Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

“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

“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″


Why did the Harvard Law Review allow this flawed piece of crap to be published?

Well, they produced a flawed president. Why not.

“On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen””

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. 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.”

“As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”
The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.”

Read more:


Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which 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 . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.


Thanks to commenter bob strauss.


23 responses to “Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

  1. citizenwells

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

  2. citizenwells

    Let’s push for a ruling from FEC.

  3. I always ask one simple question of the Obots: NBC is something that applies to only the POTUS and VPOTUS; what do you think that means? After they whine and try to explain the requirement as someone simply being born here (with no reference to parental citizenship) to someone who was naturalized, I ask that under their assumptions, could Putin could father a child by an American woman in the U.S. or anywhere else, and could that child be POTUS? They whine some more, but never come up with an answer. Then they call me a right-wing nutjob or a Birther. Then I laugh at them and tell them that I hear Havana is lovely at this time of year…

    NBC is a birthright; you cannot ‘obtain’ it. Either you’re an NBC, or you’re not. Period.

  4. CitizenWells “Let’s push for a ruling from FEC.”

    Simple, effective, and to the point CitizenWells!! Lets make it official, out in the open, and leave the debate for future generations. The reason Obama didn’t get matching funds is that he would have had to prove his birth and his SS number, both of which are likely fraudulent. The NBC was distraction from the fact that he was a illegal alien using a fraudulent social security number (and yes I still think he isn’t NBC either). Let Ted Cruz, if he is truly conservative, bring it up to the FEC AND Appeal to the SCOTUS if they reject him for matching funds. No more games, no more media non-sense, just real process and rule of law. Let America work, let Americans make informed choices, force the SCOTUS to make a comment on eligibility.


  5. correct that last line to “New comment” since Minor vs Happenstaff already defined without question.

  6. BLOOD & SOIL…..must be born on American soil to two American citizens(naturalized parents is okay as long as that occurs ‘BEFORE’ birth of child) .

  7. Yes, Sue, simply put; if there is ANY action used to become citizen, then it negates NBC.

    Why is this so hard to understand??

  8. JayJay……
    There are a few reasons why NOBODY seems to understand the difference between CITIZEN,and NBC……..they never took time to learn the difference, compounded by the fact that they don’t give a damn anyway,and that is because of plain IGNORANCE, and diminished IQ levels………all of which translates to PI$$ POOR teaching from grade 1 forward…..into and including COLLEGE. Last year I read of a group in California who wanted to determine the actual IQ of recent college grads. They set up JOB INTERVIEWS,and academic achievment tests for 100 recent college grads, The SAT which they used was a grade 8 SAT. They got a real surprise…..only 11 of the so called college grads passed the grade 8 SAT. Just a whisker over 1/10 of the grads. Tells a really sad,and sickening story,about our so called EDUCATION SYSTEM. har har…….and now we KNOW EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE A BASTARD for a leader,who is giving away the soveriegnty of America,as he makes love to the Islamic BASTARDS.

    The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote and women serve in Congress, the courts and other public offices. But is the office of President available to them?
    A legal issue exists that hasn’t been addressed. The dilemma is the language and sentence structure of the Constitution and the 19th Amendment. The amendment gave women the vote but did not qualify them to become President.
    The 19th Amendment states: ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.’ (Notice there is no mention of holding public office.)
    In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. The Court upheld a Missouri State Court decisions that had refused to register a woman (Virginia Minor) as a voter because Missouri law allowed only men to vote.
    The ruling was based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court accepted that Mrs. Minor was a citizen of the United States, even referring to her as a natural-born Citizen, but found that her citizenship did not include the right to vote.
    In Article ll of the Constitution, every reference to the President (individually) are in the male pronouns of “he” and “his.” The writers of the Constitution were articulate and educated. They could have used non-gender language as they did when describing positions in other branches of government but for whatever reason they did not.
    Section 2.
    The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; HE may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and HE shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
    Our Founders were 18th Century men living in an 18th Century world and viewing it through 18th Century eyes. That a woman could or would be Chief Magistrate of the nation and Commander and Chief of the military was beyond their comprehension. Women just could not do those jobs in their view. These same views carried on well into the 20th Century (Some would say even to today.).
    This is the 21st Century but we can’t put into the Constitution what isn’t already in there just because times have changed. If the amendment had stated, ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold any public office shall not be denied,’ there would be no issue. But it doesn’t say that!
    The Susan B. Anthony Amendment, as the 19th Amendment was called because she drafted the language in 1875, passed in the House 304 to 89 and in the Senate 56 to 25. The House and Senate purposely avoided language that would guarantee women the right to seek the office of President. Senators in both parties believed any language, which allowed women to be President, would have prevented ratification by the needed 36 states and the amendment would have failed.
    Most people believe someday a woman will be elected President. Women have run for the office before and will do so again.
    A woman running for the office, especially if she gets close, will probably be challenged in court on the issue and a Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment could again be necessary.

  10. BYE BYE………..Time for R&R. Have a great day!

  11. Paige v. Vermont, et al – PART #2
    NBC Question will rise like the proverbial Phoenix in the 2016 Election Cycle. However this time the legal action will begin over a year before the General Election and six months before the Primary Election. Of equal importance, this time out the plaintiff WILL have standing as he will be a candidate in both the Primary Election running as a Republican and should he fail to win the primary, he will file petitions to be included in the General Election. At least three of the potential Republican candidates FAIL to meet the NBC qualification also at least two minor party candidates who fail to meet both the NBC and age qualification have voiced their intention to run in 2016 (they were improperly included in the 2012 ballot).

