We are at the point where the venue for holding this Round Table and the agenda are set:
We will be meeting at the Radio Technical Commission, 1611 N Kent St, Arlington, VA in the Main Conference Room; we also have a breakout room reserved, so two working sessions can be going at the same time. Starting time is 11:00am on Wednesday, May 13, 2015, with breakout to begin at noon. Please note the maximum number the room will hold is 50, and there are 20 politicians (so far) who have expressed interest. There is also a veterans’ group that plans on sending a delegation - I am still trying to get an accurate count from them.
If you have contacted politicians and gotten a commitment from them, I need that information, for an accurate headcount.
Those of you who worked on the handout, many thanks. I am getting them printed, along with some documentation for each point; folders will be handed out to all attendees at the meeting.
We will be working with the politicians, to find ways to implement our Top Five Concerns from within and without the governmental body. The senators, representatives, and governors who will be there know better than we do how the governing body works (or doesn’t!); they will be hearing from citizens that we are not asleep; we are aware of what is happening to the country; we are willing to work to stop it; and we have their back(s) if they step out and go against the corrupt minions presently in control in DC.
Above all, we must be professional in our demeanor; very firm in our requests, but polite - no yelling, name-calling, or cursing. The minute we do that, the politicians will tune out and turn off. Be professional!
This is a very ambitious project to accomplish in just four hours. As one member has expressed to me, we need to have a regular series of these meetings. I’d love to see that happen!
The Top Five Concerns and the Politician Name List are below:
Top Five Concerns:
1. Impeach Barack Obama
2. Enforce Immigration Laws
3. Repeal Obamacare
4. National Debt
5. End the Patriot Act
NOTE: Due to sabotage of this meeting, I have removed the politician name list from this discussion. If the saboteur had already copied the list, he/she will still have the names. If he/she was referring back to listing, this will stop it.
I strongly suspect pressure to back out came from "on high" - we have lost much of the politicians' participation...I did have about 20 who had committed to attending. There are now about 10 left. This development is disappointing, to say the least.
Anyone who is planning on attending and still needs the politicians' name list, message me, and I will email you a copy of it.
4-16-15: Two more politician cancellations today; now down to six. These may not be because of the saboteur, as one sounded shaky from the start. I am calling more politicians' schedulers, trying to get the attendee list back up. Any help would be appreciated!
Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real biological father who is a full citizen.
I ran a lengthy battle in the case of "proof" of Obama's eligibility and none were offered. His mother, although American, had not lived in the U.S. the required period of time before giving birth to Obama in a place yet to be proven.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a different situation. He had dual citizenship, legally, and grew up in this country as an American Citizen. Further research in his case came up with the following:
"While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
Although subsequent naturalization acts dropped the natural born language, members of later Congresses proposed many bills and resolutions designed to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Natural Born Citizenship Clause; none succeeded. In April 2008, however, amid challenges to Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as president, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that “John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
The resolution—co-sponsored by a number of McCain’s Senate colleagues, including rival presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—undoubtedly offered Senator McCain some comfort, but it had no real constitutional significance.
Challenges to presidential qualifications are not new. In 1964, for example, questions arose as to the natural-born credentials of Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood. In 1968, legal actions were threatened against former Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents in Mexico, when he sought the Republican nomination.
Despite the shadow that lawsuits may cast over a presidential bid, the obstacles to successful litigation of natural-born citizenship challenges are formidable. These matters raise a wide array of justiciability concerns. Standing issues led to the dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and California challenging Senator McCain’s natural-born status in 2008 (Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen), as well as to the dismissal of claims brought by a Guyana-born naturalized citizen who argued that the Fifth and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the natural born citizenship clause (Hassan v. Federal Election Committee).
Standing is not the only obstacle to adjudication of natural-born citizenship issues. Claims that a candidate lacks the requisite natural-born citizenship credentials are unlikely to ripen until a nominee is chosen, or perhaps even elected, and federal courts may be reluctant to delve into the merits of challenges to a candidate’s natural-born citizenship status on political question grounds.
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II.
This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to one’s homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
Sarah Helene Duggin is Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Public Policy Program for the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She has authored several academic articles on the natural-born citizenship proviso."
Cruz is an honest above board individual and will most likely REQUEST that his eligibility be properly vetted by BOTH HOUSES of Representatives. If I am wrong, then I have totally misjudged the man, and I do NOT think I have done that.
In the Supreme Court case Minor v. Hapersett (1874) the court defined the term "natural born citizen" as a US citizen born of 2 US citizen parents. Obama is not eligible since his father was never a US citizen. Sen. Cruz I believe is not either, even though I do not like that I have to accept it. A friend of mine who is an expert on the subject says Sen. Cruz is not eligible and also says Mark Levin is wrong in his interpretation.
It is not defined in the Constitution.
Ted Cruz's father was Cuban. Ineligible.
This is the law, Patricia, not someone's opinion.
Read it and understand it. If we do not, we defeat the purpose of our mission and doom it to fail.
Natural Born - US Born to 2 US citizen parents. There are no interpretations of this.
Very well written explanation of the Founders intent and Article II eligibility.
US BORN of 2 US citizen parents. The law is the law. It is not open to interpretation by anyone.
OUTSTANDING post. Informative and detailed.
I may have to concede my thoughts on CRUZ's eligibility but I must admit I do like everything he has stated so far insofar as bringing this country back to We The People.
?? What does that have to do with anything?