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: 1109

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Both Senator Cruz and Rubio claim to be Constitutional Conservatives and if they truly are such, they would withdraw from the GOP nominating process and publically declare why they have withdrawn.


 Lee:A big AMEN on that !!!

But neither one will do this, because since Barrack got certified to be resident in charge, they think the precident has been set to elect another one that is not an Article 2 Natural Born citizen....They think they can fool the American people again, because they think most of us are too stupid to think....

Educated IDIOTS want the Supreme Court to look at this.  Can't they read?  The Supreme Court has ALREADY looked at it on 4 separate occasions with 4 separate courts and they all find the same.  Cruze, Rubio, Jendall are NOT eligable.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton 

Posted on 3/14/2010, 2:04:10 PM by etraveler13

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen" IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN by John Charlton Reference links at bottom of page....

Emmerich de Vattel, c/o Online Library of Liberty (Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has

given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective

qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what

this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the

irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of

the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations,

written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural

born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its

authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the

country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children

of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the

French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country,

of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is

by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin,

indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the

indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term,

“natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of

that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of

citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George

Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete

their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the

American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took

part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in

5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant

Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the

British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or

nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of

Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George

Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington

was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American

citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a

prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.


In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the

French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work

has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its

authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.

Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are

obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters

of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of

whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave

the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a

“natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and

remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the

Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does

not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South

Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the

citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father,

partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established,

and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so

that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears

to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register

to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in

that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain

that. 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. Some authorities go further and

include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the

court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of

the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as

anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation

to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and

foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In

this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other

category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties

accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or

State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because



About Emer de Vattel

The law of Nations - Vattel


SCOTUS before 1900

Venus Case

Shanks vs. Dupont

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) 

It's quite clear as cited by Fred....Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal fail the "natural birth citizen" clause of the US Constitution.  With that being said, where do we find constitutional ballot decision makers that will remove unqualified candidates?

As much as I like Cruz, he simply is not qualified nor is Rubio.

Many of us cited Obama as unqualified as early as 2007/08, many court challenges.........all judges cited "no standing" or no jurisdiction, or whatever..........gutless, cowardly Congress and Judiciary........

God only knows what it will take to right the wrong Obama has heaped on our cry has been long and constant....Obama is the greatest enemy America has ever faced.

Still does not explain why Obama, born in Kenya is a natural borne citizen when in fact his so called father (no one is really certain given reported stories of his mother's various associations) and the duplicity of his grandmother who obtained a fraudulent birth certificate and social security number of a deceased resident of Connecticut. Yet is it not amazing that the most corrupt groupt of Democratic members of Congress led by the likes of Pelosi and her criminally arrogant counter part in the Senate, swore that he had met the test and was eligible for the office even in the face of absolutely no vetting of his origins and past. Four times the Supremes ruled and that matters in view of the crimes that the Democrats pulled off in getting the worst person in our country's history elected not once but twice? Only in his second term has he clearly demonstrated that the Democratic Socialist Party of America has been so criminally negligent in its Constitutional limitations. I say let it go to the Supremes one more time. If nothing else their decision if made will verify their own complicity and duplicity in not ruling in the face of insurmountable evidence he did not qualify for the office to the detriment of our entire country.

Ovomit is not a NBC, but the cowards in the gop would rather let the Constitution be destroyed than be called racist.  So much for any integrity the gop could have claimed to have.

Because the GOP is part of the problem, bought and paid for by a global elite. These global elitist are allied with the satan and opposed to God, the creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them.

i agree..a study of the candidate gallery reveals each is predisposed in their adamant position of Israel First.

to me this constitutes damage to  what our national security policies should be...

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS Did Not create this Republic with any Israel First mindset.

Those of us who know what Bible says about those who are for Israel will be blessed and those against Israel will be punished, by GOD Almighty.

It is without a doubt that Obama was set up by some powers that are unknown, to take down America for the purpose of installing the one world government. Even one former government aid Henry Kissinger, said that America is the only thing standing in the way of the One World Government.

The Congress is involved or why would they have not impeached Obama when the Republicans took control of both houses? The entire foundations of the Constitution are corrupted. Really, there may not be one person in Congress that we can trust to be completely truthful with the people of America.

GODS declaration is not carte blanche, all his declarations / promises are Conditional.

a nation by any name who intentionally murders HIS children ( GAZA ) will be sorely judged.

we should be wise to understand this government does not serve the righteous nor the Constitution,

that the entire system has been corrupted for decades.

That  any nation who rebukes HIM will HE likewise turn HIS back on them.

So, ask yourself , who is calling the shots here ???



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