Category Archives: Electors

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

“”My good friend Ann here actually got some sort of irritant in one of the letter. My son had his car vandalized,” said Mike Delk, President of the NC Electoral College. “Other people have received threats, attempted bribes.”

But the electors say they are not swayed by these actions. All 15 said they will cast their votes for Trump which will go toward the 270 elector votes required. Trump’s nationwide total is 306.

The members said they have a message for those protesting the results.

“It really shows a lack of understanding of our democracy,” said Dr. Glenn Pinckney, Secretary of the NC Electoral College. “It shows an honest lack and disrespect.””…WTVD

“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

 

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

To Donald Trump from Citizen Wells, Do not be tricked into conceding election if it appears that you lost, Election is over January 6, 2017 after congress certifies Electoral College votes, Lots of time left for Clintons to be investigated and prosecuted

To Donald Trump from Citizen Wells, Do not be tricked into conceding election if it appears that you lost, Election is over January 6, 2017 after congress certifies Electoral College votes, Lots of time left for Clintons to be investigated and prosecute

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“James Comey’s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.”…Daily Mail October 30, 2016

“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

 

 

I do not yet know who is going to “win” the general election.

What I do know is that the election is not over until January 6, 2017 when congress certifies the Electoral College votes.

Even then, a congressman by law can object.

Multiple investigations are ongoing that involve Hillary and the Clintons.

And even with the corrupt Obama Justice Dept., it is possible that unhappy FBI or NYPD may leak damaging information such as pedophilia involving the Clintons.

From Citizen Wells October 31, 2016.

Another Democrat running for the office of the Presidency and more controversy regarding their eligibility.

In 2008 it was Obama and his natural born citizen status.

Despite the lies from the mainstream media, that issue has not been resolved.

Now with Hillary Clinton, if she garners enough votes, will she survive the election process of Electoral College votes being counted and certified and inauguration without being disqualified due to arrest and or indictment?

Here is a good description of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Sadly, most Americans are uninformed on the US President election process.

The Democrats appear to like it that way.

If you don’t believe that, check out Wikileaks.

Below is some important information on how this works.

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“November 8, 2016—Election Day

Registered voters cast their votes for President and Vice President. By doing so, they also help choose the electors who will represent their state in the Electoral College.

Mid-November through December 19, 2016

After the presidential election, the governor of your state prepares seven Certificates of Ascertainment. “As soon as practicable,” after the election results in your state are certified, the governor sends one of the Certificates of Ascertainment to the Archivist.

Certificates of Ascertainment should be sent to the Archivist no later than the meeting of the electors in December. However, federal law sets no penalty for missing the deadline.

The remaining six Certificates of Ascertainment are held for use at the meeting of the Electors in December.

December 13, 2016

States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the Electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress.

Decisions by states’ courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day.

December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

From Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

“ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.”

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

Should Hillary Clinton “win” the general election, it does not guarantee that she will be sworn in.

https://citizenwells.com/2016/10/31/hillary-removal-from-election-and-inauguration-us-election-checkpoints-and-rules-general-election-through-electoral-college-certification-and-finally-swearing-in-hillary-can-be-removed-before-becom/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

“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.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“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

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the Vermont Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio eligibility challenge:

“UPDATE – Paige v. State of Vermont, et al (Secretary of State, Jim Condos,
Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio)

Citizen Wells,

February 18, 2016 – All parties, the Vermont State Defendants, Cruz and
Rubio,  have responded each   with their own Motions to Dismiss, the first
effort of a disingenuous and desperate lawyer who wants to shield his
client from having to face the music.

It is exciting to have defendants who, because of their divergent
political leanings refuse to cooperate in developing a unified strategy to
extinguish the humble, tenacious plaintiff. Unfortunately, the attorneys
for Rubio and Cruz seem amazingly unfamiliar with the “natural born
citizen(ship)” subject matter – regurgitating the tripe and drivel
regularly posted on “obot” websites; while Daloz, the state’s Asst. A/G,
appears to be doing a “cut and paste” job from his 2012 effort. Truly sad
to see such vacuous “work product” for these high priced “Blackstone
Lawyers.” (Thomas Jefferson complained that “many a law student finds
Blackstone’s writings – a smattering of everything, and his indolence
easily persuades him that if he understands Blackstone , he is a master of
the whole body of law.”)

