The hypocrisy of the Conservatives is amazing. For years they have berated, belittled, and ridiculed those that sought Obama bona fides be investigated. Unless as a conservative ostrich with your head in the sand, you know this is a fact. The likes of the Republican establishment have all but handed Obama everything he desires even if it goes against the United States Constitution or the will of the people. The Republicans were voted into majority the last election to stop the illegal act known as Obamacare. In mere weeks they folded, abdicated their campaign pledges, their sworn duty to uphold the law and not only caved, but surrendered the nation to a tyrant.
The Tea Party trolls and the Obama enablers will hail this as a ‘birther’ argument vs. what is really is; a Constitutional requirement. As the United States Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government.
John Boehner has proven what a worthless POS he is and what his leadership consists of, nothing but a whinny ass.
But fear not the Republicans have worked out the plan with the Democrats to completely ruin this country after the 2016 election. Read on till the end, and you will be how.
Hillary will not be the candidate, as her baggage will be dragged from here to eternity and everything from Vince Foster, Travelgate, the vast right wing conspiracy, bimbogate, Benghazi will be brought up in a never ending barrage to remind folks of the unethical, I’m above the law, the Clintons think they are. What difference does it make? Ask the widow of Ambassador Stevens or the others murdered at Benghazi, or better yet ask Stevens himself. Oh wait you can’t, but it might matter to him.
The Republican leadership has decided that it’s their turn to promote an ineligible candidate, just to prove that any party can get away with it.
The issue here is that there is ‘requirements’ for the Office of the Presidency. What are these?
You might want to investigate the United States Constitution, Article 2.
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.
At no point, even after numerous attempts the above requirements have never been altered or amended. These attempts have been documented on numerous sites and need not be listed here.
Currently the Naturalization Act of 1790 is being peddled as authorities hope for the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’. But they fail as they misinterpret the meaning of ‘citizens’ to mean either or, which is not the case.
So, let me get this straight, the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly states: “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
How does a Cuban national equate to a US Citizen when the 1790 act clearly states ‘citizen’s (plural)? Even with a US mother, that does not meet the standard of a Natural Born Citizen, which the founders knew as ‘born in country to CITIZEN Parents (plural) or even as the United States Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett.
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)
Now you have the same folks saying the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is. Really, what not look at the numerous decisions where they have stated what it is. Why does the United States Supreme Court have to rule on what it has already stated in several cases? But facts ignored are still facts. I don’t have to be appointed to SCOTUS to be able to read their decisions.
Those who somehow believe the 14th Amendment “proves their case” should be told that Congressman John Bingham—who authored that amendment—said on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1862, “All from other lands, who by the terms of 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 [italics added], are natural born citizens.” Read that again and let it sink in. In 1862, the members of Congress understood that a natural born citizen was someone born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.
In 1866 Bingham stated, “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.”
In the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “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 [italics added] 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.” That is, there was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that the term natural born citizen meant “born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.”
Maybe I should post all the relevant cases starting in 1812 with The Venus, where John Jay United States Supreme Court Justice stated the following. (Remember it was John Jay that wrote to George Washington about the requirement of a Natural Born Citizen, so I think the person that wrote it, who was also our first Supreme Court Justice, knew what he was talking about.) or little did know that John Jay (our first United States Supreme Court justice) also wrote the following in the New York State Ratification of the United States Constitution, (Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788. New York was the eleventh state to do so. The assent of Virginia and of New York was seen as essential to the success of the Constitution, and though they were tenth and eleventh to ratify, it is generally agreed that until they both ratified, succes was in doubt. New York’s ratification message is the longest by far, and includes a declaration of rights and many suggested changes to the Constitution. The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.)
That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.
The Venus 1812
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 because it grants.
Children follow the condition of their father.
Ted Cruz qualifies as a Senator, but he’s not eligible for the Presidency.
Sad thing is Cruz’s staffers refuse to respond to inquiries for information about the CRBA application.
How about this
Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
JULY 24, 2000
“The natural-born citizenship requirement is unjust and discriminatory. It is inevitable that one day soon a candidate will rise in America who was not born in this country that the American people would like to be President of the United States. Let’s amend the Constitution now so that all children who grow up in America can dream of one day becoming President. Let’s bring hope of equality in citizenship to all the children who are raised in America.”
Note the “was not born in this country” part…
Same with Marco Rubio, he was born in 1971 to parents from Cuba, who never naturalized till 1974, after Marco was born, again born to foreign parents.
Again, Bobby Jindal born in the US, but to foreign parents.
The game plan is for both the Republicans and their Democrat trolls to push the ineligible candidates and to finally have the Supreme Court rule on what they have already stated, they are avoiding the issue. Hence the Republican candidate that says all the right thing’s, is ultimately disqualified and the Democrat long shot, Elizabeth Warren (Obama II) is paraded into the White House. Not only as progressive as Obama, controlled by the progressives, but they finally have a female in the White House to usher in the collapse of the United States.
Think this is crazy?
For years, the media have claimed that Obama is a natural born citizen BECAUSE he was “born” in Hawaii. They never said, well even if he was born in Kenya he’s still a Natural Born Citizen. It would have made the Birther argument trivial in nature. But that’s no longer the case. Now we know Cruz was born elsewhere, and now we’re being told that it still doesn’t matter.
What else will not matter, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment?
You decide, they are playing you for the fool and giving away the bank and future to illegal’s and you sit and can’t even figure out what simple words mean that were fully understood 230 years ago as common sense.
Common Sense 2015 – Tea Party Nation