizen of the United States, 

when- (1) such naturalization 

takes place while such child is under the age of sixteen years; and (2) such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of naturalization or thereafter and begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of sixteen years....

Governor LePage and the mother of Lisa and Lindsay are UNITED STATES CITIZENS at the time of the birth of Lisa and Lindsay in Canada.  R. Ed Cruz only had a mother with a claim of U.S. Citizenship.  

The same legal requirements that governed these girls governed R.Ed Cruz. The same legal standing, of NOT being United States Natural Born Citizens at birth in Canada, but having to be NATURALIZED, also apply.  

And if that isn't enough, how about NATURALIZATION when TWO U.S. Citizen Parents have a child born abroad in 1957 (under the same United States 1952 INA) at a U.S. Army hospital, and the child is NATURALIZED by legal requirement?

 The subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth is a requirement specified in

 Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @102. , 103
Page 112 U. S. 102
..."Persons not thus [completely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

Page 112 U. S. 103
...It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."

To be born outside the United States made the child a citizen by naturalization laws and treaties, as following the citizenship of the Father, but NOT being someone defined as a United States Natural Born Citizen, but rather a naturalized citizen because these became citizens by operation of law in the way the court explained here in Elk v. Wilkins. There are claims that the father of R. Ed  Cruz  naturalized to Canada in 1968. If that indeed is the case, since the mother had no State Residence in the United States to lay claim in giving any children she had a State Citizenship to attach themselves to, which is a requirement under the legal education opinion of William Rawle who placed STATE CITIZENSHIP AND LOCATION IN THE UNITED STATES as a legal necessity to run for POTUS, by what measure or claim does "Ted" have in any way outside of naturalization? He has NOTHING. .

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (in  1829, as stated in his Second edition) 
states that:
"…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that THE PLACE OF BIRTH creates the relative quality is established as to us.    

 …No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government."

Obergefell et al v. Hodges __ US __ (2014) @ 6 
"Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England." 430 (1765) 

At birth, Ted had NO STATE of the United States to call his home or place of permanent attachment or to enjoy the rights thereof as its citizen.   He had NO attachment to any State of the United States at birth or for the first several years of his life, living as a Canadian Birth Citizen there in CANADA.  Under Originalism and intent of the Constitutional clause, Ted's citizenship in regard to the Natural Born Citizen Clause in the United States Constitution would have required a U.S. Citizen Father at birth.  Obama claimed a U.S. citizen mother and a U.S. jurisdiction birth and Senator Feinstein in a letter to me stated that Barack was legal because he was a 14th Amendment protected citizen.  

Then there is a running for U.S. Senate example of how running for POTUS Cruz saying "poof" he is now eligible, is a "FLIP-FLOP TED".  

When Ted Cruz was interviewed by the GOP Texas State Committee in his running for state office, he was stated as saying the ff.

  "(Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“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.”

John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

I would also encourage you to look at what Samuel Adams on November 20, 1772 specified was part of the Massachusetts charter.
"... that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which shall go to and inhabit within our said province or territory and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence shall have and enjoy, all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions of us...."

That means born in those lands subject to the jurisdiction thereof or on a flagship going to or from and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, subject to one and only one sovereignty by local allegiance at birth as well as by descent, only these are natural subjects in the Colonies of what would later become the United States. 

Commentaries on American Law (1826-30) 

"Of Aliens and Natives 

...(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens...”

"Of the President
...(2.) The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen.. these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant.
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States,
ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office,
and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland...." 

Cf. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473 (dating 1833) stating the same as the above Kent Lecture 13 quote. 

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) (1814) 253 @ page 289  
"The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
and succeed to all their rights." 

By definition, a Law Review in 1845 rightly defined that:
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” 
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414 

Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to alter the definition of what a United States Natural Born Citizen is? It only has the power to alter those citizenships that are within the sphere of being regulated and hampered by law…that is, they have powers to issue uniform rules regarding NATURALIZATION only.  

U.S. Constitution [Powers of Congress] 
Article 1, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of 

and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  A United States Natural Born Citizenship is one inherent as being one so indigenous, a concept of removing such citizenship from the person would guarantee that they would be Stateless / without a country while yet in the country of their birth and sole inheritance were it ever taken away. It is a doctrine which is recognized in natural law. 

 See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter "Of Paternal Power", 6:59; and 
 “On The Duty of Man and Citizen According to the Natural Law “ (1673) - SAMUEL VON PUFENDORF,
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 3 On Natural Law;
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 3 On the Duties of Parents and Children;
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 18 On the Duties of Citizens. 

Trump needs to SUE CRUZ out of the race, demand all his delegates be awarded to him, and then demand that by a first tally of delegates according to RNC rules, he be awarded the nomination as the RNC candidate for POTUS or that the RNC be brought up on charges beginning with vote fraud, mail fraud, and so on.    

No comments:

Post a Comment