Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

You didn’t answer any of my questions. You’re just repeating the same stuff without addressing any of my content. This is why it is a waste of time to talk to you.

Lurkers (if there are any), take note.

Lurkers, the cross-check for which of us (Natufian or me) is accurate is the additional requests using the standard wording to confirm the authenticity of a copy. Bennett asked Onaka to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record” and Onaka would not verify that. KS SOS Kris Kobach asked Onaka to verify that the “information contained in” the White House image is identical to the information contained in the original record, and Onaka wouldn’t verify that. Remember, he has to verify whatever the requestor asks him to verify, as long as he CAN.

If Natufian is right, then why wouldn’t Onaka verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information contained in the original record? He was not asked if the information “matched”. He was asked if it was IDENTICAL. And he would not verify that. He also wouldn’t put his own initials next to the signature stamp of those 2 verifications, nor the raised seal.

The only verification he would put his initials and the raised seal on was the one where no birth facts were asked to be verified and it was only asked if the “information contained in the White House image matches”(which would work equally well for a non-valid BC as for a valid one, because the White House image doesn’t contain any information about evidence to support a late filing or alteration).

IOW, the only one Onaka had no qualms about was the request that works equally well for a non-valid BC. Which is exactly how MDEC designed their request. Because they knew that Onaka had verified to Bennett that the record is non-valid and they knew Onaka COULDN’T verify anything except that the claims that are actually included on the forgery are also claimed on the non-valid record. The non-valid record has extra information, though, that the forgery doesn’t have - specifically the notations that the BC is late and altered. They couldn’t even switch the order of the words around, to ask if the information in the original record matches the information in the White House image, because then the request would be asking about everything that’s on the real record, including the LATE and ALTERED stamps, and that DOESN’T match what’s on the White House image, because the White House image lacks that information.

DL: "What does the verdict have to do with the understanding of the Justices on a point of law? Dicta or Holding, the Judge is still stating the understanding of the court. Making it part of a verdict does not make the opinion of a judge any more or any less correct."

I assume you feel exactly the same way about Justice Gray's and the other five justices' opinion in Wong Kim Ark.

MT: "We were not discussing the Minor decision YET.

We are discussing Wong Kim Ark.

Until I have your response on that subject, the discussion of court cases will proceed no further."

Fair enough.

From WKA two passages:

The first explains the English Common Law and its application to the US.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

The second passage explains the 14th Amendment and how it creates "natural born citizens".

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."

[The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born in the US except children of foreign ambassadors, of invading armies and of members of Indians tribes.]

"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides".

[It's the citation to Lord Coke and the Calvin's Case that is the key. The allegiance owed by an alien to the US is as Lord Coke said in the Calvin's Case, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject"". He is using Lord Coke's words to show what applies in the US. The child born in the US to alien parents is natural born. And he repeats the Binney quote as being proof of his assertion.]

I've shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.

Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States

-----

[The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born in the US except children of foreign ambassadors, of invading armies and of members of Indians tribes.]

Well....that's VERY odd!

One of the guys who helped write it didn't seem to think so.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

“I’ve shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.
Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes ‘natural born’.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of ‘citizen’ in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.”

Are you talking about Minor or Wong?

The first part of your comment:
1), 2), and 3) are the Minor decision

and

“Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.””

This is from the Wong decision.

The first part of your comment: 1), 2), and 3) are the Minor decision

Look again.

Wong Kim Ark
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

-----

This is from the Wong decision.

Yet another post from with no discussion, nor any rebuttal of the previous points made.

I must say, your becoming quite the disappointment.

“Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn’t defined by the 14th amendment”

And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.

This is wrong in two ways. Waite said it was the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution to define NBC as all children born in the Country to citizen parents. You already admitted this is NOT in English common law. Second, the Minor court gave a negative declaration that was affirmed by the Ark court. The 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment only recognizes citizenship for those born in the country to resident aliens. If that is equivalent to English common law, then it means that English common law does NOT define NBC. Again, the only way this can be reconciled is to admit which common law the Minor court used to define NBC by requiring citizen parents. We all know where it came from, so it's okay to admit it and to admit you've been wrong about this from day one.

The Minor court screwed up by using Vattel as if he gave an accurate summary of common law. However, the passage they used didn’t use the term NBC, and only a bad translation from 1797 made it look like it did. And that passage was not an attempt to summarize English common law, anyways.

That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding. For Minor’s purpose, all that mattered is that no one disputed the idea that a child born in the country to two citizen parents was a citizen.

That is why WKA, with a long and detailed review of the law and the meaning of NBC & NBS is considered binding, and Minor is not. Minor was not about who is a citizen. It was about if all citizens had a right to vote. It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.

That you cannot see that is proof you are nuts.

The second passage explains the 14th Amendment and how it creates "natural born citizens".

I admire a good imagination as much as anyone, but there is NOTHING in that passage that says the 14th amendment creates natural-born citizens. That term is not even contained within the passage. The phrase that Justice Gray uses is "citizenship by birth." This is a separate phrase. He uses it several times in the decision but completely separate from natural-born citizen. Further, he specifically says that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizen while he says that the 14th amendment DOES define "citizenship by birth." These are two different things. NBC requires citizen parents and citizenship by birth requires parents who are resident aliens, which he specifies: "all children here born of resident aliens."

