Sean Hannity the Cruz-bot, and GOP shill. Out right lied and was being deceptive when discussing Trump’s questioning of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President.
Watch the first 10 min of this and see just how bad Sean Hannity attempts to legitimize a foreign born, foreign fathered Teddy Cruz. Sean might have well just stated ‘least out foreigner likes America!’.
the original YouTube video has been deleted. (see below)
Sean’s biggest lie to not only Geraldo, the audience, and the viewing public is the flat out lie that US Code supersedes the United States Constitution, which it does not.
FACT: US Code does not supersede the United States Constitution
The USC (US Code or United States Code) is not Constitutional law. (Which is different from saying that something is unconstitutional) Most of the USC is established by Congress using their constitutionally granted powers. The Constitution overrules any laws that are in conflict with it, as decided by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Treaties also supercede the USC. The heirarchy goes like this: COTUS (Constitution of The United States) , Treaties, USC (US Code), CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
That being the case, The United States Constitution requires that the President be “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.”
Therefore US Code that Sean Hannity was touting as legalizing Ted Cruz’s eligibility was a outright lie and deception. Plain and simple and that being said why I wrote to Sean Hannity blasting him for his unPatriotic sellout. Sean Hannity is a GOP media lapdog and mouthpiece.
From Congress in 1839
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.
Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural–born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.
In plain simple english ‘natural–born citizens who are or shall be born of parents‘ from the United States.
Here is how Rep. John Bingham (Father of the 14th Amendment) explained “natural born citizenship” on the floor of the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
More from John Bingham
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
again from John Bingham;
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
From The United States Supreme Court 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. 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)