Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ted Cruz Eligibility to be POTUS’


 

Again, let me start by saying that I like Ted Cruz. He’s a warrior for Liberty & a True Statesman.

Again, he is NOT ‘Constitutionally Eligible’ to hold the office of President of the United States. I’ll provide you with some additional information.

1st off — I hear lots of folks going on Mark Levin’s opinion. Mark is incorrect on this topic. Mark is using statements and quotes from the INA, Immigration & Naturalization Act. Don’t get me wrong here, I like Levin. I like him a lot. He’s a sharp guy…. but he is mistaken on this topic. Let’s focus on that to begin with…

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

The INA of 1952 is what was law when Ted Cruz  was born in 1970. It had been amended several times since it was originally drafted in 1795. The 1795 INA repealed the 1790 INA. Therefore the 1790 version is no longer applicable — Period. REPEALED.

Lets focus on the 1952 act and some of the debate about it —

 

 

It came into being despite heavy controversies between President Harry Truman and the House and the Senate. Truman vetoed the so-called McCarran-Walter Act (named after sponsors Senator Pat McCarran(D-Nevada) and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania)) because he regarded the bill as “un-American” and discriminatory. The two chambers neglected the president’s veto but applied some
changes to the bill.

Racial restrictions which previously existed were abolished in the INA, but a quota system was retained and the policy of restricting the numbers of immigrants from certain countries was continued. Eventually, the INA established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications.

The INA defined three types of immigrants: 1. relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; 2. average immigrants whose numbers was not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; 3. refugees.

The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. It was used over the years to bar members and former members and “fellow travellers” of the Communist Party from entry into the United States, even those who had not been associated with the party for decades.

“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into theAmerican way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.” (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)

 

 

Now, lets look at the 1790 & 1795 acts.

 

1st the 1790 version:

 

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

 

The above is the 1790 version created by the 1st Congress. The Repealed Act. Now, lets look at the 1795 version…

 

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

 

I want you to read CAREFULLY the purpose of the act! The very 1st statement made.

 

 

 

“For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:”

 

 

 

Read that again. Read it once more.
Three times is the charm.

 

~~~~~

2nd item — If the Natural Born Citizen Clause, of the Constitution, meant a single parent, or anyone just spit out within our borders, then why would THIS PIECE of legislation have been introduced in 2005? There were also several other similar bills introduced in years previous to 2005.

 

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

~~~~~

3rd item — Let us review the CRBA. It appears that Ted’s mother did NOT follow thru with these requirements or else he would have a 2nd Birth Certificate… one that was issued by the US State Department. Also to be noted, this falls once again under the INA. Not to be confused with the term “Natural Born Citizen” as stated in the US Constitution.

It appears that this reporting of births has been in use since at least 1910… According to Ancestry dot com.

 

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA)

A Consular Report of Birth (CRBA) is evidence of United States citizenship, issued to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

CRBA applications must be made before the child’s 18th birthday, and we recommend that parents apply for the CRBA as soon as possible after the child’s birth. For applicants older than age 18 who have never been issued a CRBA, please refer to Possible Derivative Claim to U.S. Citizenship. Anyone who has a claim to U.S. citizenship must be in possession of a valid U.S. passport to enter and exit the United States, even if they have citizenship of another country, as well.

Eligibility for a CRBA

In order to determine whether or not the U.S. citizen parent(s) is/are able to transmit citizenship, please refer to the transmission requirements.

If the transmission requirements have been met, please submit the following in person at the Consulate General serving your area. For applicants living in areas where there is no consular presence, you may be eligible to submit your application during an ACS outreach program.:

The applicant (child) and at least one parent, preferably the U.S. citizen parent;
Completed (but not signed) CRBA application (Form DS-2029) — all questions must be answered. To assist, please see information to the right of this page regarding Listing times of Physical Presence in the U.S.;
If the U.S. Citizen parent is not able to attend the appointment, they must complete the Affidavit of Parentage, Physical Presence and Support, have it notarized by a Public Notary (in the U.S.) or Justice of the Peace (in Australia), which must be submitted in their absence;
Child’s Birth Certificate;
Parents’ registered marriage certificate (if applicable);
Evidence of termination of any previous marriages (if applicable);
American Citizen Parent(s)’ evidence of U.S. Citizenship (U.S. passport or naturalization certificate);
American Citizen Parent’s documentary evidence of physical presence in the United States prior to the child’s birth;
Self-addressed Express Post Platinum for the return of the passport and/or Consular Report of Birth Abroad – minimum A4 size. Please note: we are not able to accept Registered Post envelop to return documents;
Applicable Fee (All fees are subject to change without notice).

Parents are encouraged to apply for their child’s Social Security Number and first U.S. Passport at the same time as applying for their CRBA. Once you have completed all appropriate application forms and gathered all required supporting documentation, make an appointment to lodge the application. Please make sure you print your appointment confirmation to show to the Consulate Security.

