Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”…constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon

“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

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

I have liked Ted Cruz’s positions on many matters for years.

It does not matter to me how conservative he is, how popular he is and how much he protests that he is eligible.

I cannot support Ted Cruz and his untested arrogant position on his natural born citizen status.

I am certain that others agree with me.

He only makes Donald Trump look better.

And that is Trump, who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

Ted Cruz’s own Harvard Law Professor,  Laurence H. Tribe, is questioning his eligibility.

From the Boston Globe January 11, 2016.

By Laurence H. Tribe

“There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

Read more:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html

From Mary Brigid McManamon, constitutional law professor, January 12, 2016.

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

From Gabriel J. Chin at the Michigan Law Review 2009.

John McCain, with two US Citizen parents, has questionable status.

“A. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship by Statute

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.

The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive; there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. Since “Congress may withhold citizenship from persons” born overseas to citizen parents or “deny [them] citizenship outright,” it could impose the lesser burden of requiring U.S. residence to retain citizenship.

Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.

Denial of automatic citizenship had very different implications than it would now because until the late nineteenth century, there was little federal immigration law. There were no general federal restrictions on who could enter the country, no provisions for deportation of residents who became undesirable, and immigration officials to deport them. Of course, these children could become citizens by individual naturalization. But even if the child suffered based on lack of citizenship, according to the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Zartarian v. Billings, “[a]s this subject is entirely within congressional control, the matter must rest there; it is only for the courts to apply the law as they find it.””

Available at the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091007052748/http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship

And Citizen Wells January 13, 2011.

https://citizenwells.com/2011/01/13/speaker-boehner-and-congress-legal-experts-speak-out-obama-eligibility-obama-issues/

If Ted Cruz want my and others’ support he must do the following:

Apologize to the American people for his arrogance and disregard for the US Constitution.

Immediately seek a ruling from the courts or advisory opinion from the FEC.

Citizen Wells

 

Advertisements

15 responses to “Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

  1. Tribe Olsen NBC memo

  2. Thomas Lee, professor of constitutional law and international law at Fordham Law School.

    “To an originalist, a “natural born Citizen” is a person who is a citizen of the United States under “natural” principles of law in 1788. Two such principles were then in play in the U.S. Jus soli — the law of soil — was the principle that a child was subject or citizen of the sovereign who ruled the land or seas on which the child was born. Jus soli was viewed as a part of the common law of England, which was adopted by the American states. Jus sanguinis — the law of blood — held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the parents’ allegiance, regardless of place of birth. This principle was prevalent in continental Europe, and in England it was the basis for an exception to jus soli for children born there to foreign ambassadors.

    The principle of jus sanguinis in 1788 applied to patrilineal descent only: A person born in a foreign country was viewed as a “natural born Citizen” of his or her father’s country. However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband’s — much rarer then than today — could not be a “natural born Citizen” of the mother’s country. That idea wasn’t even considered until 1844 in Victorian England.

    The upshot is that to an originalist, someone like Cruz — born in a foreign country (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus soli) and to a Cuban citizen father (and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States by jus sanguinis ) — is not eligible to be president.”

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html#

  3. Beginning on January 27, 2015 Citizen Wells began urging Ted Cruz to get an advisory opinion from the FEC regarding his NBC status.

    https://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/

    Ted Cruz, I told you so.

  4. Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson, 2008
    The Constitution does not define the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen.’ The US Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress…and to the common law at the time of the Founding…
    These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘natural born’ included both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance.

    Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Review, 2016.01.11
    “the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

    Lawrence Tribe’s own writing’s confirm that he believes that the Supreme Court can change the meaning of terms written in the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution disagree with him. Tribe says that in the 1780s and 1790s ‘natural born Citizen’ meant one thing, but today, after several Supreme Court decisions, it means something else.

    Article V of the Constitution specifies an amendment process that is designed to require a broad consensus before any change to Constitution can be made. How then, can anyone justify a change in the Constitution that only requires the approval of five persons sitting on the Supreme Court?

    US Constitution, Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

    That’s a heck of a lot more consensus than just the opinion of five Supreme Court justices.

  5. CW……..
    ……..the SCOTUS has become a STACKED DECK, thanks to the last two leaders. I believe that the present body of justices should be disbanded by Congress,and nine new justices chose, all of whom should be placed under a BOND OF GUARANTEE to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land under penalty of law.

  6. Off topic….. Let’s Celebrate MLK Day
    Proof liberals are racist!

    1) “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

    2) “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires . . . We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was . . . we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” — Al Sharpton

    3) “‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.'” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

    4) “A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” — Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

    5) “The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in the White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress. The Israeli leader then ‘brings back millions of dollars’ in aid to Israel.” — Ralph Nader

    6) “(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” — Harry Reid’s comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

    7) “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.” — Former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd (D.,Conn.)

    8) “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” — Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

    9) “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.” — Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

    10) “Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs. It’s a racist sort of thing, really racist — you know, picking out these 19 or 20 terrorists — they were terrorists — and saying all the Arabs are like them.” — Former Democratic Senator James Abourezk on Hizbullah TV

    11) “Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies.” — Abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani

    12) “There’s no great, white bigot; there’s just about 200 million little white bigots out there.” — USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

    13) “Them Jews aren’t going to let (Obama) talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. . . .They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.” — Jeremiah Wright

    14) “There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.” — Jeremiah Wright

    15) “The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” — Louis Farrakhan

    16) “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” — Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania

    17) “(Joseph Lowery) said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. . . .’Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.'” — The Daily Mail quotes Joseph Lowery, gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration

    18) “We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is. . .We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.” — Helen Thomas

