Constitutional Emergency

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all By JB Williams

Ted Cruz is NOT a Legal U.S. Citizen at all

© JB Williams

jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

  1. “citizen at birth” is a 14th Amendment naturalization term based upon “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

  1. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)

 

From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

 

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.

 

  1. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…

 

a)      NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “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 country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)

 

b)      NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)

 

c)       NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department

 

  1. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.

 

As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for t....

Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Cana...

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.”

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

Views: 2123

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Emerich deVattel defines "natural born citizen" in his book, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law", which was used extensively in diplomacy and in the writing of America's founding documents.  Since its first edition, the work has been referred to as "[T]he Law of Nations".  For those who argue that this work is not cited in The Constitution, I refer them to Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, in which "the Law of Nations" is invoked.

It was there, folks, hence, deVattels's definition of "natural born citizen" was/is the one used by The Framers.  No other position can be logically argued.  Cruz might be OK, and Rubio, despite coming across as the eighth-grade debate champion, could, maybe, in a hundred years, do the job; but a youthful-looking twenty-five-year-old fellow might be an excellent high-school quarterback, too; none is qualified for the position.

Just What is a "Natural Born Citizen"?
There is no legal foundation nor is there a Constitutional definition of Natural Born and this is why the many arguments.

 All foundation support the legal concepts. 
 
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.  Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President.  See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. 

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase.  Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."  One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

 NOTE:
Here is the most definitive and open discussion of scholarly work I have found on the issue of natural born citizen - he even shows in detail why Vattel's translation of the 1758 French to English
The problem with that argument, however, is that the English translation of the 1758 edition did not use the term “natural born Citizen.”  That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified.

All of his research is here and if you read it like I have it leads to no single absolute answer. In my opinion the questions will never be solved to the satisfaction of all citizens and scholars.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-ru...

The facts have been laid upon the table for all to read and ponder - the decision is yours and yours alone. To blindly repeat talking points of of one Constitutional scholar is silliness as evidence that is rooted to a firm FOUNDATION is required to present a viable provable conclusion.
Visit this library and you will find much more and it is free. Learn and read all sides of the issues we all discuss. Facts not emotions will carry the day.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

Harry EXACTLY!! The stright stick we should be useing in everything we are fighting against is the Constitution. I urge everyone, donot believe the pundants, the prognosticators, the De Facto courts or our so called Constitutional Scholar Obama. Our founding documents according to the Law of Hermenutics which is the Science of Interpretation the first priority to be used is the literal sense unless the context deems otherwise and with our founding documents they are all written literally. However, the wordsmiths have conviently redefined the
laws of intrepretation to fit their intrepration and agenda. Failing to follow these laws of interpretation has led to every error in history concerning interpreting the written word.

Great sense of humor Michael! When I grow up I want to be the Wizard of Id, hehe.

Seriously, none of the present candidates from either party are right for the USA.

The GOP needs another Barry Goldwater but they have drifted so far from what the Republican Party once stood for that if they had a Goldwater they'd politically assassinate him. The GOP is nothing more than the right wing faction of the NWO.

Entirely too true. What we need is for the GOP to transmute itself into a Party we can all be proud of. A real challenge and a viable choice from what the Democrats offer. Once upon a time, the two parties didn't share the same vision. Nowadays, you've got the Socialist/Democrats vs. Socialist-Lite/Republican party. We're in trouble, here. Quicksand.

I feel badly for all of our ancestors who fought the Revolutionary War, just to have it turn out this way, in so very short a time.  Epic Fail. And here I thought it was the Hippies that would be our undoing …

I have been surprised by how many of those hippies have become quite conservative. Reality and life experiences have a way of changing ones outlook and perspective.

They have to do anything to prop up Trump from his scam. It is strange that he was all supporting of Cruz until Cruz took over the lead in Iowa.  Then Trump came out with his scam and I have the law on my side and Trump hasn't one scholar who supports their opinions. 

Helen Joanne C Satmary: I don't know where you get your information at, but it's coimpletely false. There has been 5 US Supreme Court cases where Natural Born Citizen has been rule upon and explained in detail. In all 5 cases, Ted Cruz does not qualify and is not eligible to be President or CiC. Venus vs US 1814, Livingston Shanks vs Dupont 1830, Minor vs Happersett 1876, Wong Kim Ark vs US 1898 and Laria vs US 1913. All declared in almost this same language. " A Natural Born Citizen is, any person born in the United States of America, whose parents (plural) were citizens (again plural) at the time of his or her birth." Ted Cruz is not a Constitutional Scholar, he's a Constitutional Fraud, a liar, a coward and by his actions a TRAITOR. So don't come out and say things that you have heard,  that you have no proof of and do your homework. Try looking up those 5 cases to start. 

Can you cite the court case and name the two attorneys?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

  How in Hell, can you say he is natural born, WHEN he was born in Canada ??? are you completely dumb & stupid !!! you don't even know what Natural born means !!! 

                                      

                         ( Father & Mother MUST be American citizen ) Baby must be born in America ) OR American soil !!                                       Now the baby is natural born !!!   ( Rubio, is NOT a natural born, either !!!! )

Just What is a "Natural Born Citizen"?
There is no legal foundation nor is there a Constitutional definition of Natural Born and this is why the many arguments.

 All foundation support the legal concepts. 
 
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.  Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President.  See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. 

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase.  Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."  One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

 NOTE:
Here is the most definitive and open discussion of scholarly work I have found on the issue of natural born citizen - he even shows in detail why Vattel's translation of the 1758 French to English
The problem with that argument, however, is that the English translation of the 1758 edition did not use the term “natural born Citizen.”  That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified.

All of his research is here and if you read it like I have it leads to no single absolute answer. In my opinion the questions will never be solved to the satisfaction of all citizens and scholars.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-ru...

The facts have been laid upon the table for all to read and ponder - the decision is yours and yours alone. To blindly repeat talking points of of one Constitutional scholar is silliness as evidence that is rooted to a firm FOUNDATION is required to present a viable provable conclusion.
Visit this library and you will find much more and it is free. Learn and read all sides of the issues we all discuss. Facts not emotions will carry the day.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

Ever Constitutional qualified Scholar says Cruz and Rubio are Natural Born Citizens. Not one qualified scholar says different. All talk about the Supreme Court but lower courts like appeals courts can make decisions and findings that become the current law precedent and here is one on NBC. The father was a illegal alien and the mother a citizen.

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-n...

The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico. Petitioner has a good job in Chicago and presumably, due to his lack of formal education and current economic conditions in Mexico, would have a difficult time finding similarly good employment in Mexico. Deportation would be very disruptive of the life which he and his second wife have built in Chicago, as well as psychologically distressing to them.3 Considering all of these factors, however, we are nonetheless constrained to conclude that the BIA was within its discretion in finding that petitioner would not succeed in obtaining suspension of deportation under section 244 and in therefore denying his motion to reopen.

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