Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

MMDNewswire ^ | February 4, 2015

[wtd]

• PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY OF TED CRUZ, MARCO RUBIO AND BOBBY JINDAL CHALLENGED AT SUPREME COURT

  Washington D.C. (MMD Newswire) February 4, 2015 – The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact "natural born Citizens".

  Mrs. Fair said: "Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents who were not United States citizens at the time of their respective births. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen. Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a 'citizen' of the United States at birth. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Ted Cruz by statute."

  As most all know, under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President." Mrs. Fair continued: "That phrase 'natural born Citizen' has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. So are they "natural born Citizens" eligible to be President? I think the People deserve to know the answer to that question before the next Presidential Campaign starts in earnest."

  Mrs. Fair, who has shepherded her case through the complexities of the legal system by herself to the Supreme Court concluded: "My efforts were never about Mr. Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, my efforts were about insuring that the Constitution was respected and enforced by those charged with those duties. Where a phrase in the Constitution - such as 'natural born Citizen' - is undefined, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret such a phrase. As the Supreme Court itself said in the 1922 case of Fairchild v. Hughes, I have: 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.' By repeatedly refusing to 'say what the law is' regarding 'natural born Citizen', the Supreme Court would abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of their whim and caprice to whatever political ends that super-legislature may possess."

  See a copy of the petition here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254604115/Fair-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari

  See the Supreme Court Docket for Case No 14-933 here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-933.htm

  For More Information Contact: TRACY A. FAIR: (410-552-5907) OR TRACYSPLACE2002@VERIZON.NET

[GregNH]

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any other part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'. Jindal and Rubio are not NBC's either as described above.

[C. Edmund Wright]

nice pretzel logic.

[GregNH]

You’re funny. Law and facts disturb you?

[C. Edmund Wright]

no what disturbs me is contradictory false analogy and flawed logic. I noticed three examples of this in a quick 20 second scan. At that point, I lost all interest in your dissertation.

Now I started reading hoping to be enlightened. That didn’t happen. I’ve no interest in helping you figure it out.

[GregNH]

Great arguments, thanks!

[C. Edmund Wright]

Example 1: cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any other part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant

That sounds nice, but clearly that is contradicted by much of our history, and clearly invalidates the notion of precedent.

Example 2: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Now by your own standard above, separating citizens on the basis you advocate violates THESE very words, or makes them irrelevant.

Example 3: Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten.

Really? So you're going to hold every written word relevant to an unwritten standard? Didn't the Founders include - IN WRITING - the applicable natural law? Again, you tie yourself in non sequitur pretzels.....

Example 4: They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

Now this is just straw argument, false choice. It is not a situation of anyone ignoring anything - it's a case of your interpretation being different from most conservative legal Constitutional scholars. Sorry, you cannot claim the legal high ground here. You simply have an opinion. The other side has an opinion.

I could go on, but I violated two of my rules already - A: ignoring long posts...brevity is the soul of wit....your post did not measure up.

B: Responding with long posts: I never do this, and I could go on and on....but already violated two self imposed rules.

[C. Edmund Wright]

check out 126......

[mdmathis6]

“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos”

Hah!
I wonder how many get the Star Trek reference! Very Funny!

“I AM TIIIIRED....”

(I went for Colonel Green personally; as for Kahn...he was so 2 dimensional in his thinking that we had to send Nixon to China!

(just a little fun on a cold blustery morning!)

[mdmathis6]

“but already violated two self imposed rules”

We love and forgive you! I have trouble keeping my new year’s resolutions also!

[C. Edmund Wright]

...yeah, but I may not forgive myself....:)

[Nero Germanicus]

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t invalidate Article II, Section 1, it further defines it.

Who is it that gets to interpret and enforce natural law when there is a conflict?

The NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 stated that “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:”

Just like it was for Barack Obama, it will be up to the governments of the states, the local, state and federal judiciary, and Congress to rule on a case by case basis on the eligibility of any particular candidate.

[mlo]

Nope. Wrong. Birther rationalization isn’t law.

[GregNH]

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

[Nero Germanicus]

The words “two” and “parents” do not appear in the Constitution and the concept of two U.S. citizen parents being required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen has never been codified in a statute or in case/common law.
While that may have been Representative John Bingham’s opinion and intent, it is not the law of the land. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause says “All persons...” and “all” has been interpreted to include presidential candidates and presidents.
It is telling to me that Congress has never held a hearing on the meaning and requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
If Congress was to pass a bill and a president signed it into law or if the Supreme Court was to rule that two U.S. citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen, I would be supportive, but that is not the case at this time.

[GregNH]

Bingham on two occasions spoke of the definition on the floor of the house without objection.

Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

[Nero Germanicus]

In the absence of a vote in both chambers on a legislative measure and a president’s signature, speeches given on the floor of the House are not laws..

Presidents with foreign born parents: Andrew Jackson (Irish mother & father), Thomas Jefferson (English mother), James Buchanan (Irish father), Chester Arthur (Irish father), Woodrow Wilson (English mother), Herbert Hoover (Canadian mother), and Barack Obama (Kenyan father).

Supreme Court of The United States: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

[jsanders2001]

The irony, oh the irony.....a hamster is eligible now....

[jsanders2001]

> So let’s say Mama sneaks across the border and has little Pedro. Pedro is a citizen. Couple of years later she takes him back to Mexico. 30 years later he returns and runs for President.

He’s a natural born citizen?

If the Communist Democrats want him to be. They will do whatever it takes whether that includes creating a fake birth certificate, killing the custodian of records, or harassing and ridiculing anyone who believes the birth certificate is a fraud by calling them “birthers”...

[GregNH]

In the absence of a vote in both chambers on a legislative measure and a president’s signature

So you are not satisfied because a law defining common knowledge does not exist.

[Nero Germanicus]

Whether I am satisfied or not is irrelevant. Over the last 150 years since adoption of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, there has been nothing stopping any Congress from writing down “common knowledge” in a statute.

When there are challenges to a candidate’s eligibility, the challengers have tended to use the courts as the primary locus for petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Courts look to the letter of the law of the land to make their determinations.