    19) “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” — Joe Biden

    20) “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” — Joe Biden

    21) “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” — Spike Lee

    22) “I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” — New York City Councilman, Charles Barron

    23) “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” — Marion Barry

    24) “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person. . .” — Barack Obama

    25) “That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.” — Barack Obama

  7. Ted Cruz Fails Three Legged Stool Test for “Natural Born Citizen”. He Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP. Ted Cruz is Missing Two Legs!: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/ted-cruz-fails-three-legged-stool-test/

  8. The Constitution allows “Citizens” to enter into the office of Senator or Congressman but requires a “Natural Born Citizen” to be President and Vice President. John Jay, Our nations 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is the one that “hinted” this should be required. So one can legally claim that SCOTUS HAS addressed it. Indeed, over the years the U,S.Supreme Court has affirmed one definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” in at least six separate cases. One was Minor v Happersett. Another is The Venus and another is Shanks v Dupont. The founders laid claim to the definition found in Emerlich Vattel’s translation of the Law of Nations into French. French was the language of Diplomacy in the 18th century and the Law of Nations was uubiquitously used in both U.S. and British Courts. That definition,in French, is “Les Naturelles,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de Parents Citoyens. In English, Natural Born Citizens are those born IN a Country to Citizen Parents (Plural). It does NOT say “de un Parent Citoyen” (To one citizen parent). It says “Parents Citoyens”. BOTH Parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of their child IN the United States for said child to be a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. “Citizen” is not tantamount to “Natural born Citizen”. One can become a Citizen by birth in US (Jus soli,of the soil), by birth to at least one U.S. citizen Parent (50% Jus Sanquinis., of the blood) or by Naturalization. To be a “Natural Born Citizen” requires NO foreign allegiance,link,loyalty,duty or obligation. This can only be attained ONE way and one way only. Birth in the United States to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court agrees.

  9. Equally ineligible is Marco Rubio, Piyash “Bobby” Jindal, Barack Obama, John McCain and Arrnold Swarzenegger. Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. (MIami). He has U.S. Jus Soli which allows him citizenship but not “natural born Citizen[ship”. Rubio’s parents were un-naturalized Permanent residents with Cuban citizenship when Marco was born. Marco lacks ANY U.S. Jus Sanquinis, (link to the blood of an American). I can break down my reasons why the others are not NBCs but will discuss the two candidates for President. I have already discussed above why Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban Father is immutably ineligible to be President or VP as is Rubio and the others I have mentioned. John McCain,if he should enter the race was not born on US Soil. His BC states that he was born in Colon Hospital in Colon,Panama. Colon, Panama and Panama City, were expressly excluded from the Parameters of the Panama Canal Zone ,by treaty. McCain has statutory citizenship only. Furthermore, the PCZ was never an incorporated territory of the United States. Persons born in unincorporated territories are not “Natural Born Citizens” and not citizens at all unless Congress enacts a Law to bring them into the fold statutorily as they did with McCain. Bases in foreign nations, BTW, are NOT U.S. Soil.

  10. That Cruz would destroy the birthright of this nation to the Presidency. A ‘Natural Born’ citizen is born at home and in your home country. Natural Birth, home birth, as the forefathers saw it. In that the nation would select Presidents from people that were born here. Electing Cruz would sell out the birthright of this nation, and its heritage, and inheritance, and blessings. It is the most integral part placed in the U.S. Constitution and connection to the almighty creator of this nation. Are the four (4) principles of God; heritage, inheritance, birthright, and blessing. To destroy the birthright inherent in our Constitution (to the Presidency) is that all of these shall be destroyed, and the blessings on this nation.

    “To our Forefathers natural birth was at home and to a/the nation (it means) is in your own (home) country.” Is a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States, U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, par. 5.

    That upon entry Cruz would break the oath of office and subvert the Constitution of the United States.

  11. Embattled White House candidate Ted Cruz‘s cheating scandal is set to explode wide-open, with fresh — and blockbuster — allegations that the married conservative senator was named in the black book of a notorious Washington D.C. madam who mysteriously died, RadarOnline.com has learned.
    http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/cheating-ted-cruz-sex-scandal-dc-madam-died/

  12. Note Who Owns Cruz:
    Dr. Eowyn posted: “IRONY ALERT! – Ted Cruz’s campaign slogan is “Reigniting​ the Promise of America”. If they made a suit with logos of Ted Cruz’s​ corporate donors, it would look like this. H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV
    See also: Ted​ Cruz’s undisclosed $1M loan from Goldma”
    Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on *Fellowship of the Minds*
    http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/author/eowyn2/
    Ted Cruz’s Coat of​ Many Donors
    >

  13. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are two Republican Presidential contenders who were in favor of granting fast track authority to Obama. As I mentioned in my article “The Application of Social Science through a Ted Cruz Presidential Run,” Ted Cruz’s wife is an executive at Goldman Sachs, who would obviously have a big interest in seeing this trade agreement finalized. Rubio and others support the bill because it expands on the nation’s H1-B visa program. This program allows companies to bring in foreign workers who have degrees in high tech fields and hire them on a temporary basis. This actually displaces American workers as those motivated by higher profits are firing current employees and hiring foreigners, mostly from India, to do the work at less than half the cost. Even Disney is in on the action. Does this sound like something that a politician who has America’s best interest at heart would support?
    Read more at
    http://patriotupdate.com/articles/republican-support-for-trans-pacific-partnership-treaty-shows-their-true-colors/

  14. Mrs Cruz Works for Goldman Sachs.
    Goldman Sachs Just Gave The Biggest Signal Yet That Islamic Finance Is Going Mainstream
    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-goldman-sachs-plans-sukuk-issue-as-islamic-finance-goes-mainstream-2014-9

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s