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. 

 

 

Advertisements

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. 

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