ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952

Obama pissed again

ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952 but Obama doesn’t want you to know that, nor does he respect or uphold US law.

 

The law prohibits entry of “Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.” It also prohibits the entry of Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the US or of all forms of law, and Aliens who publish, circulate and distribute materials teaching or advocating the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the US Government or of all forms of law.

Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principle subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. It also prohibits those who distribute literature that advocates the overthrow of our country, which would include the Koran.

In fact, there are many verses in the Koran that command Islamists to kill those who do not submit to allah and the prophet. If Congress so desired to hold the White House accountable to the current immigration of refugees (which also must comply with the law), it has the Immigration and Nationality Act to cite. The Administration is breaking that law. The question is “Does Congress have the political will to do something about it?”

To read the law, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.

That Act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry in to the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional means.”

This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States but this law is being ignored by the White House.

Islamic immigration to the United States would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam which is antithethical to the United States government, the Constitution and to the Republic.

All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Now the politically correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the United States because Islam is a ‘religion.’

Whether it is a ‘religion’ is immaterial because the law states that aliens who are affiliated with any organization that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/12/08/public-law-414-june-27-1952/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act

Source: http://beforeitsnews.com/

Advertisements

TEXAS REPUBLICAN PARTY, CRUZ, AND RUBIO COMMIT ELECTION FRAUD

By: Devvy
February 22, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

As I covered in my last several columns, the issue of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s constitutional ineligibility continues to be ignored by a corrupt ‘mainstream’ media as well as cable ‘news’ networks. Reporting on the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ seems to be beyond the understanding of reporters and other ‘experts’ like gas bag, Bill O’Reilly, sounding off. But they all, including FOX, have agendas so why let truth or the U.S. Constitution get in the way?

Any suggestion that Ted Cruz is ineligible – Rubio mysteriously being left out of the equation 95% of the time – is nothing more than conspiracy theories. Ted Cruz is the final authority while Rubio breathes a sigh of relief the spotlight hasn’t been focused on him – except by those of us who demand the U.S. Constitution be upheld.

This is the same garbage from the media we saw in 2008 & 2012 when the appropriate question came up regarding the fraud in the White House and his eligibility:

Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency, The Dallas Morning News (Snooze)

WASHINGTON — “Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born. Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say…“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

“The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House. “Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship.”

That was in 2013. Catherine Frazier was Cruz’s mouthpiece at the time. I had to take a double look at her comment, “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship”. Really, Ms. Frazier? You made that statement August 18, 2013, at the same time the past Chairman of Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Section said Cruz was Canadian.

Ted Cruz to renounce Canadian citizenship ‘soon’, January 5, 2014: “Canada-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has yet to renounce his birth country’s citizenship as promised — but a spokeswoman says the conservative tea party favourite plans to finish the process soon. Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the junior senator from Texas, said Saturday that lawyers are preparing the necessary paperwork.”

Oh, my. In August 2013, Catherine Frazier said Cruz had never held Canadian citizenship. However, less than five months later Cruz’s lawyers are preparing the paperwork for Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship. I wonder if Ms. Frazier practices the art of lying in front of a mirror? She certainly has a good role model in Ted Cruz.

Supporters of Cruz and Rubio either don’t want to hear the truth or simply don’t care. Activists in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina who have attended many of their events send me email at how frustrating it is when they ask supporters why they don’t seem to care their candidate is not constitutionally eligible? Responses vary from Ted Cruz is a lawyer, he knows the law and says the law is well settled to “Buzz off birther. No one cares what you have to say”.

Rubio supporters ask the $64k dollar question upchuck it’s all a planned attack by Trump supporters. Two that were politely ask about this important issue said Rubio is eligible because his parents are U.S. citizens. Somehow those faithful don’t understand simple English: natural born citizen. Born being the key word here. Rubio’s parents being foreign nationals at the time of Rubio’s birth. Rubio’s parents becoming U.S. citizens when little Marco was four years old does not equate to natural born; their actions came after the legal time frame.

Ted Cruz: What we know to be provable facts. At the time of his birth his mother was a U.S. citizen, his father (like the criminal impostor in the White House) was a foreign national. We now know Cruz could not claim dual citizenship under Canadian law because at the time of his birth, 1970, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. That loosening of citizenship in Canada did not come about until 1977. Ted Cruz was a full Canadian citizen at the time of his birth.

There is no evidence Cruz’s parents filed a CRBA or Consulate Report of Birth Aboard. Why is that important?

Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad – US Passports & International Travel

“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.

“According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.”

