Constitutional Emergency


Wednesday, November 25, 2015

New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco R...

New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of

                                                    By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                       November 25, 2015

Christopher Booth of Concord, New Hampshire, Cameron Elliott of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Robert Laity of Tonawanda, New York, filed ballot access challenges in New Hampshire against presidential contenders Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, arguing that neither of them is an Article II natural born citizen.  The challengers are correct.

Still, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to rule on the question of whether the senators are natural born citizens because, chairman Brad Cook said, the issues were not under the panel’s purview.

“Our precedents say we don’t’ go there,” Cook said. “Personally, would I like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide these issues so we know what is, so it doesn’t keep coming up? Absolutely. Are we the vehicle to start that discussion? No, we’re not.”


The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens.  It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

On the merits, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are natural born citizens.  Neither the original nor amended Constitution defines a natural born citizen.  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that we have to look outside the Constitution for its meaning.  It explained that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when the Constitution was adopted, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized if they met the requirements of naturalization Acts of Congress. Minor v. Happersett (1875).

Cruz was neither born in the country, nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents.  He was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father.  Unlike Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were there to serve the military interest of the United States, neither of Cruz's parents were in Canada for purposes of serving in the U.S. military.  He therefore does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen.  Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress.  He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law.  A “naturalized born” citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Rubio was born in the country.  But he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.  He was born in the United States, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents.  Hence, he also does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen.  He is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that provides the only definition of the clause.  He needs the Fourteenth Amendment because, while born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.  Rubio is a "born citizen" of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. Simply being a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one a natural born citizen of the United States under the common law.
So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens.  It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 25, 2015
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Views: 1106

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you Linda! Now to figure out how to correct this situation?

Laura, although you make some good points - and Mark Levin has, over the years, made some good points; and the Harvard Law Review makes some good points in their analysis of this subject - you have been subjected to flim-flam on the subject of what a "natural born" citizen meant to the constitutional Framers, and the meaning of which, and the REQUIREMENT of which, has never been changed by constitutional amendment.

It doesn't matter what some Naturalization Act subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution says or doesn't say to the meaning of the term (although the 1790 one was changed subsequently anyway).  The term meant, to the constitutional Framers, and still means to this day, without a constitutional amendment to the contrary: one born on the soil of citizen parents.  That's PLURAL.  As in BOTH.  The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers being to make sure that the occupant of that office, PARTICULARLY because said occupant would also become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  As a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.  Like Cruz (and Rubio, and Jindal).  And like Obama.

There is all manner of historical evidence that the Framers were going by the definitive tome of their day on such matters, Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law,' which defines the term - logically - as one born on the soil of citizen parents.  One can be a NATIVE born citizen - i.e,, born on the soil - but not be a NATURAL born citizen.  And also: Some Obots have tried to point to English common law as making THEIR point on the subject; but - and speaking of subjects - that refers to 'natural born SUBJECTS' - NOT citizens.  The Framers were freemen now, and damn proud of it - they were no longer 'subjects'.  The Framers were NOT going by English common law on this matter.  They were CLEARLY going by American common law, aka Natural Law (as referenced in various of our founding documents).  

I could go on, but let me, instead, just refer you, and interested others, to the website of attorney Mario Apuzzo: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.  He has researched this matter to a 't'.  The bottom line: It is the 'original intent' that is in question here.  And that intent can only be changed by a constitutional amendment - NOT by 'statutes,' or erroneous court decisions, or whatever.  And in point of fact, both major political parties have even ACKNOWLEDGED that, when, between 2003 and 2008, and between them, they tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very subject - and failed even to get their proposals out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity around the issue.  So, what did they do?  The result is obvious: they colluded.  They met in a smoke-filled back room in D.C. or its environs, and a Repub Party rep said words to the effect: 'We won't say anything about your candidate on this issue if you won't say anything about any of our candidates on this issue that we may put up in the future.  And between us, with our control over the mainstream media, and the judicial branch, we can, er, persuade the public on this matter, capiche?'.  And the rest is history.  Terrible history.  Outrageous history.