I have filed separate Opposition Briefs for each of the defendants’
Motions to Dismiss as each develops a differing approach to defend their
favorites particular “flavor” of natural born citizenship.

•       Vermont Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz offering “born in country
with at least one citizen parent” to defend the democratic darling, Mr.
Obama.

•       “K’ Street Mouthpiece (D.C.) Brady Toensing, representing Rubio, arguing
that “native birth” (14th Amendment citizenship) alone is sufficient to
qualify his “son of Cuban parents” to serve as President.

•       Lastly, Gregory D. Cote, Esq., the Beantown Lawyer (“Redacted”) makes a
valiant attempt to convince anyone who will give him “the time of day”
that his Canadian Citizen client, Cruz,   is somehow more than merely a
“citizen of the United States” a condition granted to him by Congress, not
by his birth circumstances alone the condition necessary to be a Natural
born citizen (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents – Vattel, 1758).

Further it has come to light that since Cruz was born in Canada in 1970,
prior to the Canadian “Citizenship Act of 1976,” he was born a “Canadian
Citizen AND a “British Subject”  having “the right of abode” whereby he
could moved to the “British Isles” and gotten a job and taken up permanent
residence without needing to take any further action .
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/overview/hist.asp

The Vermont Primary Election is held on Town Meeting Day, March  1st, and,
since the defendants have argued that the issues are not “ripe” until the
passing of the election,  our next move will be to ask the court to
prevent the Secretary of State from releasing the results of that election
until the court determines the qualification of candidates Cruz and Rubio
AND  whether their names appearing on the ballot has cause damage to the
other candidates, sufficient to alter the results of the election.”

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

NH voters cast vote for ineligible candidate Cruz?, New Hampshire ballot commission rejected efforts to remove Ted Cruz, Law of eligibility murky, Neither US Supreme Court nor any authority has explicitly ruled on natural born citizen

“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.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“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

 

 

Two state ballot entities recently ruled on Ted Cruz remaining on their ballots.

The Illinois state board of elections ruled that Ted Cruz is eligible as a natural born citizen.  IL is consistently listed as one of the most corrupt states in the US and the home of Obama, another non natural born citizen.

No surprise.

The New Hampshire ballot commission took a more honest approach.

“If there is a clear ruling on some issues that somebody clearly doesn’t meet, we would apply it. If there is a constitutional uncertainty about the meaning of something – which from my research and from all the stuff that was thrown at us at the commission there certainly is about the natural born citizen thing — we don’t undertake to make that decision,”

I was disappointed to find what I consider to be the most inaccurate article I have uncovered at American Thinker, February 5, 2016.

“Illinois and New Hampshire Agree Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen”

“Trump persists that Cruz’s citizenship is still an open question. It is not, and the election boards of two states, New Hampshire and Illinois, have now ruled, in response to complaints, that Sen. Ted Cruz is indeed, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, a “natural born citizen” fully eligible to be President of the United States. As the Washington Examiner reported:”

“A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday’s decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.””

“Indeed, it is unnecessary. The question of Cruz’s citizenship has been asked and answered. Is Trump saying that a baby born in Paris to a vacationing American family is not eligible to run for president and must be “naturalized” like some illegal alien from Guadalajara?

Some noted legal scholars would beg to differ from Trump’s concern that Cruz is not in fact a “natural born” citizen.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at Case Western University School of Law, writes in the Washington Post:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.”

“Also agreeing with Cruz’s eligibility are two constitutional scholars who have argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Washington Post reported:

Writing in the Harvard Law Review, two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “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.”

“Now two state boards of election have certified Cruz’s eligibility, which is beyond dispute, no matter how much Trump whines, pouts, and throws out groundless accusations.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/illinois_and_new_hampshire_agree_cruz_is_a_natural_born_citizen.html

Aside from being wrong on the definition of natural born citizen, this article is blatantly inaccurate:

New Hampshire did not rule that Cruz is a natural born citizen.

It omitted the opinion of constitutional expert Laurence Tribe of Harvard:

“Cruz says this is all settled law, but Harvard’s Laurence Tribe disagrees.

“It clearly is not settled law,” Tribe said in recent an interview.”

“That’s because Tribe says Cruz is a constitutional “originalist,” who believes the document should be followed to the letter. Tribe says jurists who share such a view might well conclude that Cruz is not eligible to be president — because he was not born in America.