To date, Cruz refuses to release a certified – as in not another forgery like Barry Obama’s birth certificate – copy of the CRBA his mother allegedly filed. Oh, that’s right. Remember what Ms. Frazier said above: “…he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen.”

If there is no CRBA, how could Ted Cruz have legally entered the U.S.? According to Cruz’s mouthpieces, Cruz was issued a passport in 1986 for a school field trip. If that’s the case, under what citizenship did Cruz obtain a passport? Canadian or U.S.? If his parents never filed a CRBA making Cruz a U.S. citizen, did he enter the US illegally? If he never went through the naturalization process by his parents submitting a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and he’s no longer a Canadian citizen, just what country does Cruz claim citizenship under?

Ted Cruz has worked hard at cementing an image of integrity and honesty. We know that was partially blown to bits by the hit job he and his minions did on Dr. Ben Carson in Iowa. If Cruz has nothing to hide, release the CRBA so at least we can see that at some point – too late to be a natural BORN citizen – he actually became a U.S. citizen.

Several lawsuits have been filed against Secretaries of State

New Yorkers sue to boot Ted Cruz from ballot because he was born in Canada. Unfortunately, the two plaintiffs are rolling the dice on Cruz being born in Canada as the sole disqualifying factor. It is not and likely the Board of Elections, because they are equally as ignorant as the corrupt media in this country (excluding ‘alternative’ media reporting accurately on this issue) will likely throw it out.

Case against Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be heard in Illinois on Friday (February 19, 2016): “Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter who has objected to Cruz’s placement on the Illinois primary ballot next month, will have his case heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago. Joyce’s previous objection, made to the state’s Board of Elections, was dismissed on February 1.” I was unable to find a ruling before cut off time to submit this column.

As I encouraged everyone to do, I wrote to our Secretary of State; no reply but I’m sure a few months down the line I’ll get a form letter. It appears, the same as 2008 & 2012, that Secretaries of States already challenged on this issue have neither the intellect or the courage to to do their jobs regarding an ineligible candidate(s) being put on the ballot – so far. Gutless elected officials who hide behind excuses like it’s not their job; I already covered this in my last column.

(More than a dozen individuals e-mailed and ask me to send them a copy of my letter. I’m sorry, but I have no staff to deal with the enormous number of emails I receive everyday, many with individual requests. A letter doesn’t have to be particularly long and easiest is to include an article or two with the most factual information on this issue. )

I see the handwriting on the wall continuing to pursue gutless Secretaries of States so I think it’s time to try a different elected official. For me, that is the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton. I had intended to get my letter out to him last week, but my husband passed away in his sleep, February 6, 2016. It was a huge shock. It’s been very difficult dealing with his passing and all the legal issues that need to be addressed. However, one thing that helps is to keep doing what I always do and that is bringing the truth to the light of day and doing whatever I can to force a resolution to a problem.

A State Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in each state. The job of a State Attorney General is to investigate fraud and that means election fraud since we’re already seeing the same as 2008 & 2012. Secretaries of States refusing to do their job regarding an ineligible candidate(s) being put on the ballot because it’s all about politics.

In order for Cruz and Rubio to appear on the primary ballot here in Texas they first had to file as candidates with The Texas Republican Party, which they did. The Texas GOP has an application for president (click on Presidential Ballot Application). On the first page of the application to be filled out by the candidate it reads the candidate swears he is a natural born citizen of the Untied States and eligible to hold that office.

The Texas Republican Party accepted two sworn applications, one by Cruz and one by Rubio, without bothering to verify whether or not either candidate was truthful. By submitting Cruz & Rubio’s names to the Texas Secretary of State for the primary now underway the Texas Republican Party is guilty of fraud since neither candidate is eligible. Cruz and Rubio swore on their applications they are natural born citizens and since they not they both committed election fraud.

Don’t tell me Ted Cruz, a Princeton and Haaavard law grad, who also served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996 and Solicitor General for the State of Texas believes he is a natural born citizen. Cruz knew his dual citizenship from being born in Canada (which we now know he never had because Canada did not recognize dual citizenship at the time Teddy was born) was going to be a problem and that such a citizenship status would impact him under the definition of natural born citizen. Cruz is too intelligent not to know he’s ineligible.

