Opportunist Ted Cruz: “Donald Trump is Responsible” For Organized Chicago Violence (video)…

Posted on by

This is quite stunning even for a politician as low as Ted Cruz.  Senator Cruz has a prime opportunity to highlight the intolerance of the left.  Instead he choses to attack Donald Trump:

At a media availability in Chicago, Ted Cruz basically blamed Donald Trump for the violence and protests that occurred earlier in the day at a Donald Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago. The rally had to be cancelled due to safety concerns (link)


Yes, Ted Cruz advocates the political equivalent of her skirt was too short, and she deserved to be raped for it.

But Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t alone taking the opportunity to blame Donald Trump and praise the behavior of leftists, MoveOn.Org, Black Lives Matter, F**k The Police, Occupy Wall Street and professional Anarchists.

Fox News pundits, led by Megyn Kelly, were quick with the narrative to pile on, claiming Donald Trump should reasonably accept the United States no longer allows freedom of association, and free speech should be curtailed in favor of inclusive, more politically sensitive, speech.

Share this:

After the anarchists were able to shut down the venue, a contingent of the organized faction moved to Trump Tower where they stood and cursed at families entering and exiting the hotel.

Is this who you want in the White House? An opportunist that will blame anyone for political gain.

10qtzp

Cruz launches his own ‘Fight the Smears’ website to deceive the public

Teddy Cruz in the tradition of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears has launched a website dedicated to misrepresenting the facts concerning his eligibility. Teddy’s website

Here is the Teddy Cruz talking points

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President?

  • Ted Cruz was born to an American mother—born in Delaware—and was therefore a U.S. Citizen time of his birth.  That makes Cruz a natural-born citizen who is eligible to be president.
  • The top constitutional lawyers in the country under Presidents (Neal Katyal) and Bush (Paul Clement) conclusively agree that “[d]espite the happenstance of birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.
  • No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.
  • The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

 

Now here are the facts;

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Teddy Cruz was born in Canada. Here is Teddy Cruz’s Birth Certificate. In an attempt confuse the issue, they list where is mother was born and not Teddy’s birth location. Talk about deception. The United States Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray in 1898 stated it clearly.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…” ~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Where was Teddy Cruz born? Canada.

Teddy Cruz attempts to equate a citizen at birth with a Natural Born Citizen. This is false misleading and again deceptive.

First off There is no evidence that any paperwork was filed after Teddy birth with the US Consulate, which would have been required.

In the following United States Supreme Court Case Rogers v. Bellei (1971), proving that like Belli, Teddy Cruz was born in a foreign country to a foreign father and a US mother. The court held that Belli was a ‘Naturalized’ citizen by virtue of someone who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, 1971

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who 4 years earlier wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

“Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.” (emphasis added)

In the United States Supreme Court case of Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

Another snippet in the same paragraph is “there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution” because he was born of an American mother.”

Again, outright lies and deception.

Here is what the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ means.

“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))

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

(Born in the United States) (US Citizen Parents, meaning BOTH Dad and Mom)

again, in 1875 The United States Supreme Court

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)

 

As for the:

No constitutional scholar believes Cruz is ineligible to be president.  Even Laurence Tribe and Thomas Lee, who are often cited as critics, believe he is eligible.

 

Cruz—was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Tribe wrote that originalists would argue the Constitution’s framers likely intended “natural born”—a constitutional prerequisite for becoming U.S. president—to mean physically born in the United States. By these standards, he continued, Cruz should be ineligible to hold the nation’s highest office.

 

In simple truth,

Was Ted Cruz born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?

The answer is NO, and that can be the only answer.

Ted Cruz was born in a foreign country, to a foreign national.

 

  • The threat of a lawsuit is not serious. Even if someone were to gain standing, a difficult first step, no legal expert believes that any court in the land would rule against Cruz.

Really, if there were no issue and the previous points were irrelevant when why this talking point.

Answer. Because Ted Cruz like Barack Obama realizes that the only thing that can prevent an ineligible candidate from getting placed on the ballot in the first place is an educated electorate. The democrats have already threatened legal action against Ted Cruz if he’s elected and they will not only have standing, but the resources to eliminate any chance Ted Cruz has.

The most damning evidence is Teddy’s own Canadian Citizenship documentation Ted-CruzCanadianCitizenship

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

 

So Teddy was able to renounce his Canadian Citizenship but can not prove that he was even filed for US Citizenship when he was born.

