Saturday, January 30, 2016

About that Lie that SCOTUS Never Defined "Natural Born Citizen"


The most conservative Governor in the nation, Maine's Paul LePage,  Endorsed Donald Trump Because He's A Natural Born Citizen And Eligible.  Even though he was a US citizen, his daughters were born in Canada and researched the subject years ago to see if they could run for President.

Also, Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question.


State chairwoman of the Illinois National Republican Assembly claims Cruz implied that he knew he was NOT a natural born citizen when he was running for Senate.
“I said to him — on my bucket list, one day I hope to work for the first Latino president of the United States in Washington, D.C. — so I looked right at him and I said, ‘I believe someday you might be that guy.’ He looked back at me and he chuckled, ‘I wasn’t born in America … I was born in Canada.’ We laughed about it.”
But asked about his eligibility after his CPAC speech in a Q&A with Fox host Sean Hannity, Cruz said, “I was born in Calgary, my mother was an American citizen by birth, under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”
CRUZ ALSO SAID in an interview with the GOP TEXAS STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER that Barack Obama was NOT a Natural Born Citizen and that the Constitutional definition of NBC was “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” 


The biggest lie is that there is no Supreme Court ruling, or definition of "natural born citizen."  despite actually being settled in numerous SCOTUS cases and other writings of the Founders.  

Here is your cheat sheet to stopping a potential future foreign takeover of the most powerful office in the world.

The first draft of the Constitution did not designate "natural born" citizen (NBC) but was changed following a letter from inaugural Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to Geo Washington arguing that foreign powers could easily find ways to take over the Presidency if they weren't NBC.  

John Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787 (emphasis mine):
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NOTICE there is an exemption for mere “citizens” alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – but a “natural born” citizen is something else.   If it only meant naturalized citizen, then WHY WAS IT CHANGED?

Historian and Founder David Ramsey explicitly addressed this in his writings in 1789:

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; butt his is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7.He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Even GLOBALIST LIBERALS, wrote in the Kent-Chicago Law Review in 2005 argued that the Constitution needed to be AMENDED to do away with the fact foreign born children aren’t “natural born citizens.
the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

There is the reality that Republicans could go through the entire primary process, only to have their nominee thrown out, if not substantially delayed (unable to start a campaign for the general election in time).  Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) will also file lawsuit if @TedCruz nominated by GOP.

The immigration of Act of 1790 Mark Levin cites was REPEALED, because it erroneously legitimized foreign born kids to US parents (plural) as NBC. (Mark Levin the supposed "expert" claimed it was still in effect by the way.) It specifically corrected this in the Act of 1795 and we have the House Committee notes explicitly explaining that it was because of this very issue.

The Supreme Court DID explicitly address the issue of NBC in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) (“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.”);

A second SCOTUS case (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)), citied Minor and quoting without criticism its common law definition of a natural born citizen. This means in a SECOND case they didn't argue against the earlier finding.
There are actually many many other acts, laws, and documentations clearly show Rubio/Cruz/Jindal ineligible.  
  • Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
  • Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
  • Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
  • Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
  • United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
  • Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:
"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180 by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.

Now to REALLY blow your mind.  There have been numerous attempts since 1975 to change this by Congressional LAW.  Since 2003, there have been 8 attempts alone.  IF EVERYONE ALREADY “KNEW” NBC was merely naturalized citizens, why have there been people trying to change it for the past 40 years?  (Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution)

Ironically we have testimony of a famous foreign-born leader whose mother was American, and his father foreign. He was granted honorary citizenship and was asked by reporters if he would run for President of the United States. He said, “I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father's marriage. There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter."

You know him as, Winston Churchill.

Current Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a foreign father in a foreign land.  Her mother brought her to the US when she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen"  according to her biography

One last note. WHY is there an exemption for foreign born citizens in Article II "alive at the ratification" of the Constitution if they too would automatically be natural born citizens? The Founders were some of the most highly educated men in the WORLD as well as our country. They didn't use words casually. So merely consider that this WAS important to them and for a reason.

Otherwise, Iranian Born, Chief of Staff and Communist Valarie Jarrett – is also eligible since BOTH of her parents were Americans.

Ted Cruz Lies on His Website


However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A few include:

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question but a Constitutional one.


Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More