The truth is the GOP establishment was welcoming the executive amnesty so that this way they wouldn’t be directly blamed for passing amnesty. I would not be surprised if Obama worked this out with Boehner and Kurva McConnell a long time ago.
Ted Cruz is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and like Obama, would be just another USURPER to the Presidency of the United States in LAWLESS Defiance to the Constitution! What the hell is wrong with you? You look for “rock star” personalities, and would blindly demand what you blame Germans of when they accepted an Adolf Hitler, as long as YOUR guy pretentiously –(while having alliance and allegiances to Globalist Subversive groups, such as his wife holds current high echelon membership in) — can wrap himself in an American Flag, and say, “I will save you!”, as you refuse to look into who and what he is, and what the law is.
“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
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ page 12
“It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument.”
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ pp.188-189
” …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. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction.”
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ pp. 570-571
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
What was a Natural Born Citizen from the Founders perspective? When the Constitution was passed and ratified, only men, age 21 and above, had the right to vote and TRULY be established in the sphere of Governments, taking their rightful places in society as its true citizens. The power was in the man, age 21 and above, to confer certain extensive rights and privileges of citizenship not otherwise available. They followed John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59 When discussing the principle of “all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil”, John Locke explains that it is the FATHER who passes, by natural (think “seed” or “sperma” to be planted and grown) and civil law, the natural born citizenship, in which a child is exclusively reared up in the citizenship of his father in the country of his father, until he comes of age (age 21) and takes his place in society that same as his father does or did. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Cuba via his father, in a foreign land of Canada. Constitutionally speaking, even with a U.S. Citizen mother, Ted Cruz has no legal right to run for the Presidency of the United States. NONE!!!
Question: Did Ted Cruz EVER formally renounce his jus soli birth acquired Canadian Citizenship? As of the first half of 2014, he still had current possession of an active foreign citizenship. What did John Jay warn “His excellency George Washington” regarding this, or don’t you know?
New-York, 25th July, 1787.
…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.”
Ted Cruz is a foreigner, who happens to have a United States Citizenship as his THIRD Citizenship. Ted Cruz was born with a foreign national for a father in a nation in which the United States of America, if that isn’t enough for you, has a Treaty with that PREVENTS Ted Cruz from ever legally being in any remotest way, “a United States Natural Born Citizenship” by that very same Treaty. But you don’t care, because you become irrational and can’t debate the facts when this is brought up.
By example regarding our Treaty with Canada: the N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 – 4, has an article which tells us that the legal experts of the New York Times, the attorneys at law (as well as those who were of the DNC for that matter who ended up concurring with their legal opinion some time later after the article was published), that 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.
F.D.R. Jr. born to 2 United States Natural Born Citizens as his parents at the time of his birth in Canada, and magically you go “poof!”, Ted’s mama was a U.S. Citizen, and therefore his birth in Canada was more qualifying? B.S.!
By supporting Cruz, you promote TREASON against the Constitution of the United States and its permanent removal and cessation, and the tyranny and permanent removal of the United States as an economic and Free Republic from the face of the Earth by such actions of supporting what the Constitution of the United States forbids. Your support of Cruz is, in regards to legal matters which you seemingly with religious zeal ignore for the sake of a flawed human who is illegal for the office you seek for him while you promote him the same as an idolater promotes an idol, well it is all traif on your part! And…You should be ashamed of yourselves, remove all support for Cruz, and back a genuine legal to the U.S. Constitution Conservative Candidate to run for President.
Not only is Cruz a “natural born” citizen by law but he is also a PATRIOT who has the will and brains to fight to restore the country. Therefore, he will be attacked relentlessly from the pinkos just as Van Jones admitted the reason Palin was attacked so quickly and visciously (by establishment Reps. as well) was because the left was terrified of her.
Cruz is a principled, true leader–a rare bird among DC pols.
Its the plan of Islam to rule with the caliphate, Islam and the Left are United in bringing this country to its knees. Some of the Democrats are willingly involved in this game of treason and betrayal. They are attacking resources like our military, police, and now the CIA trying to demonize and blame them for getting vital information from terrorists, which the majority of the American people support.
