Posted on 03/28/2015 4:05:00 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s announcement Monday that he will run for president has Donald Trump, the ladies on “The View,” and others in the birther crowd questioning Cruz’s eligibility to be president.
Born in Alberta, Canada in 1970, Cruz is the son of an American mother and Cuban father. Anticipating these questions, Cruz released his birth certificate in 2013 and officially renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in 2014.
This isn’t the first time a candidate’s eligibility has been questioned—the issue dogged President Obama in 2008, George Romney in 1967, and President Chester Arthur in 1880. But is there any merit in the case against Ted Cruz?
The United States Constitution lays out three qualifications to be president: he or she must be 35 years old, a resident of the United States for 14 years and a natural-born citizen. The Constitution does not define “natural born citizen,” but many clues exist that help determine its meaning.
As former Solicitor Generals Neal Katyal and Paul Clement discuss in an article for the Harvard Law Review Forum, John Jay (who later become the first chief justice) advised George Washington:
Whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a … strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Justice Joseph Story wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution” that the natural-born citizen requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.” As law professor Sarah Duggin explains, it “seems evident that the Framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad.”
Thus, the president must be a natural born citizen—and not merely a naturalized citizen. The difference boils down to whether that person was a U.S. citizen from birth.
Under the British doctrine of jus sanguinis, citizenship passes from one or both parents to a child, regardless of the birthplace. The First Congress adopted this principle as law when it enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790, which declared that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Though the 1790 law was superseded by subsequent naturalization laws as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, the principle of jus sanguinis remains central to understanding who is a natural born citizen.
Further, 8 U.S. Code § 1401(g) extends citizenship to children who are born outside the United States or its territories, provided that one parent is a U.S. citizen who “prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States … for a period or periods totaling not less than five years.” By comparison, a naturalized citizen is a person, born in a foreign country to parents who are not U.S. citizens, who seeks to become an American citizen.
Attempting to end this debate, in 2008, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution stating that John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural-born citizen and eligible to become president. The resolution explained there was “no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military” and that previous presidential candidates (such as Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before it received statehood and George Romney, born to U.S. citizen parents in Mexico) were “understood to be eligible to be president.”
Based on the original meaning of the citizenship requirement and current law, Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen. As Katyal and Clement conclude, “[A]n individual born to a U.S. citizen parent—whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone—is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as president if the people so choose.”
Whether or not Ted Cruz is your candidate of choice, there is no legitimate question about his constitutional eligibility to run for president.
Hawaii Lawsuits Related to Obama Eligibility
Constitution Party v. Governor Lingle. State of Hawaii Supreme Court: complaint contesting 2008 Presidential election results and contending that the Governor’s administration failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for President of the United States. Dismissed; reconsideration, Dismissed. 12/2008.
Hamrick v. Health Director Fukino. US District Court, Hawaii: seeking a copy of Obama’s certified birth certificate to determine whether he is natural born citizen); Dismissed, 5/2009.
Justice v. Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court: seeking access to records relevant to Obama’s eligibility, Dismissed; Dismissal affirmed, Hawaii Court of Appeals. 10/2009 & 4/2011.
Martin v. Governor Lingle. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility. Dismissed; Hawaii Court of Appeals, Dismissed; Hawaii Supreme Court, Writ Denied. 1/2009 & 8/2009.
Martin v. Attorney General Bennett. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility; Dismissed; 9/2010.
Sunahara v. Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii state District Court: complaint seeking access to birth/death records of Virginia Sunahara based on connection to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed, Appeal pending. 3/2012.
Taitz v Astrue. U.S. District Court, Hawaii: ex parte application to compel discovery regarding Obama’s eligibility in a related case in the District of Columbia; 10/2011.
Taitz v. Health Director Fuddy (Freedom of Information Act). Hawaii state Circuit Court: appeal of agency refusal to grant access to documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed; Rehearing Denied; petition for reciprocal subpoena enforcement, Denied; Ex-Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration, Denied. 11/2011 & 2/2012
Taitz v Obama. Hawaii Office of Elections: petition seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and demand for an emergency hearing on this challenge; Petition rejected. 12/2011.
Taitz v Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura. Hawaii Supreme Court; petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force Circuit Court Judge Nishimura to issue a court order forcing the Hawaii Department of Health to grant access to birth vital records related to Obama’s eligibility. Petition Denied. 1/2012.
Thomas v Hosemann. US District Court, Hawaii; action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 12/2008.
Wolf v Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court; seeking to compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 9/2011. Appeal to Hawaii Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order Affirmed by Intermediate Court of Appeals, 5/31/13.
The Federal Rules of Evidence are how federal courts implement Full Faith and Credit regarding the “RECORDS” part of Article IV, Section 1.