According to Tribe, this shows that Cruz is trying to have it both ways.”

http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/15/donald-trump-ted-cruz-laurence-tribe-citizenship

From The Dallas Morning News November 24, 2015.

“The New Hampshire ballot commission today rejected efforts to kick Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz off the primary ballot based on his birth outside the United States.

That clears a key legal and political obstacle as the Texas Republican seeks the GOP nomination for president. But it’s not a clear win on the question of eligibility.

Rather, the panel found that with the law of eligibility so murky, it can’t second-guess the senator’s own claims that he passes constitutional muster. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other authority has explicitly ruled that someone like Cruz — born on foreign soil, with one American parent – can or cannot be president.

“It would be really nice if somebody would get this issue of law decided who has authority to decide constitutional issues, so every four years we don’t have this come up again,” said Manchester attorney Brad Cook, a Republican who chairs the 5-member New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission.”

Read more:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/regardless-of-canadian-birth-ted-cruz-survives-ballot-challenge-in-new-hampshire.html/

AMERICAN THINKER OWES THE PUBLIC AN APOLOGY.

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

“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.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“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

 

 

Bill Graham has challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be on the Illinois ballot as natural born citizens.

Here are more updates from Mr. Graham:

January 30, 2016 10:51 pm.

“Monday 10:30 I present to the IL Board of Elections that Rubio and Cruz lied in their Statement of Candidacy that they are NBC and qualified to serve as POTUS. The is fraud against the State. Hearing officer recommended Board deny my objections; legal counsel to Board concurred. I will make a brief statement that members would abandon their sworn oath to support the Constitution if they do not honor the Founders intent and Supreme Court rulings defining that NBC means born here to citizen parents. I regret that I may not be able to prevail, but pray the effort will get enough attention of the voters to make a difference in how they vote. Would be nice to have some patriots join me and Mr Joyce, who also raised an objection. State of Illinois building on Randolph, floor 14, suite 1400-100. Security check at ground level can take up to 30 minutes. Let’s keep up the fight to defend the Constitution!”
January 31, 2016 4:19 pm.

“IL Board Hearing officer said there are no particular restrictions in addressing the Board on Monday. I crafted two statements each ~1400 words. Cruz statement is focused on founders intent and responsibilities of the oath of Board Members to support constitution; Rubio is on these plus Wong Kim Ark and 14th Amendment. I claim a Board determination of NBC for either candidate is unlawful.”

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

 

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

“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.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“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

 

 

From Bill Graham,today January 22, 2016,  who has Challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being on the Illinois presidential ballot.

“Submitting Friday to IL State Board of Elections motions to reject motions to dismiss my objections to Rubio and Cruz Statements of Candidacy for IL General Primary 3/15. Each has certified they are legally qualified to serve as POTUS. Have low expectations but feel such efforts by citizens are necessary to preserve the Constitution.”

January 16, 2016.

“Objections to Rubio and Cruz Illinois filings posted at link. Objection was a letter attaching M Apuzzo opinion dated November 29, 2015 from his blog.

I received by US mail a notification these objections will be heard January 20 at 10:30 am, at SBE office in Springfield. I plan to call SBE Tuesday to confirm and inquire of procedures. Appeals of a decision must be filed within 5 days.

Given the corruption in IL, I expect them to be summarily dismissed. Probably could use some help with appeals.”

https://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/LatestObjections.aspx?id=50

From BallotPedia:

“In order to get on the ballot in Illinois, a candidate for state or federal office must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses and the general election.”

“Party candidates and independents

Established party candidates, new party candidates and independent candidates must file nomination papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections in order to qualify for the ballot. These nomination papers must be filed during the designated filing period. The filing period for established party candidates begins 106 days before the primary election and ends 113 days before the primary election. New party and independent candidates have a separate filing period. Their filing period begins 134 days before the general election and ends 141 days before the general election.[3][1]

Nomination papers include the following:[1]

