Is Ted Cruz Eligible for the Presidency?

The Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation) ^ | March 24, 2015 | Elizabeth Slattery

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: What was the chain of custody of all these “birth certificates” submitted to these various pipsqueak judges by “Obama’s attorneys” and the “Democratic Party”? Were these “birth certificates” sent through the U.S. postal system directly from the Hawaii Department of Health to the judges?

And has even one of these cases proceeded, or haven’t they all been stillborn as a result of “lack of standing”?

[AmericanVictory]

It is foolish to think that challenges will not be made. It is also foolish to think that because the Fraud in the WH was given a pass Senator Cruz will be given one. There is no precedent and the issue has not been resolved. The real question is: will any of the large number of Cruz haters be granted standing? He will not be able to elevate the rule of ridicule above the rule of law like the half-white did. Judges who see themselves as progressive will not overlook the unresolved issue as they did for the great fraud in the WH.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Cruz is a brilliant lawyer. I have no doubts that he knows that he qualifies.

Either that, or that he knows that he doesn't, and by running, he is initiating some masterful grand-plan that will net us a great president, punish the traitors, and set the US back on the right course.

[DiogenesLamp]

What cameras? None of the civil suits was televised.

Metaphors go right over your head. I assure you, every judge involved in one of these was all too cognizant of what would have happened had they ruled anything which impugned Obama. That would have been the point at which the cameras ceased to be metaphorical.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re making up your own version of what Governor Lingle said. The essence of her statement was that the Director of Health: “...personally view[ed] the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, “ “...the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. “ “It’s been established. He was born here.”

Again, this boils down to "Take our word for it. No, you can't see proof."

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founders and Framers who were in Congress in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution, saw fit to EXEMPT from needing to be naturalized “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

And here you are with that cognitive dissonance again. The Act doesn't exempt anyone, it APPLIES to the foreign born children of American Citizens. It naturalizes them at birth. That is why it is called a "naturalization" act.

From George Bancroft’s “A History of the Formation of the Constitution of The United States of America” (1882):

1882 is a long ways from 1787. I put little stock in what people say nearly 100 years after the fact. If there is any support for this contention, you should have quoted the original sources, not this century after the fact assertion.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well there is that pesky section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

There is no problem with full faith and credit, the problem is that the State of Hawaii is failing to cooperate in providing the CORRECT proof, and attesting to it's legitimacy.

The documents they have so far provided DO NOT CONSTITUTE necessary proof of birth in the United States. They would from most any other state, but not from Back Door American citizenship mill Hawaii.

Any state which allows someone to be born elsewhere yet still receive a birth certificate, and gives the parents up to a year to show a child to the appropriate authorities, cannot be regarded as an acceptable source of proof for birth on American soil.

Their attestation "or abstract of the record on file" completely destroys any evidentiary value for the document.

[DiogenesLamp]

Any public record can be challenged. Self-authentification means that the issuing authority does not have to prove that an official record is authentic. The burden of proof is on the challenger to an official document’s authenticity.

There is no ability to challenge when they have sole possession of the records and refuse to allow anyone to see the original.

If any of those gutless wonders of our legal system had any brains, they would have demanded Hawaii send a copy of the original, and require them to attest that it *IS* the original, and that no other such documents exist in their records.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did you bother to read the article? This one actually proves, using evidence all the way from the founding, that he IS eligible.

I'm going to have to read the article. I will be shocked if it tells me anything I didn't already know, but since you seem to think it proves it using evidence all the way from the founding, I'll have to see just what this evidence is.

[Arthur McGowan]

If Obama has an actual Hawaiian birth certificate, why didn’t he produce it when Col. Lakin requested evidence that Obama is a citizen?

[Arthur McGowan]

You seem to be good at producing pro-Obama data dumps, but don’t show any interest in answering questions about Obama’s crudely-forged “birth certificate.”

