Constitutional Emergency

MAY TRUTH RULE - I THINK CRUZ IS AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, BUT THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE OBEYED.....APUZZO IS CORRECT.

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
                                                           Jurisdiction

                                                    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.”

http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-a...

~~~~~

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
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Views: 1102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Another, hear, hear!

These guys are looking in the wrong direction; they should be looking at Obama. We have abundant evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, and he mentioned it in his book, and his 'grandmother has said on a TV news program that she attended his birth. Lets take care of Obama first, and worry about those two congressmen after we take care of Obama. First things first.   Mr. James,   Knoxville, Tennessee

In your dais of wondering what happened to the GOP, now you want to question whether Cruz is Eligible to run for president? how about getting off your backside then and demand that Obama resign immediately because he admitted he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

1) He 'admitted' it when he claimed that the Kenyan, Obama, was his birth father; but the American public, in its state of slumber, didn't understand the ramifications of that claim, because the Republican Party, as the opposition party of record, in our two-party system, failed to call him on it.  For their own purposes; and hence, some Republican Party presidential candidates now who aren't eligible for it either.  And just so, has the rule of law - the Constitution - been trashed in this country; and we are operating under the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages. 

2) Indeed, it is time to 'get off our backsides and demand that Obama resign immediately'.  And we need Oath Keepers to help us in that challenge to TPTB, for words alone won't do it.  I recommend:

* We patriots do a quiet deal with the SS guarding the Usurper, to keep bloodshed among Americans from happening, or at least to the minimum, and go in to the White House and give him a chance to resign, but otherwise remove him, under arrest, and hold him for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason;

*  We dissolve Congress, for having failed to do its constitutional duty and responsibility in reining in a rogue Executive, and holding those members of Congress who we have evidence of having engaged in corrupt practices for trial as well (and that includes Pelosi for having signed off illegally on Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office);  

* We appoint an Officer of The People to hold the space, while he a) calls for new elections all told, within a time certain; b) cleans out the nest of termites infesting the executive branch of the federal government, and rolls back all the regulations that they have issued under the illegal administration of the Usurper; and c) declares all the legislation that the Usurper has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made - including to the U.S. Supreme Court - null and void.

And we start anew, with a clean slate.  Which includes both major political parties being taken to - a legitimate - court, and tried under RICO statutes, for being the criminal enterprises that they have proven to be, especially in their collusion over the illegal candidacy of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka the Usurper.  And back under the rule of law we go; which is to say, under the Constitution.  Just as soon as things are set right, in an America that deserves better than it is getting from its corrupt leadership at present.    

Hear, hear, a good plan, at the least a step in the right direction!

While I like the suggestions of Mr. Stanfield above, I wonder if some of these facts and writings, suggestions might also be considered.  The 'record-keeping' of some of our Amendments and their ratifications are absent among the National Archives.  One MOST EGREGIOUS is the Sixteenth Amendment under which we ALL suffer and which has handed so very much power to the National Government.  It is of course the Income Tax.  And since the Constitution explicitly forbids a "tax of capitation" it is un-Constitutional.

I would like to submit to you this summary from Harvard Law Review, because it addresses a number of points brought up in this discussion.  

 1. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-...

And then there are these:

 2. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/03/13/the-top-ten-birther-argu...

3. MARK LEVIN: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-nat...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/mark-levin-sounds-off-on-cruz-eligibility/

4.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-pre...

5.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-ru...

6.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/would-the-found...

7.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2013/10/19/putting-...

8.
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/08/27/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible...

9.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/cruz-eligible-presidenti...

10.
http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-bo...

11. Ted Cruz releases Birth Certificate:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/ted-cruz-birth-certificate-09...

Having offered this, I am certainly concerned about the facts that show our judiciary appears much more interested in keeping the status quo rather than interpreting the law.  I have just a few major, MAJOR examples I would like to bring up.

1. The blatant activism that allows Obamacare to stay on the books when the SCOTUS called the justification of a penalty a "TAX", changing the word, essentially they were rewriting the Statute.  This violates Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the U.S.Constitution. 

2. Elena Kagan was WORKING for the Obama Administration when the law was being batted around in Congress and of course we all knew that she returned to the Oval Office to proclaim it passed in the dark of night on Christmas, 2009 gleeful to report what the Senate had done.

3. It is well disclosed that the law was "Jonathan Gruberized" in multiple videos to prove it that they KNEW IT WOULD NEVER PASS if the damn thing was fully disclosed before or during the period it was legislated.  Kagan did NOT RECUSE herself from the hearing and scrutiny of the law when it came before the Supreme Court.

3. There was extensive pushback against the "Gay Marriage" decision by its own admission, the Supreme Court confessed that these matters has been taken out of the hands of the people and put into law by the pen of SCOTUS.  The Court recognized that many State Legislatures and popular referenda have considered this piece of crap and did it anyway.  That is NOT an act that reflects the "consent of the governed."

As we all know, there are many others, so the Judiciary is as corrupt as the other two branches. So we have some serious work ahead of us.  

The fact remains clear, the intent of the founder was that to be eligible for office of POTUS (and VPOTUS) the individual must have been born to parents who were BOTH US citizens at the time of that indvidual's birth regardless of latter laws that ignored this requirement, therefore Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Obama are NOT qualified, period. Your other 4 points are well taken.

So Lee Vail do you deny the Naturalization Act of 1790, referenced above with this particularization of it:

1219 The first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 103 (1790), so provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421. In Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), it was held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in the proceedings in state courts.

So why are we not arresting those complicit with ALLOWING Oval Office Occupier stink up our gpublic housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC?

And then there is this:

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/35-naturalization-a...

I don't see where it over-rides the founders intent of electing a President or Vice-President.

The 16th Amendment is not only unconstitutional, it was never ratified, so there are actually two ways that the Federal Income Tax is illegally applied.

Never ratified? Can you provide specifics (links) to save me some time researching?

RSS

About

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



HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP

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"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......

Events

© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service