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the keystone

Imacon Color Scanner

People have been demanding that the courts remove Barack Obama, (who has occupied the Office of the President illegally) as he is not a Natural-Born Citizen as the United States Constitution requires. They have repeatedly  filed cases for redress of grievances and remedy due to his illegal and unconstitutional acts and usurpation of power. The same ineligibility that has stained the Obama presidency has now broadened to include the 2016 Presidential election with the latest travesty against the American people the Republican party is promoting Ted Cruz, who fails as a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

Again the people are going to the courts and election boards in a effort to seek relief and justice. This effort is ‘barking up the wrong tree’. There is a process and it has been used before.

The latest cases involving Ted Cruz and now Marco Rubio will continue to go nowhere and get lost in the shuffle. The courts and election boards will refuse to accept their responsibilities and kick the can down the road and when the dust settles and people realize that once again they not only have been denied a honest election but their past is also been hijacked and ruined.

That being the case, I have laid out the proper venue and remedy for the current mess that we are in and the reason why it may not get resolved.

The New York Board of Elections in their rejection of the case, stated it very clearly; “Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

Let me be clear “Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

“as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.”

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors,” who almost always have pledged to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates (though unpledged electors are possible) and who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state. Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, in total, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

People are under the impression that voting on election day equates to voting for the candidates directly. This is a misconception. It is their vote for the candidates electors.

Because of this the courts have stated that the citizens do not have legal standing.

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

The courts are stating that the citizens are not directly harmed by the election of the President. Regardless of the burdens and unconstitutional acts. That being the case, and since the electors are the ones that directly elect the President and Vice-President, they are the only members who directly elects the President has standing. That being stated, one venue would be to start legal proceedings against the electoral college members that voted for Barack Obama as a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Below is some brief code on Electors;

Meeting and vote of electors

§ 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Certificates of votes for president and vice president

§ 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificates of all the votes given by them, each of which certificates shall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for President and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annex to each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State.

Sealing and endorsing certificates

§ 10. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them, and certify upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein.

Return to 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents

In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (i.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College.

That being said, what is the correct venue?

Congress has the authority, even if the Courts do nothing!

From the following link

Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?

The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.

In this election of 2016, will it be a repeat of 1876? 1876 you ask.

The Electoral Commission was a temporary body created by Congress to resolve the disputed United States presidential election of 1876. It consisted of 15 members. The election was contested by the Democratic ticket, Samuel J. Tilden and Thomas A. Hendricks, and the Republican ticket,Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler. Twenty electoral votes, from the states of Florida,Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina, were in dispute; the resolution of these disputes would determine the outcome of the election. Facing a constitutional crisis the likes of which the nation had never seen, Congress passed a law forming the Electoral Commission to settle the result.

The Commission consisted of fifteen members: five representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his victory in the Electoral College by a margin of 185-184.

Electoral Commission

To begin, there needs to be a Constitutional Crisis

A constitutional crisis is a situation that a legal system’s constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government(e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States Constitution is silent on the question of whether states may secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government’s sovereignty, as in a coup orrevolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission.

A Constitutional Crisis leads to the creation of the Electoral Commission. That Commission has the authority to not only vet the candidates but to disqualify those that as in the United States Constitution states ‘fail to qualify’.

The Courts will do nothing.

The arguments suggest that since the courts have determined they don’t have jurisdiction in such eligibility cases, and claim there is no effective procedure to qualify candidates in Congress, the logical result would be to have election officials, such as the Secretary of State, make such decisions.

And regarding the removal of a sitting official who is ineligible, there is state Supreme Court precedent, it was in the 1930s in North Dakota when Thomas H. Moodie was “duly elected to the office of governor,” the case explains.

Later, “It was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” it confirmed.

North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution

The Democrat party in 2008 and 2012 violated the United States Constitution by knowingly running an ineligible candidate that did not meet the Constitutional requirements. The Republican party is knowingly doing the same in 2016, by running Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both parties have violated the United States Constitution.

Violate (break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement) a Provision (a clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc., providing for a particular matter; stipulation; proviso.

In simple english, both the Democrats and Republicans have violated the United States Constitution, by providing ineligible candidates to occupy and use the Office of the Presidency and it’s Constitutional powers for the destruction of the United States.

Expecting Congress to do anything is akin to having the fox guard the hen house, but also going back and asking the fox the number of hens and  expecting them all to be there. When nothing is left, oh well, you trusted the fox.

Congress would have to impeach itself for dereliction of duty and treason against the United States for anything to happen. They are complicit to the usurpation of the Presidency and crimes against the American people.