Bea22,
You are illiterate to what the Constitutional Law is, and are promoting the abolition of the Constitution by lying about Cruz’s status. The man does NOT even qualify for “native born” under the first line of the sub-standard requirement of the 14th Amendment, let alone the higher “natural born citizen” requirement under the Constitution. Are you a Communist subversive or just someone who allies with them to destroy the Constitution? Anyone who vets either Obama or Ted Cruz as qualified,is on THAT side of the them
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) states:
@ 165
…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. Art. II, § 1.
@ 166
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,
“becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. ”
Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) @ 649-650
states:
” …Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native-born citizens. …And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 270 U. S. 578. And see United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 243 U. S. 475.
…”Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least,
[Page 279 U. S. 650]
they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant.”
Every applicant must prove he is Constitutionally qualified. Ted Cruz cannot prove ANY qualification except for the panting agreement of those who mindlessly look at him as a celebrity and go “ga-ga” after that mindless driveling mentality.
James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255, states:
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States…. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”
Kent is telling us that to have even one foreign national parent who never becomes a US Citizen, is to ever have a foreign inducement upon one’s life to corruption, negotiation, and like biases that are based on one’s own familial past or heritage rather than upon the exclusive interests of the people and sovereignty of the United States of America.
In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote:
“It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.
…But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections…”
Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states: http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“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.” So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”
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 definition of a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen, as it is required in our day, requires BOTH Ftaher and Mother are U.S. Citizens at the time of birth, and that the child is born on U.S. Soil or in U.S. Territorial Sovereignty at the time of his or her birth. Other than for U.S. Ambassador children, or such serving to this effect, no exceptions. That means Obama is currently a usurper and you are promoting usurper #2 and demanding we chuck the Constitution, all our rights, and give us a tyranny like Hitler gave Germany, or something worse. Oh goody.
On The Meaning of A “Natural Born Citizen”
The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress.. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent (not plural!). As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700’s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
Senators Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and about 21 other Senators are Conservatives who stand for the constitution and the laws. We don’t have enough of them yet, we need to start getting more Conservatives elected, that will take time and I wonder if the country will collapse before we can save her.
The truth is the GOP establishment was welcoming the executive amnesty so that this way they wouldn’t be directly blamed for passing amnesty. I would not be surprised if Obama worked this out with Boehner and Kurva McConnell a long time ago.
Ted Cruz is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and like Obama, would be just another USURPER to the Presidency of the United States in LAWLESS Defiance to the Constitution! What the hell is wrong with you? You look for “rock star” personalities, and would blindly demand what you blame Germans of when they accepted an Adolf Hitler, as long as YOUR guy pretentiously –(while having alliance and allegiances to Globalist Subversive groups, such as his wife holds current high echelon membership in) — can wrap himself in an American Flag, and say, “I will save you!”, as you refuse to look into who and what he is, and what the law is.
“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
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ page 12
“It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument.”
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ pp.188-189
” …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. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction.”
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ pp. 570-571
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
What was a Natural Born Citizen from the Founders perspective? When the Constitution was passed and ratified, only men, age 21 and above, had the right to vote and TRULY be established in the sphere of Governments, taking their rightful places in society as its true citizens. The power was in the man, age 21 and above, to confer certain extensive rights and privileges of citizenship not otherwise available. They followed John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59 When discussing the principle of “all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil”, John Locke explains that it is the FATHER who passes, by natural (think “seed” or “sperma” to be planted and grown) and civil law, the natural born citizenship, in which a child is exclusively reared up in the citizenship of his father in the country of his father, until he comes of age (age 21) and takes his place in society that same as his father does or did. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Cuba via his father, in a foreign land of Canada. Constitutionally speaking, even with a U.S. Citizen mother, Ted Cruz has no legal right to run for the Presidency of the United States. NONE!!!
Question: Did Ted Cruz EVER formally renounce his jus soli birth acquired Canadian Citizenship? As of the first half of 2014, he still had current possession of an active foreign citizenship. What did John Jay warn “His excellency George Washington” regarding this, or don’t you know?
New-York, 25th July, 1787.
…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.”
