Category Archives: Natural born citizen

Ted Cruz by law not US citizen at birth, Not natural born citizen, Cruz lied, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1 US citizen parent and not born after November 14, 1986

Ted Cruz by law not US citizen at birth, Not natural born citizen, Cruz lied, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1 US citizen parent and not born after November 14, 1986

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Ted Cruz is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

He must have known the truth.

I, like Donald Trump, had good teachers.

Therefore I have good reading comprehension skills.

But this is really simple. The law has 2 parts connected by “and.”

Why did Byron York of the Washington Examiner write this?

“Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.”

“That last category covers Cruz, making him a citizen at birth. Last year, Theodore Olson, the former Bush solicitor general who successfully defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president, told me, “My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen.”  That would likely be the conclusion of any challenge to Cruz’s eligibility, as well.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-senator-cruz-is-a-u.s.-citizen-by-birth/article/2523832

REALLY??

From Citizen News March 30, 2015.

From the US Government.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Citizenship Through Parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.  The term “parents” includes:  the genetic father, the genetic mother, and the non-genetic gestational mother, if she is the legal parent at the time of birth under the law of the relevant jurisdiction.  For more information, seeUSCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

For information on who qualifies as a “child” for citizenship purposes, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF… AND…
Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986 The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14thbirthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

  • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
  • Employed with the U.S. government; or
  • Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

 

Ted Cruz had 1 US citizen parent but was not born after November 14, 1986.

Cruz became a citizen after birth.

Cornell Law School.

“Natural born citizen

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”

Ted Cruz did not immediately receive citizenship on birth from parents and is NOT a natural born citizen.

Case closed!

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/30/ted-cruz-not-us-citizen-at-birth-cruz-lied-not-natural-born-citizen-us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-1-us-citizen-parent-and-not-born-after-november-14-1986/

Once again, that’s an “and” 

 

 

 

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

We do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Cruz and Obama had 1 US citizen parent. That creates a problem with the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.

Many of the Obama eligibilty challenges beginning in 2008 were based on a lack of a authentic birth certificate proving birth in the US. The image presented on WhiteHouse.gov, even if it came from Hawaii does not prove US birth.

Some of the eligibility challenges were based on the requirement of 2 US citizen parents and birth on US soil.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

H. Brooke Paige challenged Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen in the Vermont Supreme Court.

“Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“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.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.”

http://citizenwells.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

There are 2 important concepts from the above cases.

1. It was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written that in this country natural born citizen meant a child born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

2. That the requirement of natural born citizen has not been changed by an amendment. You are being bombarded by misinformation about this law and that law affecting the natural born citizen requirement but nothing has changed it since the Constitution was ratified. This was noted in Hassan v FEC;

 “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

From Mario Apuzzo:

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

http://citizenwells.com/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-comedy-show-wnd-media-lie-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citize/

You are being led to believe that “legal experts” are in agreement on the definition of natural born citizen (refer to numerous orwellian references at Citizen Wells)

That is simply not so!

John McCain had 2 US citizen parents.

However,

From the Michigan Law Review August 13, 2008.

Gabriel J. Chin, U of California, Davis, School of Law.

“Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.”

“II. Natural Born Citizenship as a Child of Citizens”

“According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the
Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only
become a citizen by being naturalized . . . 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 . . . .” A person
granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is
naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized
citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in
the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential
Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.”

“Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621

Media reports.

Here are 2 of the more honest reports:

From Time June 23, 2011.

“It’s equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Honest but stupid: “but those reasons have long since vanished.”

Wrong!

From PolitiFact May 9, 2013.

“Is Ted Cruz eligible under the Constitution to become president?”

“When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication.”

“So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.”

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2013/may/09/ted-cruz-eligible-under-constitution-become-presid/

Something happened from 2013 to 2015.

Now Ted Cruz can be legally challenged on his natural born citizen status.

On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:

“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”

“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/donald-trump-nobody-knows-yet-where-obama-was-born/

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
 We are being bombarded with article after article stating that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

Why?

TO

PROTECT

OBAMA

 

 

 

 
media reports 2013 v now

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

 

Whereas:

  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada with 1 US Citizen parent.
  • The US Constitution states: “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 US Supreme Court has not settled the definition of natural born citizen.
  • Despite what you may have read, there is much disagreement among legal scholars about the definition and as to whether or not Cruz is eligible.
  • Some media reports say he is and others he is not.
  • The country does not need another presidential election cycle with this question not being settled.
  • Ted Cruz and other candidates need to know where they stand.
  • PolitiFact stated: “That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court. For that reason and others, the Ohio researchers called Cruz’s eligibility legally unsettled.”
  • The US Supreme Court must do their job. Marbury v Madison: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
  • Ted Cruz can request an advisory opinion from the FEC. Example: HASSAN v. FEC, October 1, 2012. “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

I can’t wait to get the answer to this enigma.