To be changed.  Back to the rule of law. Not the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages.

Not in my country, you won't.     

Thank you Stan! Wonderfully and Truthfully put! Hear, hear! "... Not in my country, you won't."

Thanks Stan. If we had a 'Like" button here I just hit it.

Evidence in the facts can be highly uncomfortable that slaps us in the face.

Trump has fully admitted that he likes and made LOTS OF MONEY by violating the Constitution  by way of eminent domain to acquire private property rights a CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE by hanging onto the definition of Natural Born Citizen which is STILL in dispute.  There are other antiConstitutional acts that Trump has supported acting on and depending on which side of the aisle was in power.  But this one stands out among the others.

This is certainly not the entirety of evidence, but just a starting point to prove that Trump has little loyalty to the Constitution or Founding Principles.

So let me get this straight you prefer a man who has made hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars by violating constitutional principles to one who has worked his whole life to uphold the Constitution, who has hurt people to make his largesse by hurting those with little wherewithal  to protect their inalienable rights, IF you look at Trumps record of actions.  

You prefer him to the man who has an extensive record to uphold the Constitution and Founding Principles.  I find that breathtaking and stubborn that may be a real threat to save this country.  Your "concrete"abstract seems antithetical to the spirit of the law, the Constitution. But you stay there in your stance, I will be praying for and working to get Ted Cruz for President.

Eminent domain must be approved by a court of law I believe Laura.  Please cite how eminent domain is unconstitutional.  Like anything political, some stretch, abuse, constitutional power. It's likely most political candidates can be cited for some type least Trump is a "natural born citizen".  As I indicated, if Cruz were a "natural born citizen", I believe he would be at the top of the pile at this point as a valid candidate for me....just my opinion..........

You, sir, site Ted Cruz as not a Natural Born Citizen, but by the definitions you propose.  In that vain, my arguments seem to have little if any validity.

 As many who heard and abhorred the Supreme Court on a number of issues, I will restate ad nauseum: "Never is the Constitution in as great a jeopardy when the Supreme Court picks it up."

So let's take up the Kelo case that "took" private property for commercial aggrandizement to the property taxing entity for the homes of I believe it was five individual homeowner to build a "shopping complex" in Connecticut.  Today the property stands vacant, undeveloped and not producing revenue. I quote Malkin:

"Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government’s ability to commandeer private property for purported “public use.” Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clausereal estate moguls, parking garage buildersmall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theftin the name of reducing “blight.” Under eminent domain, the definition of “public purpose” has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.

While casting himself as America’s new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump’s manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot — Coking’s private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking’s home, explained the confiscatory scheme..."

So when we have the Supremes taking cases that speak to social/cultural issues that bind those of us who believe in Natural Law as inviolable (private property ownership being one), "gay marriage" (an oxymoron itself)  what hope do we have in protecting the individual or even the majority where many States have rejected such by referenda?  Maybe that's not a cogent argument to this particular, but where in this country right now do we have a "cogent argument"?  Especially when we have allowed ourselves to become subject to the will of the political parties that stand on their heads to disregard the sentiments of the people, and in the majority as such.

Guess we'll have to see how the primaries go and who eventually selected as the republican nominee...............It's possible I may have to stay home rather than violate my personal constitutional principles.  Have a blessed day..........

Harry, I understand what you mean but, rather than stay home, I will go to my polling station and cast a vote, a write in vote, either a candidate of another party not on my states ballot or write in my own name. That way I have the opportunity keep my personal constitution principles intact and to voice my individual displeasure with a corrupt, and now evil, system.

They ain't gonna shut me up unless they kill me!

comments deleted by Admin.

Zionists; the boogey man of anti-Semitism. Hitler had the same mindset.

It actually was true, they are not NATURAL BORN. But neither is Obamass. In fact he may not even be a citizen. The GOP & Dems only care about special interests, destroying the US for those interests & being reelected to do more for the special interests.

It is up to us, We the People to change the govt. back to a Constitutional govt by starting at the local & State levels. Get your States to demand their rights to stand up to the feds



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service