Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

Last week Tea Party Nation published the following;

Tea Party Nation is WRONG and lying.

(Between their misrepresentation, I will correct them in red)

When Barack Obama came on the scene running for President in 2008, a number of people began to question his eligibility to be President.  The left wing media dismissed those people as “birthers.”  What the left wing media wants most people to forget is that Hillary Clinton was the original birther.

 

Now that Ted Cruz is running for office, a number of people are popping up, claiming he is not eligible to be President.

 It is an important question.

 Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

 The Constitution of the United States is very specific.  No one but a “natural born citizen” may become President.  That mercifully spares us from people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 But what is a natural born citizen?

 The Constitution is silent on a definition of a natural born citizen.  Those who attack Cruz as not being eligible and even those who make the same attack on Obama, like to cite an 18^th century text and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

 There is a specific hierarchy that is used in determining the meaning of provisions in the Constitution.  The hierarch goes like this.   First we look within the pages or as attorneys like to say, within the four corners of the document for a meaning.  If there is no definition there, then we look to Congressional statutes and then to court decisions.

 

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

 And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

 There is the definition right there.

 Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

 This is where Tea Party Nation is out right lying. “Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

The 1790 Act is clear;  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Get it: And the children of citizens of the United States

TED CRUZ was NOT BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS, his father was a Canadain citizen, and CRUZ was born in Canada. 

This act was introduced in Congress in 1790.  That was three years after the Constitution was drafted.  If that definition of a natural born citizen is not accurate, the men who wrote the Constitution a mere three years earlier would have stood and said something about it.

The United States Supreme Court in numerous cases 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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

Since some of those men were in Congress, it is unlikely such a bill would have passed at all.

 

The facts in the case of Ted Cruz, unlike that of Barack Obama, are not shrouded in mystery.  Cruz was born of an American mother and though his father was not an American citizen at the time, he had resided in the United States.

 That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.

WRONG, Tea Party Nation is wrong and lying.

Sorry TED, you are NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and you are NOT eligilbe to be President. 

Read more here on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s Blog | Protect the Constitution to Protect Our Liberty – Learn Who Is a “Natural Born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards – Obama’s ID Documents Are Forged// //

//

Usurpation 3.0 — Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign – Shame on Him!

Ted Cruz is clearly NOT constitutionally eligible.  Obama got away with it (with an enabling, anti-constitutional, left-leaning, major-media, main-stream press) and now many Republicans wish to try it with constitutionally ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz.  We are a Republic not a Democracy.  We need to live up to our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  No matter how much you may like Cruz’s politics, he is NOT constitutionally eligible.  He was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen, foreign-national, Cuban father. Being born in the USA is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Cruz is clearly not one. Being simply a basic “Citizen at Birth” gained via statutory laws and acts of Congress does not cut it.  Those laws do not even mention the term “natural born”.  What the Repubs are doing is a disgrace to their oath of office.  The leadership of the major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted by the founders and framers. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural” to being a “born Citizen”.   Adjectives mean something special in front of a noun.  And that particular adjective points to the Laws of Nature, not man, and comes from Natural Law and its principles. See section 212 of this legal treatise written in 1758 and used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and write the founding documents: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/  Read this historical and legal U.S. Supreme Court information on the subject: http://www.art2superpac.com/html  Also read these rebuttals to the political party lawyers who are pumping the simple Citizen a Birth argument, dropping the natural adjective or trying to conflate the two terms.  This article addresses the NECESSARY part  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and this article which addresses the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT parts and true definition http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html  

Again being born in the USA (which Cruz is unambiguously not) is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being born a “natural born Citizen” of the USA.  Cruz knows better but he is putting his own political aspirations about respect for the Constitution.  He is showing himself to just another politician and is not a statesman and/or standing up for his oath of office to the Constitution.    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Read more and comment here:  http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/report-united-states-senator-ted-cruz.html

Read historical information for who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” to U.S. Constitutional standards at this website:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html