Every single member of Congress, now sitting and since 2008, knows that Barack Obama is illegitimate and a domestic enemy of the United States and his removal was warranted the minute he took the oath of office under false pretenses.

Since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Cold Case Posse who has exposed the Obama counterfeit documents and held multiple media press conferences and exposed them for what they are with evidence to back them up. The media has remained silent. The media has disenfranchised, ridiculed, mocked people for demanding that a Congressional investigation be done and to end the mockery against the American people regarding the illegal usurpation of their nation and it’s laws.

Every member of Congress is now open to legal prosecution for their crimes against the Citizens of their jurisdiction. That jurisdiction meaning Concurrent Jurisdiction (Federal or state courts could hear) for allowing unconstitutional federal laws to be enacted and enforced in their jurisdiction (such as ObamaCare), to Exclusive jurisdiction (Only federal courts have authority to hear , state courts cannot) federal crimes including failing to uphold their oath of office to protect the United States Constitution. 

 

 

Ted Cruz is no Constitutionalist

Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz claims to stand for the United States Constitution. Nothing is further from the truth.

TedBustedB

As reported by MSN

(Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a challenge to his eligibility to serve if he wins, saying there’s no legal basis to question his status as a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

The Houston (CONSTITUTIONAL) birther challenge is the highest profile of several court cases filed after Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump publicly questioned Cruz’s eligibility when the Texas senator began to narrow the billionaire’s lead in campaign polls. Judges haven’t ruled in birther cases filed in Illinois and Florida. Cruz last week urged a state judge in Chicago to dismiss the case there, saying the complaint was improperly served by e-mail.

Cruz’s lawyer said challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.”

Well, there you have it yourself.

Quote: “challenges to a candidate’s eligibility are premature during the primary-voting season and must wait until he’s actually elected president, when that question should be resolved by the electoral college and Congress, “not this court.””

In plain legalize, Cruz’s lawyer states that he can run an illegal campaign, accept money via deceit and fraud, and no one can do nothing unless he’s elected.  If Teddy Cruz is elected, the Democrats will not only challenge his eligibility, but most likely win and the Democrat candidate will win by default. Talk about being hoodwinked by both political parties, as there is ample evidence that Ted Cruz is not only ineligible, but that that he also committed fraud running for the US Senate as a Canadian citizen. Talk about building a slush fund and defrauding the American people. Ted Cruz is a weasel and snake and needs to be exposed as the liar he is.

Cruz’s campaign by soliciting campaign contributions knowing that he’s ineligible  is defrauding the American public by disenfranchising (#1) the voters by enticing them to vote for an ineligible candidate.

Sending emails soliciting campaign funds and contributions  is also wire fraud. Anyone that has donated to the Cruz campaign their rights has been violated and should demand repayment.

CruzShort

#1 dis·en·fran·chise
ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/
verb
gerund or present participle: disenfranchising
  1. deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
    “the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification”
    • deprived of power; marginalized.
      “a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don’t feel connected to the school”
    • deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.
      “a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice”

Trump is 100% correct – Ted Cruz is not eligible!

TC4

 

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

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.J.Res. 88

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.”

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju6730…

Now consider this:

This was one of a number of attempts to remove the Natural Born REQUIREMENT. It failed.

But more important to the discussion, it clearly shows that it’s intent is to allow foreign born citizens the ability to seek the office of the Presidency.

If this was not required to allow even those like Rafael Ted Cruz to seek the office, then why was it attempted?

Foreign born Rafael Ted Cruz is not eligible.

“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress…”
~ Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1898)

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913):

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

CruzShort

Cruz Reality – Weasel or Snake

TC4

TC-TheMarshallReport2

Wong Kim Ark says Ted Cruz not eligible

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

No. 18

Argued March 5, 8, 1897

Decided March 28, 1898

169 U.S. 649

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

“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,”

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired 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, either by treaty, as in the case

Page 169 U. S. 703

of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. “A naturalized citizen,” said Chief Justice Marshall,

Reading on;

Twiss, in his work on the Law of actions, says that

“natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit, or cancel, or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law.”

Vol. 1, p. 231.

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. 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 society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Book I, c.19, § 212.

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance,

reading on;

In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48, Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:

“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”

and this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.

In his Lectures on Constitutional Law, p. 79, Mr. Justice Miller remarked:

“If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country

Page 169 U. S. 719

with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Rafael Cruz is not eligible to run for the Presidency.