  1. The Statement of Candidacy must contain the address, office sought and political party designation (if applicable) of the candidate; this form also includes a statement affirming that the candidate is qualified for the office sought, which must be signed by the candidate and notarized.[4]
  2. The original Receipt of Statement of Economic Interests must be filed with the Illinois Secretary of State, which will then issue the Receipt of the Statement of Economic Interests for the candidate to file with the Illinois State Board of Elections. This form is not required from candidates seeking federal office. It is suggested this form be filed at the same time as all other nomination papers, but it may be filed after the other papers as long as it is filed within the candidate filing period.[1]
  3. The loyalty oath form is optional. If a candidate chooses to sign it, he or she must affirm that he or she is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any organization that seeks to overthrow the government of the United States or the state of Illinois.[1][5]
  4. A petition containing the signatures of qualified electors. A candidate can begin circulating petitions 90 days before the last day of the filing period. Signature requirements for petitions vary according to the candidate’s political party affiliation and the office sought. Examples for signature requirements for new party candidate petitions can be found above under “Process to establish a political party.” Examples for signature requirements for established party candidates and independent candidates can be found in the tables below

Read more:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Illinois

From Politico January 12, 2016:

“John Kasich has hit a bit of a snag in preparing for Illinois’s Republican primary.

The Ohio governor and establishment Republican presidential candidate is in danger of not having the minimum number of signatures in six congressional districts, meaning he would lose out on picking up delegates in those districts.

Last week was the deadline for submitting signatures for the March 15 primary. And Wednesday is the final day to file petition objections, with a 5 p.m. deadline.

Republicans often run up against difficulties in Illinois, where some congressional districts are heavily Democratic and ballot access is particularly complicated. But a longstanding “gentlemen’s agreement” meant Republicans didn’t contest one another’s petitions in the state. That could change in this cycle.

There’s nothing compelling the state to verify signatures unless there is a challenge.:

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/john-kasich-illinois-ballot-217648#ixzz3y091Vw75

From The Guardian January 16, 2016.

“Donald Trump’s campaign tried to get his rival Republicans kicked off the ballot in Illinois – but the attempt failed when his state chair failed to bring duplicate copies of the required forms.

The Guardian has learned that on Wednesday, the last day for candidates to object to signatures submitted by rival campaigns to get on the ballot, chair Kent Gray showed up at the Illinois board of elections a few minutes before it closed. Illinois has some of the toughest ballot access laws in the country, and qualifying for the ballot requires gathering a different number of signatures in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Candidates often stumble trying to fulfill the state’s requirements; conservative challenger Rick Santorum faced major obstacles in 2012.

Approached by the Guardian, Gray referred all questions to campaign spokesman Hope Hicks, who said he “was not available” to the press. Hicks did not respond to follow-up questions from the Guardian.

State politicians have long had a “gentleman’s agreement” that candidates would not attempt to contest each other’s signatures and throw each other off the ballot. But challenging petition signatures as a form of political chicanery in the Land of Lincoln has a long history. Barack Obama first won election to the state senate in 1996 by successfully challenging the signatures of his incumbent opponent and getting her removed from the ballot.
It had been widely reported that the campaign of Governor John Kasich of Ohio, a vocal Trump critic, had problems gathering signatures in Illinois, and representatives of Kasich, along with the campaigns of Florida senator Marco Rubio and neurosurgeon Ben Carson, were monitoring for any objections from rival camps. It seemed that they had dodged a bullet until Gray walked in attempting to object to a number of candidates on the grounds that some of their signatures were invalid, although exactly who he focused on is unclear.”

Read more:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/trump-campaign-illinois-primary-attempt-kick-rivals-off-ballot

 

 

 

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

“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.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“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

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. The State filed an opposition brief limited to the issue of the Motion for a TRO, they have yet to Answer the Verified Complaint and have
been given until January 26 to answer or be found in default. Plaintiff
filed his amended brief naming Cruz and Rubio as indispensable parties
since their Petitions and Consent Forms were confirmed by the Secretary of
State. ”

“Wednesday the Judge scheduled a hearing on the TRO for Friday the 15th. On Friday the Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant’s Opposition Brief and the Hearing was attended by Plaintiff and State Defendants who had summoned the Director of Elections to testify. Substantive evidence was provided by the Plaintiff and confirmed under oath by the Director of Elections under cross-examination revealing numerous defects and errors in the process and procedures including counting signatures of many individuals who were not registered. In dozens of instances were not even residents (or inhabitants) of Vermont including the citizens of  CT, NY, NJ, MA and even FL who because the
Petitions were not labeled as for the Vermont Primary did not required the
signatories to certify that they were in fact registered Vermont voters.
Incredibly the Director of Elections testified that his office did not
believe they were required to confirm that the petition signatories were
on the voters rolls in Vermont, rather that they were only required to
determine that the signatures were legible and nothing more. Welcome to
Vermont’s Wild West of Elections where few care about the integrity of the
election process, in fact most probably do not even understand the
concept. In the end the Judge did not grant the TRO citing that the
public interest and concerns over voter disenfranchisement outweighed the
injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the Return of Service and
the executed Summonses on Tuesday for the new Defendants and will file
them with the Court that day, starting the 20 day clock for the new
Defendants to answer or otherwise file a response with the Court.”