Ted Cruz is a foreigner, who happens to have a United States Citizenship as his THIRD Citizenship. Ted Cruz was born with a foreign national for a father in a nation in which the United States of America, if that isn’t enough for you, has a Treaty with that PREVENTS Ted Cruz from ever legally being in any remotest way, “a United States Natural Born Citizenship” by that very same Treaty. But you don’t care, because you become irrational and can’t debate the facts when this is brought up.
By example regarding our Treaty with Canada: the N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 – 4, has an article which tells us that the legal experts of the New York Times, the attorneys at law (as well as those who were of the DNC for that matter who ended up concurring with their legal opinion some time later after the article was published), that 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.
F.D.R. Jr. born to 2 United States Natural Born Citizens as his parents at the time of his birth in Canada, and magically you go “poof!”, Ted’s mama was a U.S. Citizen, and therefore his birth in Canada was more qualifying? B.S.!
By supporting Cruz, you promote TREASON against the Constitution of the United States and its permanent removal and cessation, and the tyranny and permanent removal of the United States as an economic and Free Republic from the face of the Earth by such actions of supporting what the Constitution of the United States forbids. Your support of Cruz is, in regards to legal matters which you seemingly with religious zeal ignore for the sake of a flawed human who is illegal for the office you seek for him while you promote him the same as an idolater promotes an idol, well it is all traif on your part! And…You should be ashamed of yourselves, remove all support for Cruz, and back a genuine legal to the U.S. Constitution Conservative Candidate to run for President.
Not only is Cruz a “natural born” citizen by law but he is also a PATRIOT who has the will and brains to fight to restore the country. Therefore, he will be attacked relentlessly from the pinkos just as Van Jones admitted the reason Palin was attacked so quickly and visciously (by establishment Reps. as well) was because the left was terrified of her.
Cruz is a principled, true leader–a rare bird among DC pols.
Its the plan of Islam to rule with the caliphate, Islam and the Left are United in bringing this country to its knees. Some of the Democrats are willingly involved in this game of treason and betrayal. They are attacking resources like our military, police, and now the CIA trying to demonize and blame them for getting vital information from terrorists, which the majority of the American people support.
Bea22,
You are illiterate to what the Constitutional Law is, and are promoting the abolition of the Constitution by lying about Cruz’s status. The man does NOT even qualify for “native born” under the first line of the sub-standard requirement of the 14th Amendment, let alone the higher “natural born citizen” requirement under the Constitution. Are you a Communist subversive or just someone who allies with them to destroy the Constitution? Anyone who vets either Obama or Ted Cruz as qualified,is on THAT side of the them
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) states:
@ 165
…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. Art. II, § 1.
@ 166
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,
“becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. ”
Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) @ 649-650
states:
” …Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native-born citizens. …And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 270 U. S. 578. And see United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 243 U. S. 475.
…”Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least,
[Page 279 U. S. 650]
they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant.”
Every applicant must prove he is Constitutionally qualified. Ted Cruz cannot prove ANY qualification except for the panting agreement of those who mindlessly look at him as a celebrity and go “ga-ga” after that mindless driveling mentality.
James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255, states:
“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States…. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”
Kent is telling us that to have even one foreign national parent who never becomes a US Citizen, is to ever have a foreign inducement upon one’s life to corruption, negotiation, and like biases that are based on one’s own familial past or heritage rather than upon the exclusive interests of the people and sovereignty of the United States of America.
In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote:
“It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.
…But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections…”
Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“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.” So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”
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 definition of a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen, as it is required in our day, requires BOTH Ftaher and Mother are U.S. Citizens at the time of birth, and that the child is born on U.S. Soil or in U.S. Territorial Sovereignty at the time of his or her birth. Other than for U.S. Ambassador children, or such serving to this effect, no exceptions. That means Obama is currently a usurper and you are promoting usurper #2 and demanding we chuck the Constitution, all our rights, and give us a tyranny like Hitler gave Germany, or something worse. Oh goody.
On The Meaning of A “Natural Born Citizen”
The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress.. Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent (not plural!). As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700’s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.” The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/?hc_location=ufi
Senators Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and about 21 other Senators are Conservatives who stand for the constitution and the laws. We don’t have enough of them yet, we need to start getting more Conservatives elected, that will take time and I wonder if the country will collapse before we can save her.