Is that all you got Zellhar..a duhhhhh, I think he must be working for a candidate I don't like? Really?
I have NO candidate to promote...only the Constitution of the United States. Which by the way, does NOT apparently matter to those who back Ted Cruz (or even Marco Rubio now, for that matter). So why don't you have the ability to defend Cruz according to the Supreme Law of the Land, or at least offer something intelligent to reason why you with osmotic vacuacy offer only, "Let me guess, you support Rand Paul, am I correct?" For Presidential candidate, Zelhar, no. Does he have the right to run? Legally yes. Personally, if he and Hillary are the only two choices come 2016, I doubt many at JTF will be casting a Hillary vote since she sleeps with a Muslim radical dedicated to destroying Israel as her gay lover, and would be her most trusted advisor.
Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr. TED CRUZ is
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
THAT IS A LEGAL FACT!!!
Even Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr. knows this since when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Texas as stated and quoted in
THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY By J.B. Williams March 29, 2015 NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htmIn a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Do you REALLY want to push a Canadian Born citizen with paternal power citizenship claim at birth to Cuba illegally into the U.S. Presidency with the current usurper in office, and set a 2 major party precedent to discard the current Constitution of the Republic?
We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.
So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing.
In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.
Marco Rubio MARCO RUBIO IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
Marco Rubio was born to two Cuban immigrants in Miami, Florida, who did not naturalize to the United States as its citizens until 1975. Until such naturalization of the parents occurred, any children born in the United States to Mario and Oria Rubio, would be born as dual citizens. Marco would only be a United States Citizen by operation of Law, NOT by operation of nature, because at anytime up until Mario and Oria Rubio took the oath to become United States Citizens, they could have returned to Cuba or simply moved to any other country they wished as Cuban exiles, retaining their heritage and national identity as Cubans only. Marco's maternal grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia legally immigrated with the intent to naturalize, returned to Cuba, then re-entered the United States as an operated as illegal alien or "undocumented worker" during the years of 1962 to 1966. Marco was NOT born of United States Citizens at the time of his birth, and there was no 1802 statute that allowed his parents to the age of 21 to naturalize from the time of an alleged U.S. soil birth to make any claim as to a U.S. soil birth designated as an judicial exemption in how "natural born citizen " might possibly be interpreted as Senator Bayard related to A.P. Hinman over the issue of President Chester A. Arthur.
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881. A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York. DEAR SIR:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S. The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor. Yours respectfully, T. F. BAYARD
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-StatesIn fact, if we consider that naturalization is an operation of law, and that by naturalization or by operation of Law a child is accepted as a U.S. Citizen rather than by natural circumstances involving indigenous obviousness in nature as to birth location and obvious species, then we must also realize that technically Senator Bayard never exempts Chester A. Arthur, because if a law has to be forced to resolve an issue, it is in no way natural that a child be a sole allegiance born citizen as is required by the phrase "Natural Born Citizen".
"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used
and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth
to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
"Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
John Jay's letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787
which led to the "Natural Born Citizen " clause being eventually introduced into the Constitution we now have. John Jay was formerly a President of the Confederacy of the United States, which government was dissolved in 1787, and then became the first Chief Justice in this Republic of the United States after the Confederacy was dissolved.
In 1789, if you read David Ramsay, you will note that in the United States as the U.S. Constitution was undergoing ratification by the States, VOTING CITIZENS, or men above the age of 21, gave their children the right to be Natural Born Citizens. Fathers cannot be excluded from having a United States Citizenship if the child is to be born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, because United States Natural Born Citizens may NOT have any allegiance by birth to foreign states as Obama did to the United Kingdom and Kenya at birth and remained so until age 23 and regained his Kenyan Citizenship by U.S. intervention into the Constitution of Kenya of 2010
http://www.kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010#KE/CON/Const2010/chap_3 that reinstates Obama and any born to at least one Kenyan national parent abroad at any time), and as Rafael Edward Cruz had to Canada and Cuba at birth and remained so until age 43 (or so we are told he gave up his Canadian Citizenship), or to Cuba as Marco Rubio had at the time of his birth and for 4 years after.
Without a U.S. Citizen Father, it is impossible to have any child born as a United States Natural Born Citizen.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlVattel states in regard to the Law of Nations in effect (which John Jay, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and other founders read from the 1760s to the 1790s)
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.
But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
"No one has the power / ability / authority
to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land." [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]
From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.
As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.
To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. Some claim that the children of Citizens is enough in itself, but the term "citizens" means both parents must be United States citizen parents, as was stated similarly by the Court in Minor v. Happersett decades later.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.
That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only those children having and being the child of to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.
In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "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."
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "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".
In other words, the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national.
Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."
And with the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604) , the operation of Law still required the Father alone to confirm a child's citizenship. This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless. The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding. With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years. But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.
On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.
Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874
Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.
Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), states:
“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen …”
The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.
George D. Collins asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”
Mr. Collins cited Mr. Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens."
He also quoted that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-CollinsBreckinridge Long in his 1916 Assessment of Charles Evan Hughes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916own Presidential aspirations would agree:
"The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”
The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “
Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."
Rafael Edawrd "Ted" Cruz, Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama II (aka. Barry Soetoro) FAIL to measure up to that very basic sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and possession of a United States Citizen Father, or of an operation of NATURE which allows for NO PREFERENCE but a design and natural order that they can ONLY BE United States Citizens at birth and nothing else. Marco Rubio would have to result to the Wong Kim Ark defense, which demonstrates that from birth to age 21 he had no other allegiance interests, and lived solely in the United States.
On May 25, 1934, Congress did NOT amend the Constitution of the United States by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States, but they did pass a lesser law that has been misapplied. That Act of May 24, 1934 cannot be used so as to deny the Constitutional effectiveness of paternal citizenship regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause, because all laws must conform to the Constitution of the United States, or they are without legality.
In Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments, the acknowledgement that a mother can pass citizenship rights was referred to and reads:
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.
Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...
Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?
Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.
The transcript and tape is available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argumentJustice Ginsburg refers us back to the Act of May 24, 1934.
In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice. However, the condition of "Natural Born Citizenship", of being born with a citizen father of the same country you were born in, remained unaffected. Only now, it was absolutely essential that BOTH father and mother be citizens of the same country you were born in, that is in the jurisdiction of the United States, in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen.
By example to that, we see that in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961),
http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/308/case.html that United States citizenship was inherited via the father only (or the presumption of the father) until 1934:
Page 365 U.S. 309
…In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment
Page 366 U. S. 310
of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that
"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Page 366 U.S. 312
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.
Again, when one views what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, regardless of the Act of May 24, 1934, one CANNOT exclude the father from the equation, or the fact of one sole national allegiance at birth. Rafael Edward Cruz as well as Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), have neither qualification of a United States Citizen Father nor any non-fraudulent proof of a United States soil birth that could ever be accepted in a U.S. Court of Law as evidence.
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450
http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "
It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared:
"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."
...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:
"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654
"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."
Topic: Ted Cruz, Unconstitutional Candidate, Uses Mass Hypnosis Techniques (Read 22145 times)