Mr. Paige hired Baker Investigations and Process Servers to serve
the Summons and Amended Complaint on the out-of-state Defendants Cruz and
Rubio during their visit to Charleston SC in advance of their appearances
on the Fox Business News Republican Debate. Owner Elizabeth Baker
personally served both Cruz and Rubio on Wednesday January 13, as they
arrived in Charleston.

Photos courtesy of Baker Investigations and Process Servers.

PaigeSummonsCruz

PaigeSummonsRubio

According to Mr. Paige, Elizabeth Baker described the Rubio campaign folks as very accommodating and congenial while the Cruz folks were willing to
cooperate although they seemed less cordial and Boston lawyers contacted
the Plaintiff attempting to substitute “electronic service” for personal
service required by the Court.

Original complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

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

 

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

“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

 

 

Enough is enough!

Ted Cruz, what the hell is wrong with you!

Donald Trump is right.

Cruz will continue to be challenged on his eligibilty for the presidency as a natural born citizen and rightfully so.

We already have a narcissist in the White House. We don’t need another one.

Cruz, do your damn job and get an advisory opinion from the FEC or a court ruling. That is if you care about this country. or is that the problem?

You were born Canadian.

Here is an update from H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his Complaint.

More information as this unexpected and encouraging turn of events develops.”

From Mr. Paige January 5, 2016.

“Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !””

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

Another legal action challenging Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

“Donald J. Trump predicted that the lawsuits against Senator Ted Cruz, doubting his constitutional eligibility to be president, would start trickling in as questions continued to percolate about the fact that he was born in Canada. As the Republican candidates gathered to debate in South Carolina on Thursday, one had already been filed.

An 85-year-old trial lawyer, Newton Schwartz Sr., filed the complaint in Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas, in Houston, arguing that the definition of a “natural born citizen” has never been sufficiently settled by the United States Supreme Court. The matter, he said, must be urgently addressed.

“The entire nation cannot afford such constitutional confusion and uncertainties overhanging the electorate process,” Mr. Schwartz, who lives and practices law in Mr. Cruz’s home state of Texas, wrote in the 73-page lawsuit.”

Read more:

From the Marshall Report January 7 2016.

“Cruz, Rubio Presidential Eligibility Challenged In FL, VT, and MD!”

“Well, so far complaints involving the ineligibility for Cruz, Rubio and Jindal to run for president have been filed in three states. Florida, Vermont, and MD. It appears all these people have to do is show proof of the eligibility requirements to run for president as stated in the constitution. So far none have, however Jindal has dropped out so it is moot for him. (Citizenship is not the same as the naturalization requirements for citizenship to run for President as stated in the constitution.)

 For some odd reason, Cruz has had his birth records sealed. He’ll have to answer the reason why himself. Heaven forbid if we speculate on that one. It does appear very strange especially if he has nothing to hide? He did show his Canadian Birth Certificate and his paper denouncing his Canadian citizenship, but he has not shown any consulate papers.”

Read more:

https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/cruz-rubio-presidential-eligibility-challenged-in-fl-vt-and-md/

Leave it to the Washington Post to question Cruz and sanction Obama.

From the Washington Post January 12, 2016.
“Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president”

“Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
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.”

“Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.”

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

Let’s be clear about this.

There is zero proof of US birth for Obama.

He has never presented a certified copy of an original birth certificate.

I can prove that in court.

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

“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

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

 

 

I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and have been for well over 20 years.

I do not always get to listen to him but I caught a few minutes yesterday when he was discussing the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

He used citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

Even John McCain has this right. Cruz’s eligibility is subject to scrutiny.

To Limbaugh’s credit, he did go on to read the eligibility provision from the US Constitution and state the difficiencies of the candidates and opposing thoughts on what NBC means.

I found the following offensive. It reminds me too much of John Boehner and the mainstream media:

“I’m not saying that won’t happen, but they’re not gonna succeed in going into court and have Ted Cruz told by a court, “Hey, Mr. Cruz, we’ve just discovered you’re not a citizen. Leave the country! Turn in your passport and go back to Canada.”  It isn’t gonna happen. ”

Citizenship is not the term or the question. Hell, we’ll let anybody be a citizen.