[Nero Germanicus]

I produce the facts. If facts are too much for you, go away.
Birthers were instrumental in getting Obama elected and reelected. I’m going to do all I can to make sure that doesn’t happen with Hillary Clinton if it should turn out that Ted Cruz is a strong candidate for president or vice-president against her.

[Arthur McGowan]

You have produced no facts, other than the fact that multiple people have claimed to have seen a “birth certificate.” But the only “birth certificate” ever put before the public is a crude, amateurish forgery. Your attitude about this rank, shoddy forgery is that its existence is to be ignored, as you have studiously refused to answer any questions about it here.

[Godebert]

"I just posted it as an authoritative guide."

The laws of nature and of nature's God are the 'authoritative guide' used by the Founding Fathers.

Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution can interpret themselves, nor is the Declaration the ultimate standard for interpreting the Constitution. The laws of nature and of nature's God are the standard. The Declaration, however, clearly articulates principles of that law and the Constitution reflects the practical interweaving of those principles in its provisions. Without the immutable laws of nature and of nature's God as an interpretive guide, however, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution lose their moral force.

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington, President John Quincy Adams noted:

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . . (yet) even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration as self-evident truths.

By invoking the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God's law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God's Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature's God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God's creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

[MamaTexan]

The purpose of the full faith and credit clause was to provide uniformity in the legislatures and the courts. A statement from a registrar is NOT a judicial record OR proceeding unless that statement is entered into evidence in a court of law in the originating State, goes through the judicial proceeding of that state, and later gets transferred as part of those records to another state.

------

And while the discussion concerning full faith and credit is interesting, it does nothing to prove Obama is natural born citizen even if he were born in Hawaii.

From the 1963 Kenyan Constitution
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963: Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1).
Chapter 1 - Citizenship

-------

Children of citizens of Kenya born outside Kenya are ALSO citizens.

Gee, that sounds a lot like-
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 212. Citizens and natives / Law of Nations

**

And the English common law from Coke -
There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.
Calvin’s Case - The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/911#lf0462-01_mnt034

***

To Blackstone
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.
1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
(snip)
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

-----

While being born within the boundaries of the country is important, it is only a TEMPORARY, local allegiance.....It's the inherited Allegiance that's the key to someone being natural born.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I thought that military bases in themselves were considered sovereign territory, making McCain eligible.

[Nero Germanicus]

I already posted links to the copies of birth certificates submitted in evidence for judges: U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in the ballot challenge lawsuit Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et al and the copy of the Obama birth certificate submitted in an Amicus Brief from the Alabama Democratic Party to the Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court in the lawsuit Mc Innish & Goode v Beth Chapman, Secretary of State of Alabama.

[Nero Germanicus]

Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified. A document that bears no seal if:

(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A); and

(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

(3) Foreign Public Documents. A document that purports to be signed or attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign country’s law to do so. The document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the genuineness of the signature and official position of the signer or attester — or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the signature or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the signature or attestation. The certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If all parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to investigate the document’s authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:
(A) order that it be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification; or

(B) allow it to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.

(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:

(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or

(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.

(5) Official Publications. A book, pamphlet, or other publication purporting to be issued by a public authority.

(6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.

(7) Trade Inscriptions and the Like. An inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or control.

(8) Acknowledged Documents. A document accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment that is lawfully executed by a notary public or another officer who is authorized to take acknowledgments.

(9) Commercial Paper and Related Documents. Commercial paper, a signature on it, and related documents, to the extent allowed by general commercial law.

(10) Presumptions Under a Federal Statute. A signature, document, or anything else that a federal statute declares to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

(11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

(12) Certified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. In a civil case, the original or a copy of a foreign record that meets the requirements of Rule 902(11), modified as follows: the certification, rather than complying with a federal statute or Supreme Court rule, must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to a criminal penalty in the country where the certification is signed. The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11)

[MamaTexan]

Posting the federal rules is not refutation of the Original Intent of the clause in question.

[Labyrinthos]

Thanks. Best explanation yet.