Ted Cruz Masterfully Deals With Trump Birther Protester In Peoria

“Horse crap!”

Typical baseless, scatological, and obscene remark from the Cruz supporters. The U.S. Supreme Court correctly observed the centuries old disqualification of children born abroad as anything else but naturalized citizens: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” The judge erroneously defied this fundamental principle of law and distinction between the manmade and therefore artificial legislative naturalization acts enacted as statutory law versus the natural law of natural born citizenship. Saying Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen by the authority of a legislative act of Congress, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, is the same as saying Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner is a natural born woman by the authority of a legislative act of Congress or an adopted child is the natural born child of an adoptive mother by a legislative act of Congress. The judge’s decision in Pennsylvania is obvious judicial error that should be and can be reversed by an appellate court that is honest.

I understand “IRE”, but not the unmitigated vitriol, it’s to where I don’t want to read past the article to comments because of the sometimes ridiculous or flat out hateful responses. People, well most anyway, used to be able to respond to each other in at least a more civil if sarcastic way. I say this not putting onus on one side more than the other, it’s equally nasty in a manner that used to be reserved for democrats.

“I understand “IRE”, but not the unmitigated vitriol”

You evidently have not been reading posts by Cruz supporters. A few days ago they were threatening people.

Ref: "JimRob is entitled to his opinion, and those of us who don’t believe he is a natural born citizen, are entitled to ours. It isn’t a settled matter in the courts, so it’s still up in the air. I will never believe he is a NBC - NEVER!" Thanks to Yosemitest, here is the Constitutional and Legal proof that Cruz is an NBC. You do not have to believe it, but here it is in black and white with full references: As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article

Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN’s Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

“ ... The Constitution’s 12th Amendment clearly saysthat Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session; and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid. Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clearthat each house of Congress may “judge” whether a would-be member of that housemeets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house. Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator. He wins election in his home state. But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old. If a dispute arises about Smith’s age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says, the Constitution clearly says the Senate is ”the judge” of Smith’s birth certificate dispute. Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility. Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution. Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a ”nonjusticiable political question.”

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

American Constitutional Law Volume 1.

the court will refuse to hear that case.

2

nonjusticiability

the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.

The court will not engage in political disputes. A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let’s take a close look at the word “NATURALIZATION”, its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived . What is the root word of ”Naturalization” ?

”Naturalize” !

naturalized

from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of “by birth” + -ize;

naturaliser

from natural.

Naturalizing

Not only could the Founding Father define “natural born citizen”, BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT ! The Naturalization Act of 1790, let’s read it !

United States Congress, ”An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,

wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,

to support the Constitution of the United States,

dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,

beyond Sea, or out of the limits

as natural born Citizens:

shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in

except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS, and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship ... Citizenship is mentioned inArticle 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments. If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:”All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inSection 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are ”citizens of the United States at birth:” Anyone born inside the United States ** There is an exception in the law - - the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition:a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asPuerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section. In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):”a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A ”national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. (Continued)

OH STOP IT! You guys are like little children. Mommy he started it it. The reason you guys do this as far as I’m concerned is because you enjoy it.

That renunciation does not make Cruz a US Citizen. All it may have done, is made him a stateless man, if he cannot prove his US Citizenship, and I have seen no evidence that he has. Perhaps he is still a citizen of Cuba.

I am so sick and disgusted with this crazy argument. Truly we live in Orwellian times!

We know he is a citizen because he holds a US passport.

Your analysis could not be more wrong. You are trying to use a law of naturalization to confer natural born citizenship upon a child born abroad, which is total legal nonsense. Natural born citizenship is determined by natural law, and natural law is the antithesis of statutory law and the antithesis of legislative acts of naturalization. Furthermore, the Congress is a legislative body, and legislative bodies have no jurisdiction over natural law or natural born citizenship. Natural law is only in the jurisdiction of the trier of fact in a court of law and in accordance with the precedents of common law. You are in effect attempting to equate the legal fiction of statutory law granting an adoptive mother the custody of the child of a natural birth mother and then falsely describing the adoptive mother as the natural mother of the adopted child. Likewise with a child born abroad in the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, the United States adopts the foreign born child as a citizen of the United States under the authority of a statutory law of naturalization which allows a U.S. citizen mother to authorize the adoption of U.S. citizenship at birth. The fact that the adoption of a child or the adoption of U.S. citizenship at birth does not change the fact it is in fact an adoption of motherhood and an adoption of citizenship rather than natural motherhood or natural born citizenship. The legal fiction of statutory naturalization law with naturalized citizenship at birth can in no way be actual citizenship by birth in the allegiance of the father’s and mother’s sovereign.

No, but the other poster is a Delta Bravo.

No, I was only responding to the tired Cruz-bot line that Cruz-bots are the epitome of reasonableness and gentleness. What I had said that got that little thing going was nothing.

Other than that, screw you.

Sorry, I’m not gay and you’re ugly. And thank you for proving my point.

People who are not eligible to acquire U.S. citizenship often enter the United States unlawfully and also unlawfully use forged documents to obtain a U.S. Passport and other U.S. identity documents.

You may not be gay(?) but your are definitely strange.

Well at least I’m not you, and that’s a big plus.

Ref:” You are trying to use a law of naturalization to confer natural born citizenship upon a child born abroad, which is total legal nonsense. Natural born citizenship is determined by natural law, and natural law is the antithesis of statutory law and the antithesis of legislative acts of naturalization. Furthermore, the Congress is a legislative body, ....”

WhiskeyX your analysis could not be more convoluted and less in keeping with the facts of the law and the facts of Cruz’s Natural Born Citizenship. The information I posted above, while long, is crystal clear. Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Amicus-Brief-of-Professor-Einer-Elhauge-FINAL-SIGNED.pdf