Most states have similar rules of evidence provisions for state courts. No court and no state’s Chief Election Official (usually the Secretary of State) refused to accept Hawaii’s vital records or its Letters of Verification for the Obama vital birth records.
I’ve looked at your links to the “birth certificates” produced by Obama’s lawyers here, there, and everywhere.
It’s just the same crudely photoshopped pdf forgery, over and over again. Still no explanation of why a nurse or clerk in any hospital would dash around typing individual words and characters on six different makes of typewriter on one “birth certificate.” And how many offices have six DIFFERENT makes of typewriter, anyway?
Obama is an illegal alien with no genuine Hawaiian birth certificate, or a b.c. from any other part of U.S. soil.
If a document is forged, you don’t file a lawsuit. You take the evidence of forgery to a law enforcement agency who will then submit the evidence ( if it is deemed to be probative) to a prosecutor for a grand jury investigation.
Forgery is a CRIME.
The state of Hawaii has issued SIX statements of verification for the vault edition Obama birth certificate.
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/08-93.pdf
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/09-063.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106576604
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285 (see page 12)
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
If anyone wants to inspect the original, vault edition of the Certificate of Live Birth, they need to get a court order from a judge.
Trying to determine if an original document is forged by looking at scanned images of pdfs of the document on computer screens is fruitless.
If anyone wants to ask questions about the typing on the original document, you subpoena and depose state Health Department officials or you subpoena them to testfy under oath before a congressional committee.
You are completely misstating the issue. Nobody is claiming that there is a sheet of paper in the archives of the State of Hawaii that is a forgery. It is the PDF itself that is the crude, rank forgery. It is not the result of a scan of a sheet of paper. It is a digitally-assembled fraud. It bears the typefaces of six different typewriters because it is a digitally-created and digitally-manipulated hoax.
You evade the actual question. You misstate the actual problem. For a real response, you substitute snow jobs/data dumps.
BTW: Multiple people have taken the evidence of the crime to authorities. The authorities do not wish to be assassinated, and so have refused to act.
The only birth document that matters legally is the ORIGINAL, vault edition and the only information on the original, vault edition that matters is the date of birth and the place of birth.
One of Obama’s daughters could have drawn a crayon picture of his birth certificate to be placed on the whitehouse.gov web site, there is no crime involved. The digitized image is for demonstration purposes only.
Mitt Romney placed a copy of his short form Michigan birth certificate on the Internet and that document says that it is “VOID” four times on the copy, no problem, no crime.
Official documents are printed on safety paper that is intentionally altered when it is photocopied to prevent identity theft. Big deal.
Two Republican Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas attached copies of the whitehouse.gov pdf to their requests for data verification and the Hawaii Registrar verified that the DATA is the same on the whitehouse.gov copies as on the original.
Why do YOU think that there has never been a CRIMINAL investigation for forgery, identity theft, document altering, fraud or election fraud if there is something wrong with the whitehouse.gov image? (There is absolutely nothing wrong with it). The original document was photocopied at the Hawaii Department of Health and two copies were provided to Judith Corley, White House Counsel. Every member of the White House press corps was provided with a black and white hard copy, photocopy of one of the two copies provided to Judith Corley.
J. Scott Applewhite, an Associated Press photographer and Savannah Guthrie, NBC News correspondent both took photos of the hard copies provided by the Hawaii Department of Health.
When Mr. Applewhite was asked about his photo, he replied:
“You ask about the president’s birth certificate photo. I went to the White House regularly for many years but now concentrate on Congress. I certainly remember that day when the White House press office was handing out copies of the President Obama’s birth record in order to dispel the controversy and argument about his true nationality. Since I don’t have a macro setup or lens, I’m sure I just copied the sheet of paper handed out by the White House by using my Canon EOS 1D Mark IV at the time, either using a 24-70 zoom or a 50mm lens. And yes, handheld.
This wasn’t art. It was early in the day and I was simply making a quick copy of the document to transmit to the AP’s Washington Bureau — it would have been their job then for the reporters to use their resources to validate or question the information. My cameras are pretty high resolution — generally about 40 to 50mb every time I push the button. This time however I was just a human xerox machine. As for the bluish tint, not sure, since I was simply relaying the information on the document, I may not have done the usual color correction which is normal to adjust proper skin tones, etc.
As I recall, it wasn’t too long after copying the document that President Obama actually appeared in the Press Room to personally address the issue.”
The document was received in email and opened using OS/X Preview. The recipient noticed that the document was upside-down and rotated it 180 degrees and saved it.
Since then several people familiar with the process have exactly duplicated the workflow.
Now if there was different data regarding date of birth and place of birth on the whitehouse.gov version from what is on the original, then we’d have something to talk about.
Here’s a link to an interview with someone who’s seen the original Certificate Of Live Birth:
http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk
A congressional committee of the House could do the investigative work and then just turn their findings over to a prosecutor.