If the U.S. citizen parent does not meet the transmission requirements and the child is under 18 years of age, the child may be eligible for expeditious naturalization under the Child Citizenship Act 2000.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Seventh Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

Read Full Post »


 

TedCruzBothSidesScared

 

 

First off, let me start by saying that I respect Senator Ted Cruz, and I think he is a true statesman & warrior for liberty. I honestly do. However, as much I like him, I still have the knowledge that he is not eligible to be the President of the United States under the Constitution’s eligibility clause. This post will go into great detail to educate my readers on the facts and the intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution.

Lets start with a short prayer & spiritual verse —

 

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” ~ 2 Tim 2:23   

 
Since Monday, March 23, 2015, when Senator Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for the POTUS, there are folks who are all on board with him and believe that he is eligible because they like him. There are also the liberal lefties that are yelling that he’s not eligible because they hate him. The republican establishment hates him too. Remember John McCain & the “Wacko Bird” comment last year? Planned Parenthood hates him. Whoopie Goldberg hates him.

All of these are GREAT REASONS to support him.

 

 

 

~~~~~

The Constitution and its meaning — “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now lets delve, in depth, on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

1st – The founders used a reference book called the ‘Law of Nations’ by Vattel.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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. . .”

 

Read more here.
Now I’ve seen several articles recently posted that argue that the word ‘indigenes’ was changed in Vattel’s english translation AFTER the constitution was written. “Indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizen” in 1797. Here’s one of those articles;

 

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

 

 

Click any image to enlarge it.    

LegalInsurrection01

 

LegalInsurrection02

 

LegalInsurrectionBothParents01

 

“In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a gracious note to Charles Dumas, for “the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.” Franklin also stated that Vattel’s treatise was, “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” (From a letter, Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas, Dec. 19, 1775.) …”

     

[It is unknown whether or not the edition sent to Franklin was in English or French. Franklin could read both languages as could many of the founders.]

 

Vattel’s treatise was first published in 1758, in French. The first edition contains the exact same passage as the 1775 edition give to Franklin by Dumas. In 1759, the first English edition was published in London, translated as follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society : bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1759), § 212, pg. 92. (App. Pg. 159.)

“Les naturels, ou indigenes”, was not accurately translated. The proper translation of “indigenes” is “natives”. The 1759 London edition makes the mistake of repeating the same word twice, once in English and once in French; “natives or indigenes” means “natives or natives”.

The influence of the U.S. Constitution may have played a part in correcting the error, since, in the 1797 London edition, and thereafter, the French passage was correctly translated as follows:

“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.” (Emphasis added.) “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature”, E. de Vattell, (London, 1797), § 212, pg. 101.
(App. Pg. 161.)

 

Now let us look at the author

 

Jacobson is a 1981 graduate of Hamilton College and a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School.

 

Jacobson goes on to say  —

 

Additionally, Vattel did not purport to explain the meaning of the term in the context of British law or the common understanding in the British American colonies or newly formed United States. It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”

 

Sorry if I don’t put ANY FAITH in what a Harvard Law Graduate has to say.

 

~~~~~
2nd item – People are claiming this is factual because of the “Legal Scholars” that wrote it.

Notice at the TOP it says — “Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement written March 11, 2015.”

Remember, Lawyers say things like, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

Yep, This is not liberal at all <sarcasm>
Let’s look at Neal Katyal for a moment — He’s Part of the Clinton & Obama Cabal.

And Paul Clement — He’s just another Indoctrinated Lawyer

 

~~~~~

 

 

3rd item – The founders while writing the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, were well aware of the term “Natural Born Subjects” used in many historic documents.

As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.
The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz

Born December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of a father who was a citizen of Cuba, and a mother who was a citizen of the U.S.

Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president…

 

 

Jon Roland Bio

 

~~~~~

 

4th item – Those arguing the Naturalization ACT, or the 14th Amendment, are completely irrelevant. Those items are refering to citizenship and NOT the Natural Born Citizen clause of the US Constitution.

~~~~~

 

5th item – Go dig up your OWN Birth certificate. Look at it. Who was it issued by? It is issued by either the STATE in which you were born, or maybe the ‘County’ within the STATE that you were born. We are not citizens of the USA, we are citizens of a Sovereign State, that is a PART of the United States of America.

Senator Ted Cruz can not be eligible as a natural born citizen because he was not born in any of the sovereign states that make up the USA. He is considered a US Citizen, due to his mothers citizenship but he does not meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen. Plus his father was a Cuban Citizen at the time of his birth. As we’ve established above, citizenship follows the Father. As does a last name. Only in the Liberal world of misfits here in the USA can a child take a mothers last name or a hyphenated name — Those dang Wacko Birds!

 

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

 

 

~~~~~

 

6th item – Here is a link to every president and what made them eligible or not.

 

 

~~~~~

Misc. Links

 

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm

 

 
http://www.redstate.com/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/

     

 

 

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Fifth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen.

Read Full Post »