While I appreciate the many conservative stands of Ted Cruz, and prior to his aspirations to the Presidency of the United States for himself, I had believed he would be ideal as a future governor of Texas, I will have to make a fair and balanced opposition to any Presidential aspirations of Ted Cruz for himself, fulfilling my word of integrity on this issue. I doubt the Left will recognize the fairness I am applying the Constitutional Law with, but it is about doing right and good and judging righteously - fairly - intelligently, as even the LORD Jesus instructs us to do. While Ted Cruz claims to be a Baptist of some type in his beliefs, he should know that we have the right to apply these words of the LORD regarding him, the same as we would regarding Obama or any other human being:
"Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment."
- John 7:23 in the King James Version
Lou Dobbs addresses the Cruz Foreign Birth Disclosure
The Constitution requires that a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, one who natural law consequence is that he is 100% likely to be attached to the society he was born in as its of age tax-paying citizenry and political society as its voter when he grows up. Ted Cruz upon birth could have just as, if not MORE easily, been a voting citizen and politician of Cuba or of Canada if his parents had never moved to the United States and naturalized him after Ted reached the age of 3.
Natural Born Citizenship is Constitutionally of even a greater weight and stringency than that type of U.S. Citizenship created or listed by the 14th Amendment that requires a 100% jurisdiction adherence of an inside the United States (or its territory) birth without exception.
The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866
The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
[Emphasis in bold and underlined: mine]
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.
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.
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895
Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
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."
...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
[Emphasis in bold and underlined: mine]
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.
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.
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895
Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
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."
...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
And yet, we are surrounded and permeated as a society of people who are profane excuses for intelligent beings who have not even the most elementary clue that having multiple citizenships might even be a problem in running for the U.S. Presidency, being given a standing of an equal opinion when (in my opinion) he should have been shut down and kicked off the program as either "an intentional disinformationalist" or a "moron", as this next clip shows.
The above segment demonstrates an hypocrisy on the issue, because while Foxnews Brett Baier states that dual Citizens at birth cannot legally be President, in regard to Ted Cruz; yet Obama also (like Cruz) was born a dual, and perhaps tri-national at birth, yet having no legitimate proof he can take into a United States Court and present as proof he was even born inside the United States, let alone in the entire Western Hemisphere of Planet Earth. No proof means 100% of nothing in identity papers or anything, and his lawyers could conceptually use his birth certificate fraud as toilet paper before risking dis-barment and felony imprisonment for daring to submit a legally known fraud into the Court Record that can easily be proven false.
Perhaps the above Brett Baier video clip should be titled: "Why Isn’t Brett Baier Applying The Same Standard To A Black Man, Obama, As He Would A Hispanic Or Caucasian?"
It was Representative of Ohio, John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment who stated on the record on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)):
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United
States of parents NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
Indeed, only 21 years earlier, it was widely known in American Law that the consensus was to the effect 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
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United
States of parents NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
Indeed, only 21 years earlier, it was widely known in American Law that the consensus was to the effect 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
What makes Cruz eligible? He is by the Law of Nations, a citizen of Cuba by his father, a citizen of Canada by location of birth, and a citizen of the United States only under a naturalized status, being alien to this land first and foremost as a Canadian until 3 years old, and then as an immigrant from Canada with a tri-national status because his mother was a U.S. Citizen over 19 under the 1952 INA and U.S. Code in place because of it at the time of his birth. While Cruz has a citizenship by operation of law through maternity of the mother, from July 4, 1776 - May 24, 1934 such a maternal inheritance of U.S. Citizenship was not legally recognized when the mother was married to a foreigner and had the child born in a foreign land. For the operation of U.S. Code to kick in, it requires a legal form of naturalization, and naturalized citizens are not legally allowed to run for the Presidency of the United States. Foreign citizenship is meant to be prevented from Presidential Office by the Constitutional Language the Constitution
itself employs.
In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.
But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”
In 2013, Cruz is an ambitious foreigner (a Canadian Citizen having current Citizen Status having it acquired by birth there) intriguing for the high office of the Presidency when he says he is eligible and refuses to call those forming Cruz 2016 political groups to disband.
New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has also publicly written an opposition piece against Cruz, and debated well with those who commented replies on his March 2013 article @
While many fellow Conservatives are misled by Cruz where it regards "Presidential Eligibility" concerning him, I say that he is an anti-Constitutional subversive if he seeks the U.S. Presidency for himself. What's more, I will state very plainly that for Ted Cruz to seek the U.S. Presidency, then clearly Senator Ted Cruz is a TRAITOR to the Constitution of the United States of America. He wrongly claims in the following video that because his mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, he is (somehow) eligible to become President of the United States by simply being "a citizen" of the United States, despite being born in Canada. Any attorney for a candidate having Article III standing to oppose a Presidential Candidate Senator Ted Cruz in Court can use the many dozens of Supreme court citations I used against Obama, and easily have the Court throw Cruz off the ballot. F-A-C-T!!!
Senator Ted Cruz Making Himself A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing? Is It That Cruz
Now Seeks 2016 Presidency On The Obama Technicality Excuse?
But what makes Ted Cruz, a foreign born foreign national at birth eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing. In fact, by example, 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, has an article which tells us that the legal experts of the New York Times, the attorneys at law (as well as those who were of the DNC for that matter who ended up concurring with their legal opinion some time later after the article was published), that 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.
The United States has a Treaty with Canada, as it does with Great Britain,
which forbids our claiming those born to fathers of their countries or to those
on their soil as our Natural Born Citizens, while granting our dual citizenship to them, and treating them on the same level as "naturalized citizens" requiring an oath to the United States at age 18 in circumstances the same as Cruz is in. At best, they may be declared a dual-citizen with the United States, but their primary sovereignty at birth
The United States has a Treaty with Canada, as it does with Great Britain,
which forbids our claiming those born to fathers of their countries or to those
on their soil as our Natural Born Citizens, while granting our dual citizenship to them, and treating them on the same level as "naturalized citizens" requiring an oath to the United States at age 18 in circumstances the same as Cruz is in. At best, they may be declared a dual-citizen with the United States, but their primary sovereignty at birth
rests with Canada.
Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate, failing to realize that he legally must be prevented by the same constraints as was F.D.R. Jr. was under with 2 Natural Born Citizen parents of the United States at the time of his birth in Canada being denied the legality of running for the highest elected office in this land.
In 2013, Senator Ted Cruz is a Canadian citizen; meaning he could elect to use foreign influence upon the office. And for all we know, he may still have a Cuban citizenship if Cuba so recognizes him. Ted is NOT a native citizen of the United States, but he is a native citizen of Canada.
James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States….
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States….
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”
113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15 -- “I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of President of the United States....”
While I can go on with many proofs and Supreme Court Cases, most readers will tune out to that. So instead, let me end this with a warning.
That’s my input.
No comments:
Post a Comment