I firmly believe Cruz knows his party allowed Barry Obama to get away with usurping the office of president, so why should he worry the Republican Party wouldn’t cover his backside? The GOP knows the massive repercussions of comparing Cruz to Obama and their citizenship problem so they’re willing, once again, to turn a blind eye and crap on the U.S. Constitution. Cruz persists with his deliberate misrepresentations in the hope that if he says it often enough people will be believe it to be true: Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting

[By the way, a devout Cruz supporter, ‘conservative’ talk show host, Mark Levin, has agreed to debate anyone he deems credible over the issue of natural born. I nominate Mario Apuzzo (author of the piece above). If you’d like to contact Levin and request Mario as the person to debate send your message: @marklevinshow]

Rubio on the other hand has never struck me as being very intelligent and has been the butt of endless jokes following one of the debates because of his constant repeating of the same punch lines. Think Rubio hasn’t been confronted about both of his parents being foreign nationals at the time of his birth? Think his legal people haven’t looked into it? Hogwash. As I said above, for the most part Rubio has managed to stay in the wings and let Cruz take big heat on the issue of eligibility. But, make no mistake: Rubio is looking over his shoulder just waiting for Trump to strike.

I encourage you to write your Attorney General demanding charges are brought against the GOP [Your state], Cruz and Rubio for fraud. Their names should not be on the ballot. Does the truth matter anymore Mr. Attorney General? Are party interests (our AG is a Republican) more important than the truth and the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Attorney General? The American people are fed up with the lies and fraud involving our elections. Your office has the authority to go after those who violate the law. Putting an ineligible candidate on the ballot is a violation of election law and I don’t care who the candidate is, no one is above the law.

Use some of the paragraphs in this column if you want and include one or all three of the items below with your letter. It’s easy to just cut and paste into a word processor with full credit to the author. Tell your AG that neither Cruz nor Rubio meet constitutional requirements to be on the ballot. Don’t think it’s a waste of time. You are putting the AG on notice that we the people know the truth and when you run for reelection don’t be surprised when you lose your next primary. It’s also important to provide State Attorney Generals (I also have a duplicate package to go to Gov. Greg Abbott) with factual legal conclusions regarding what a natural born citizen is for what I call an education effort.

* A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another
* The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth
* Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to be President

Of course, the one person with the financial means and juice to force this issue is Donald Trump. If Trump began legal proceedings against the state Attorney Generals and Secretaries of State, those two elected officials would not be able to ignore Trump as they do we the people who mean nothing but votes to them.

Perhaps the outcome of the South Carolina primary might have an effect on Trump and possible legal action. Jeb! Bush finally decided no one except his family and big money donors who expect favors down the line (ambassadorships, cabinet posts or signing favorable legislation into law) was interested in anything he had to say. His cardboard demeanor throughout his run never really connected with voters, I don’t think, not to mention this country is fed up with phony political ‘dynasties’.

John Kasich, who never upheld his oath of office while in Congress or introduced a single bill to kill the cancers killing America says he’s staying in the race so he can continue listening to the sound of his own voice and spreading compassion. Dr. Ben Carson, while not qualified to be president, bless his heart is staying in the race for now. Dr. Carson has done this country a great service by running because his lifetime achievements and experience gives hope to black Americans across this country that the message of failure and dependency pushed by the Democratic/Communist Party USA is toxic and that through education and hard work, they, too, can be the best instead of ‘victims’ of the white race.

Those same Republican cowards wonder why Donald Trump is cleaning their clock? Millions of Americans know the truth about Barry Obama and through their voting – besides Trump’s positive message – are telling Republican elites to go to Hell for their betrayal by allowing a Marxist traitor to squat in the White House all these years.That leaves Trump, Cruz and Rubio. How obscene two out of three front runners in the race for the White House are constitutionally ineligible and not a single Republican in the GOP hierarchy, including the Republican National Committee, gives a damn about the U.S. Constitution. Republican higher ups allowed a constitutionally ineligible candidate, a Manchurian Candidate if there ever was one to “win” the presidency twice. A fraud who usurped the office of president that has wreaked massive damage to this country over the past seven years. Now it’s one of their own and the hell with the Constitution.

Links:

1 – Full Panic Mode: Rubio Caught Lying About ICE Agent, Breitbart on Fox News
2 – Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President
3 – A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
4 – Why A Rock-Ribbed Conservative Supports Donald Trump 100%
5 – Jeb hit between eyes with sensational allegations
6 – NY State BOE receives flurry of ‘natural-born’ objections to Rubio and Cruz

Please, click on “Mass E-mailing” below and send this article to all your friends.

[Just a short note about 9/11 and Smart Electric Meeters. The cost of America’s undeclared “war” (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars – massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I’ve purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It’s very powerful simply because it’s one ‘ordinary’ man’s story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. Also, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]

© 2016 – NewsWithViews.com and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

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 – His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

Cruz’s law professor on birther issue: His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

 

(CNN)Calling him a “fair weather originalist” and accusing him of “constitutional hypocrisy,” Ted Cruz’s former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator’s own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary.

Appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360” Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his “constitutional hypocrisy.”

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president.

“Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he’s not eligible to run for president,” Tribe argued. “This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he’s a fair weather originalist.”

Cruz’s campaign did not respond to CNN request for comment.

“The issue is — do the kinds of judges that he says he would insist on, the kind who would overrule Roe v. Wade, who don’t believe in gay rights or women’s rights, but who think the Constitution is frozen, if he really believes in their philosophy,” Tribe said. “It’s an antiquated philosophy, but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn’t serve his purpose.”

Tribe talked about his experience teaching Cruz at Harvard, and how the two clashed over their conflicting constitutional philosophies. “When Ted Cruz was my student, he was at least consistent,” Tribe explained. “He and I argued back and forth — he ended up acing the class, even though we had different views.”

Tribe continued his criticism in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, similarly slamming Cruz’s constitutional philosophy.

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen,” Tribe wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-birther-argument/index.html

CNN website also has video.

The Debate and New Englander and Yale Review

Republican presidential contenders Ted Cruz and Donald Trump engaged in a heated debate Thursday night over whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace prevents him from being eligible to hold the office of president.

“You are an American, as is everyone on this stage,” Cruz shot back. “I suggest we focus on who is best prepared to be commander in chief. Because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Rafael Cruz in typical lawyer style deflecting the issue, negating the law.

Below are screenshots of the New Englander and Yale Review III – 1845

Let’s begin at pg 413 and note the following.

In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government,as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.

YR413

on to page 414

The expression ‘ citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘ natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ‘ citizen’ issued without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication
that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

YR414

Lets look at allegiance on page 417

Our inquiries, therefore, conducted through the several departments of natural and international law, the law and practice under the Constitution, and the municipal law of the states, lead to the conclusion, that the rights and duties which distinguish the status of the citizen, appertain to all free persons born in a state, and so owing allegiance by birth to the state and the United States ;—unless indeed we venture on the desperate alternative of calling in question that cardinal doctrine of the natural and the common law, the doctrine of natural allegiance.

YR417

That being said, here on page 418 is the law of nations,
We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,—whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,—it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.


YR418B

Bringing that the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizenship into one harmonious relationship, again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 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.

 

Rafael Edward Cruz was born to a foreign father (Cuban National) in a foreign country. Rafael Edward Cruz’s own ‘Birth Certificate’ proves it.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. PERIOD!

Thank you Ann Coulter

WE’RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW

If Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.

As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)

Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!

But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.” (Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)

I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).

The Constitution says: “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.”

The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.

The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.

It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.

Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.

Relying on English common law for the meaning of “natural born,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents” was left to Congress “in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)

A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,” i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.”

Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit” — as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” (There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)

So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural born citizen” — under our Constitution.

I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a “natural born citizen,” but don’t see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.

One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the “U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency.”

Sen. McCain probably was natural born — but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador’s child described in Calvin’s Case. (Sorry, McCain haters — oh wait! That’s me!)

But a Senate resolution — even one passed “unanimously”! — is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court’s job is to ascertain “objective law,” not determine “some kind of social consensus,” which I believe is the job of the judges on “American Idol.” (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not “speech”?)

Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.” This is constitutional illiteracy. “Natural born” is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an “active judge” in legal terminology.

The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “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.”

Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.

As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: “It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.”

The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born — except the part about not being natural born.

Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”

Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”

Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

 

 

Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats — should he be the Republican nominee — and ultimately decided on by the Supreme Court, according to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Paul said Cruz’s presidential eligibility will be a question as the Constitution uses the “unusual language” of “natural-born” when laying out the criteria for U.S. presidents.

 “The thing is, I think all experts agree that he was naturally born in Canada, and so the legal question is: can you be naturally born in Canada and also be considered a natural-born American citizen, and it hasn’t been decided,” Paul, also a GOP presidential hopeful, said Sunday.
Image source: CBS News

Image source: CBS News

“I think the Democrats will challenge it, at the very least, and I think it will have to decided by the Supreme Court,” the libertarian-leaning senator continued.

Paul said that if Cruz is elected as the next U.S. president, “he would be the first president not born in the United States” — a feat that Paul called “extraordinary.”

Cruz’s eligibility to be president has been called into question during the 2016 campaign as he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Cruz officially renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in the summer of 2014 — something fellow GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina said was “odd.”

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump saidbackstage prior to a campaign event earlier this month. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

I states this in my previous post.

Ted Cruz the ineligible and the 2016 Democrat end Game

Here is Rafael (Ted) Cruz in 2012

TedCruzDisqualifiesHimself