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
Who paid Cheryl Chumley to do that?
On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:
“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”
“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”
Read more:
Those were her words.
From her blog:
“A blog of Cheryl K. Chumley’s conservative and Christian views of the state of the nation, the Constitution and current day politics, policies, legislation and culture.”
“Thought police, coming to a community near you”
“Thought police, in George Orwell’s dystopian 1949 work, “1984,” were government authorities tasked with rooting out thought crimes – or, the basic mental patterns that were believed to be the genesis for criminal actions – using omnipresent surveillance technologies and intelligence gathering techniques.”
“But the technology brings some queasiness – and constitutional concerns.”
Why did Cheryl Chumley, as someone with concerns about the US Constitution and Orwellian actions, leave out 9 crucial words from the presidential eligibility clause?
Who controlled the editing?
Who paid Chumley to do this?
Cheryl Chumley, please respond.
Wells

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

Glenn Beck comedy show WND media lie about natural born citizen and Constitution, Citizens not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibilty in question, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789

“In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.”…Attorney Mario Apuzzo

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

At the time the US Constitution was drafted and ratified there were 2 classifications of citizens, natural born citizens and everyone else.

That is why non natural born citizens, just citizens, had to be grandfathered in to run for president.

The US Constitution states:

“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 . . . .”

There was no naturalization law and no naturalized citizens by law.

Natural born citizen was understood at the time and needed no further explanation.

However, a prominent historian and founding father, David Ramsay did, in the same year the Constitution was ratified, 1789, define natural born citizen.

From Citizen News March 25, 2015.

“Yes, the Glenn Beck Radio Show is mostly comedy. Occasionally they inject facts and outrage.
Glenn Beck once again insulted legal scholars and concerned Americans with his entertainment culture low information media use of “citizen” interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”
 “One of his parents is American. That’s all it takes. For the love of heaven, if illegal aliens can come to the America and give birth, and that birth child is a citizen, then so is Ted Cruz, for the love of heaven. Stop it!” Pat said. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that a person is a citizen by birth if they are born to a parent with U.S. citizenship, ”
Perhaps the explanation for Beck and his lackeys doing so comes from commenter JayJay.
Submitted on 2015/03/25 at 3:18 am
““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 . . . .”
Sadly, Americans are so lacking in grammar, they don’t get the significance of the comma after ‘states’.”
Yesterday on WND, writer Cheryl Chumley omitted a crucial sentence of the US Constitution that states who is eligible to be president.
Words matter.
Especially in the US Constitution.
Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.
So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?
From WND March 24, 2015.
“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.
It resembles work from the left or “1984.”
Read the full article and let me know.
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.”
“Patriot and legal scholar Mario Apuzzo has provided some of the best information on the definition of natural born citizen from  the year the Constitution was ratified.

From Mario Apuzzo:

 

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/.

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,” Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.” In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” ”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-wnd-media-lies-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citizen-in-1789/

 

Thanks to CDR Charles Kerchner for his ongoing assistance and dedication to this country.

 

 

 

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court

“The term, “natural born Citizen” has been so bastardized, that even logic, and precedence, play no part in the definition liberals use to circumvent the requirement for POTUS eligibility.”…Citizen Wells commenter bob strauss

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun.”…CDR Charles Kerchner

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz on an interview by Sean Hannity on March 23, 2015 stated that he is a natural born citizen. The argument that he used, having a US citizen mother, only makes him a citizen and not natural born citizen.

“I was born in Calgary,”

“My mother is an American citizen by birth … [and] by federal law, the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen, which is what the Constitution requires.”

Starting at minute 4:47.

Ted Cruz continues to talk about the constitution but is ignoring and disrespecting it when he claims to be a natural born citizen.

If Ted Cruz believes in the US Constitution, is a patriot and intelligent, he will get this matter settled as soon as possible.

As I recently wrote, a simple request from the FEC for an advisory opinion as to his eligibility for federal matching funds will get the ball rolling. He has to be a natural born citizen to receive those funds.

Ultimately the US Supreme Court needs to do their job and settle the matter once and for all.

Getting a nod from your cronies at Harvard and the Law Review will not suffice.

We are not fooled.

We are also fed up with the chicanery of your fellow Harvard alumnus Barack Obama.

If you want our support, put your actions where your mouth is.

No more smooth talking attorney speak.

Wells

Citizen Wells Request of Cruz January 27, 2015.

“For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.”

http://citizenwells.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruz-eligible-for-presidency-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-cruz-a-patriot-ted-cruz-advisory-opinion-from-fec-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-naturalized-citizen-abdul-hassan-not-eligibl/

Some recent comments at Citizen Wells.

CDR Charles Kerchner.

“No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Read:http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

“If Ted Cruz (and/or his CruzBots or the Obots pumping indirectly to help Cruz to help provide cover for Obama in case it surfaces that Obama really was not physically born in HI) wish to point to the 1790 or 1795 Naturalization Acts as a way of claiming “natural born Citizen” status, then they also are admitting that Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen by the very title of those man-made laws. “natural born Citizens” are created by the laws of nature and natural law and need no statutory law or act of Congress to recognize them as such. See again how the 1795 naturalization act repealed and replaced the 1790 act removing what children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents are considered to be at to type of Citizenship: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org”

Commenter bob strauss.

““Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:”

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

Read more comments here:

http://citizenwells.com/2015/03/24/wnd-article-omits-critical-words-from-us-constitution-on-presidential-eligibility-cheryl-chumley-replaces-at-the-time-of-the-adoption-of-this-constitution-with-why-joseph-farah-seen-this/

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Words matter.

Especially in the US Constitution.

Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.

So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?

From WND March 24, 2015.

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”

“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz/

Why did she leave out:

“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?

Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.

It resembles work from the left or “1984.”

Read the full article and let me know.

She left out 9 words.

9 very important words.

I can only think of one plausible answer.

The same conclusion you are arriving at.

24 hours within Glenn Beck using citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”