    Wells, Please give me a call when you have some time – I would like to discuss this with you – if you are interested.

  12. citizenwells

    bob strauss from prior post:

    Submitted on 2015/03/16 at 8:16 pm
    More BS

    U.S. Senator Says Obama Gave Several News Orgs Certified Copies Of Original Birth Certificate

    Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/us-senator-says-obama-gave-several-news.html#dqAErireC0RlzFK5.99

  13. A basic “Citizen” at birth is not identically the same as a “natural born Citizen” at birth. Adjectives mean something. The person who would be the Commander in Chief of our military and President per the Constitution must be a “natural born Citizen” at birth, not simply a “Citizen” at birth. Read Article II Section I Clause 5. It contains both the term “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen”. A man-made law making someone a Citizen at birth (naturalized at birth by force of law) using the naturalization powers of Congress granted in the Constitution does not make them a natural born Citizen, which status is only granted by the laws of nature under Natural Law. For more on natural law see: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ For more on naturalization at birth laws and decisions by the Supreme Court, see the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court Bellei case re naturalization at birth via statutory laws. 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Again, adjectives mean something. See Vattel’s treatise Principles of Natural Law for more on fundamental natural law. Read to learn more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret and http://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards CDR Kerchner (Ret) ProtectOurLiberty.org

  14. Pingback: Glenn Beck wrong about Cruz eligibiliy, It’s the Constitution stupid not your feelings, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Senate Resolution 511 states McCain had 2 US citizen parents & born on US base, Citizen not equivalent to NBC | Citizen WElls

  15. Pingback: Citizen News » Glenn Beck and lackeys moronic comments on Ted Cruz eligibility, Dumbed down Beck crew equates citizen with natural born citizen, Quotes flawed Harvard Law Review article, Ignores US Constitution, Beck call me

  16. Pingback: Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution? | Citizen

  17. Pingback: Harvard Law Review Article Lied About Ted Cruz Eligibility and Natural Born Citizen Status | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

  18. When the Framers adopted in 1787 and the states ratified in 1788 the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress making anyone a born citizen. Yet there were not only citizens, but also natural born citizens. Citizens were made by adhering to the American Revolution and citizens could also have children who were natural born citizens. Hence, the natural born citizens were persons who become citizens at the moment of birth without needing the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress to bestow citizenship upon them at the time of their birth. Not needing any of these laws to be a citizen from the moment of birth, a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was a natural born citizen. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (“all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born citizens”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”).

    Senator Ted Cruz “needs” a naturalization Act of Congress and de facto President Barack Obama, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal “need” the Fourteenth Amendment to make them born citizens of the United States. They are therefore all “unnatural” born citizens of the United States, not “natural” born citizens of the United States.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  19. Thanks Mr. Apuzzo.

  20. The “attendant circumstances” required to be a US natural born Citizen is ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act of Congress and the circumstances provided for in that Act have been modified twice by subsequent Acts that retained the essential elements of being born as a “natural born citizen”.

    The 1795 Act repealed the foreign born natural born citizen provision and replaced it with considering such a child as a “US Citizen” only and thereby limiting WHERE a US natural born Citizen could be born thereafter.

    The 1922 Cable Act abrogated the ancient doctrine of matrimonial coverture which thereafter required that the wife of a US Citizen husband must be a US Citizen INDEPENDENT of the husbands citizenship in order to produce a US natural born Citizen as contemplated in the Constitution at A2S1C5 and PROVIDED for under the 1790 Act,

    The 1st instant expression of a US natural born Citizen in A2S1C5 established the term of words “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement” nature under US Law and the 1790 Act established the ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES that would produce a US natural born Citizen, i.e., a child born to the legal wife of a US Citizen husband/father, anywhere in the world.

    The 1795 Act limited where such a child could be born thereafter, i.e., within the limits of the USA; and the 1922 Cable Act requires that wife/mother to be a US Citizen INDEPENDENT of the US Citizen husband / father’s citizenship.

    Laws REQUIRE interpretations that adhere to the original intents of the law.

  21. William Heino Sr.

    For those wanting to be President of the United States. I have a problem getting past Article II of the Constitution of the United States.

    Yes, naturalization of a foreign born child to a citizen of the United States therefore becomes a citizen, but that mere fact does not qualify for being President of the United States. Why? Article II of the Constitution.

    Article II states clearly… the qualification for being president of the United 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 the President;…”

    If Ted Cruz is 227 years old, yes…of course he can then be president. Let me explain.

    The Constitution says, here is the important part, “..at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution..” it says, “No person except a natural born citizen…” is qualified or , “..shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…”

    In 1789 if you were 5 years old and your father was 36 years old, both could become president because you, as a citizen, were living during the Adoption of the Constitution.

    If a person, who was born as a citizen in 1953 is not qualified because that person at the “..at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution…” was not a citizen.

    There was a good reason for the Framers to include, “..at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution..” otherwise why include it? Just as there limits for being President to 8 years, time limits or renewals are part of many Congressional Acts and State laws, and as well, for being President of the United States, “..at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution…”

    To be a naturalized citizen, isn‘t that enough?

    It is what it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s