It’s natural born citizen!

From Rush Limbaugh January 7, 2016.

“Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction”

“Well, we’re getting closer to the day that actual votes are going to happen, which is why all of this kerfuffle is effervescing up and boiling over. I mean, the nonsense on whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. It’s stunning.”

“The latest to join this bandwagon suggesting that Ted Cruz may want to actually go to court and get some confirmation on the fact he’s a citizen, it could be a problem out there, John McCain. John McCain is now officially questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for the presidency. It’s getting into bizarro territory here. Remember, now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz’s. It’s amazing.

Folks, I left the program yesterday, and this was the subject we were laughing about, the way Trump was talking about it and raising the issue but not opining on it. And because the Republican establishment is scared to death of either one of them winning, the gears got into full motion and people started investigating this constitutionally, intellectually. You would not believe, one website probably has 75,000 words written on this. And the 75,000 words include the learned opinions of countless other scholars on whether or not Ted Cruz is actually an American citizen.”

“Anyway, the eligibility question is an interesting political development because it is gonna be explored, it is gonna be a distraction. The Democrats are gonna milk it for all it’s worth because of what happened to Obama and the birthers. And despite the fact that there’s no similarity or commonality in the two claims, they’re still gonna rely on the low-information voters’ ignorance of this and act like, “Hey, this is fun. You know, you guys did it to Obama, we got a chance to do it to you,” so that’s why they’re gonna get in on it.”

“But it’s an opportunity for a lot of people to show their chops, demo their chops on the Constitution. I mean, here’s what this really is all about. It’s right out of the Constitution. It is very, very simple. It’s Article 2, Section 1. “No person except a natural born citizen…” I’m telling you, I went to a blog site, and there’s a 75,000-word article on “natural born citizen,” what it means. I thought, “You know what? I could print that out, I could read that whole piece, and it’d be my program today. I could take the day off; just read that piece. At the end of that you’d think I’m nuts or brilliant.”

But 75,000 words! That’s a wild guess. But it printed out to 20 pages. “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of it United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.” There’s nothing else. You can have an IQ of 20. You can be dumb, stupid. You can be poor, you can be uneducated. None of that matters. You just have to be a natural born citizen, gotta be 35 years old, and you have to have lived within the United States for 14 years.

That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

“It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.

There are essentially two ends of the spectrum here about which everybody agrees, in terms of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” 1. A person born in the United States to parents, both whom are United States citizens. Obviously, you’re natural born. You’re born here. Your parents are citizens. Bammo, you’re a citizen. Nobody questions it, and you’re natural born. By the way, if you Planned Parenthood aficionados are listening, it has nothing to do with artificial wombs and all that. That’s not what “natural born” means. We can rule that out right now. We’re not talking about test tubes here.

Although we might somewhere down the road. You never know. And the other end of the spectrum is a person born outside the United States to parents, neither of who is a United States citizen, is not a natural born citizen. Nobody disagrees with that. Even if citizenship is obtained through naturalization later, that is not natural born citizen. So if you’re a naturalized citizen — born somewhere else, your parents are not Americans — and if you come here and become a citizen? “Sorry, you’re not qualified. Too bad.”

Now, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between these two points on the spectrum here. Rubio and Jindal born in the US to parents neither of whom was a citizen at the time that he was born here. So, bammo. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents, one of whom (his mother) was a US citizen, and as far as the best minds have worked on this, that alone qualifies Cruz. Now, Trump months ago… We had the audio sound bite yesterday. Months ago, Trump said of Cruz, “Ah, it’s not about that.”

Trump says, “Cruz is perfectly fine. It’s not a problem here. I looked into it; we have no problem with Cruz.” Now, yesterday Cruz becomes the focus point of Trump. “Weeeeell, I don’t know. I might be a little nervous. He might want to get clarification.” That’s all it took to get the media revved up and create this distraction now that is designed to distract Cruz, raise doubts, weaken support, all of these things. It’s ’cause Cruz is the front-runner now in the Hawkeye Cauci.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/07/cruz_citizenship_kerfuffle_is_a_distraction

DISTRACTION???

Come on Rush, I know that you have always claimed to be an entertainer, but it’s the Constitution.