Another data dump—consisting entirely of irrelevancies.
Explain to me why the “birth certificate” that is represented in the PDF image has the typefaces of six different makes of typewriter.
So let me get this straight. When there is an original document, you want to focus on scanned digital images of the original document?
Why?
I haven’t evaded anything. I’ve addressed the core issues directly. If anyone still needs to verify where and when Barack Obama was born, more than seven years into his terms in office, convince a judge, any judge, to issue a court order for inspection of the vault edition Certificate of Live Birth and compare it to what it says on the (allegedly forged) whitehouse.gov image. Alternatively or additionally, a congressional subpoena would also allow for inspection of the original, hard copy, vault edition birth certificate.
Precisely. An image on the internet is NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Thus, since Obama has never proffered anything as his "birth certificate" except the pathetic, crude forgery in the PDF file, Obama HAS NEVER PROFFERED HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE to the public.
Thus, all Americans are entitled to hold that Obama is an illegal alien.
There is no original document that was “scanned” to generate the pathetic, forged PDF image.
THERE IS NO SUCH PIECE OF PAPER, because scanning a piece of paper does not result in the layers, the varieties of resolution, the varieties of bit depth, the mixture of color and monochrome elements, and the multiple typewriter typefaces. (Unless you believe that a nurse or clerk went dashing from typewriter to typewriter to fill out the form.)
In case I haven't been clear: There is no original document. No piece of paper exists. No piece of paper was put in a scanner to generate the "birth certificate" purportedly shown in the PDF image.
If there is no original document then someone should PROVE that to the world by getting a court order from a judge or a congressional subpoena from a committee chairperson and then when Hawaii officials fail to produce the original, hard copy, vault edition document, they can be held in contempt of court or contempt of Congress.
Just because someone posting on the Internet says that a paper document doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so.
Once again, if anyone still has questions about the authenticity of the whitehouse.gov version of the long form birth certificate, why have they not been able to interest a court or a member of Congress in their concerns about layers, resolution changes, monochrome elements or typewriter typefaces?
It seems that all judges, state election officials and members of Congress are interested it is assurance from the state of Hawaii that a birth document exists showing that Obama was born there and that he was at least 35 years of age when elected.
Something like this: For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
Instead of sneering that all it would take would be some court orders, Congressional hearings, and subpoenas, how about noting the fact that Obama has spent at least $2 million concealing all his personal documents, including his “birth certificate.” You seem to accept as NORMAL the fact that all of Obama’s documents are CONCEALED in the first place.
In the light of that fact, his proffering of a crude, amateurish forgery as his “birth certificate,” is evidence that an original does not exist.
Statements from corrupt, blackmailed, partisan, or terrorized officials from the state of Hawaii are devoid of interest.
There is no state or federal law or regulation that requires a presidential candidate or a person elected to the presidency to proffer a birth certificate.
As far as Obama was concerned this was always just a campaign strategy.
Under federal law, a U.S. Passport is considered primary evidence of citizenship and identity. A birth certificate can be proffered as “secondary evidence.”
“Types of Acceptable Documentary Evidence of Citizenship”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/435.407
And who said there was?
The fact that Obama has refused to proffer a real one, and has proffered a crude, laughable forgery, is evidence that no real one exists, and that Obama is, in fact, an illegal alien.
You still haven't explained why the crude, pathetic forgery contains the typefaces of six different typewriters.
I already said that legitimate computer software experts have made exact replicas of the whitehouse.gov pdf image using a standard workflow.
If there was ever to be a formal adversarial proceeding about the whitehouse.gov pdf image, it would pit one group of software reprographics experts against another.
Here’s the analysis of the replicated workflow using a Xerox Workcentre:
The existence of a single JPEG layer (color) containing mostly the background and multiple monochrome bit masks containing mostly text (MRC Compression).
A. The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately.
B. Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal.
C. Existence of a background color layer at 150 ppi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 ppi.
D. Scaling of the layers (48% and 24%).
Images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Xerox, WH LFBC
The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes via JBIG2
White border recreated
Replication of the double clipping mask
White holes in the background layer where text was lifted (x-ray).
The PDF contains an embedded JPEG which contains a JPEG comment ‘YCbCr’
The PDF contains an embedded JPEG which contains identical quantization matrices.
The alignment of two sides of the foreground images with 8 bit boundaries in a 300 ppi layer.
The alignment of two sides of the foreground images touching the internal objects.
Speckled blocks
Producer, Creator
Raw PDF data matches.
Halos created
Why are there typefaces from six different makes of typewriter?
You’re telling me that someone put a sheet of paper in a scanner, pushed the “Scan” button, and a PDF file was instantly created with all those anomalous characteristics?
B. as in B. S. as in S.
And why does the “birth certificate” bear the typefaces of six different typewriters?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.