It's the citation to Lord Coke and the Calvin's Case that is the key. The allegiance owed by an alien to the US is as Lord Coke said in the Calvin's Case, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject"". He is using Lord Coke's words to show what applies in the US. The child born in the US to alien parents is natural born. And he repeats the Binney quote as being proof of his assertion.

Yeah, not so much. Calvin's case establishes a fundamental rule that requires parents and the child to have perpetual allegiance and direct obedience to the crown. There's is no parallel for this in U.S. law. The closest we come is through the subject clause, which Gray cites as the parents having permanent residence and domicil. That's not the same at all. Second, the Binney quote shows how weak this citation is. Read it closely:

as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen

"As much a citizen" does not mean "equal to" a natural-born citizen. An apple is as much a piece of fruit as an orange, but an apple is still not an orange. While someone like Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.) he is still not a natural-born citizen unless he was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. If this were "key" to defining 14th amendment citizenship for Wong Kim Ark, the decision could have stopped here, but it doesn't. Instead it goes on for almost 40 pages trying to build a stronger justification for making Ark a citizen. This is because Gray had to try to trump his own legal precedent in Elk v. Wilkins as well as try to get around Slaughterhouse and Minor. He did so by creating a second and SEPARATE class of citizenship through the 14th amendment that is NOT the same thing as natural-born citizenship.

The translation is not "bad" (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it's not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents. The WKA court RESPECTED that definition and STOPPED using the term NBC after the citation of Minor. Instead, Gray uses a separate term that is ONLY defined by the 14th amendment. And that is different because he specifically said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't have it both ways.

That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding.

It wasn't made "in passing." The statement was used to reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen. And if it was made in passing, why did Justice Gray cite it verbatim in Wong Kim Ark?? And why does the Luria decision cite Minor and NOT WKA as the Supreme Court precedent on Art II presidential eligibility if it was just "made in passing"??

It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.

Wong Kim Ark and Luria prove otherwise:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

Why does Ark point out the highlighted part if it is JUST a voting rights case?? And here's Luria which again cites Minor in terms of citizenship:

Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

See, that's a lot of uses of the word "citizen" and NO use of the term "voting rights" ... and NO MENTION of Wong Kim Ark. Hmmmmmm. Spin, Obots, spin.

“The translation is not “bad” (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it’s not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents.”

You are factually incorrect. The translation WAS bad, since the term NBS (sujets naturel in French) was not in that passage, although Vattel used it once elsewhere, so he knew about it. That means he CHOSE not to use it.

And WKA only cited Minor to show that the Slaughterhouse decision was wrong, and the WKA decision did not, in any way, endorse the passing comment found in Minor.

Here it is:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

That is NOT, in any way, an endorsement that two citizen parents are needed to be a natural born citizen, particularly since the spent half the decision showing it was NOT.

Sorry, edge. You are a nut.

Vattel used the term "naturel" which the framers translated as "natural-born" in 1781. The translation of Vattel was changed to fit this to the contemporary and prevailing understanding. Why else was it changed?? Why would it be changed to a "bad" translation instead of FIXED from a bad translation?? Like always, you aren't making any sense.

And WKA only cited Minor to show that the Slaughterhouse decision was wrong, and the WKA decision did not, in any way, endorse the passing comment found in Minor.

The Minor citation doesn't show that Slaughterhouse is wrong. It only shows that it wasn't comprehensive. Slaughterhouse considered exclusions via the subject clause. The Minor exclusion is NOT based on the subject clause. A person born to citizen parents would also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but that's not what the Minor definition of NBC is about. It's an exclusion to the ENTIRE citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. This is the simple truth you aren't honest enough to admit. Why else do these courts keep bringing up citizen parents??

And it's already been shown several times that you don't understand what you're quoting in this passage or that you're simply lying about it. It's time for you to admit the truth. Namecalling doesn't stop you from being wrong on this. You know I'm right. It's time to admit it. You've been schooled over and over and over and over. /i

Your questions are irrelevant or maybe I should say they are only relevant to someone who is ignoring the facts and looking to construct an extremely complex and lumpy conspiracy theory.

You can parse the wording and interpret the minutiae of the documents as much as you like but you fail to address the core of the issue.

1. Arizona SOS Bennett asked the Hawaii DOH to verify the facts of Obama's birth and listed out all the data points from the Obama BC released by the WH.

2. The Hawaii DOH sent a verification of Obama's birth back to Bennett.

3. Hawaii law states that any verification shall be considered for all purposes that the event took place as described and that all the facts of the event are as described by the applicant (Bennett).

Those three points are hard, undeniable facts and they are deadly to your conspiracy theory which is why you don't want to talk about them.

Making a song and dance about the presence or otherwise of Onaka's initials on the responses is just handwaving. They are not relevant. They neither add weight to nor undermine the legality of the verification.

Focussing on whether he used the words 'matches' or 'identical' is more posturing. They are not relevant and do not affect the legality of the verification.

That's why no one believes you.

While someone like Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.) he is still not a natural-born citizen unless he was born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

Twice now the voters and the electors found Obama to be qualified. As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications. In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.

So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.

If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.

In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications. The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.

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.