Canadian Born Gov. Jennifer Granholm Was Naturalized In 1980. When Did Ted Cruz Naturalize?

Cold Case Posse Supporter | July 21, 2013 | Cold Case Posse Supporter

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.

WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.

GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”

With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?

Continued below.

[Tau Food]

Yes, exactly. That is how the Court explains its lack of constitutional authority to attempt to interfere with some of the decision-making functions of other constitutional decision-makers. However, there are some who will not accept that reality. They believe that all questions under the sun are justiciable questions because if A sues B and raises that question, well, geez we have a case because the filing fee was paid and because, look, there is a case file now. So, the court must be able to resolve all cases and controversies.

They don't get it and they're not going to get it because they don't want to get it. If they see what they perceive to be a defect or wrong or injustice, they are just certain that some court can and must provide a meaningful remedy or there will be a gaping hole in the universe and that ordinary life just cannot continue. Fortunately, our courts (for the most part) recognize their limitations.

[mojitojoe]

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

That act was repealed in 1795, the language removed, because Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to deem anyone "as Natural Born." They only have the power of naturalization, which requires action by man-made law. A Natural Born Citizen requires no agency of man-made law, because by virtue of their birth to TWO citizens on the country's soil, they must be such, naturally. This is simple logic.

Why on Earth would the Founders have included as eligible persons whose Natural Born Citizen status (and presumed natural loyalty) is in doubt? Answer: They absolutely would not have. Jus Soli birthright citizenship didn't even exist in the US until the 14th Amendment (more man-made law).

Take a long hard look around at all of the unconstitutional/impeachable stuff that "Obama" is getting away with scott-free. Well, of course he is! He knows he's ineligible, and knows that all of Congress knows he's ineligible and they know that he knows they know, and therefore he can do virtually anything he wants to with impunity, because all of our "leaders" are up to their eyeballs in the fraud along with him and his handlers/enablers. It's called misprision of a felony and yes, is absolutely the biggest political crime and conspiracy in American, if not human history.

[little jeremiah]

Yes.

[MHGinTN]

Love the puppy! OEO aka Non squeaker not so much. Nwahahahahaha

[itsahoot]

Therefore state courts are controlling authority on eligibility.

I see evidence every day now that States control nothing without Federal permission. Having said that I don't know a single person stupid or otherwise that believes a State can decide to change what is clearly define in the Constitution.

Courts however have unusual authority that politicians find convenient to use to suit their purposes, they make great scape goats as well. Win, win for the crooks, what could be better?

It all depends, I guess, on what the meaning of "is," is.

Truth does not depend on how many people agree with me, but power does and the bad guys now seem to have all the power and ignorance of truth lets them wield it. Speaking truth to power doesn’t seem to have the same effect as it once did, I pray that soon it will.

[itsahoot]

Pelosi: Congress Must Uphold Oath to ‘Protect and Defend’ Constitution... by Passing Gun Control...

Why truth matters, but not much. Power determines truth today and five black robed tyrants decide what is truth, unless of course a president decides otherwise.

[Ray76]

So INA 301(a)/8 USC § 1401(a) are simply declaratory, but (g) is an affirmative act? What about (b) through (f)--which ones are declaratory and which ones affirmative? On what basis do you make the distinction, other than your preferred outcome?

What distinguishes (a) from the others? You tell me.

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian... tribe
(c)(d)(g)(h) born outside the US
(e) born in outlying possession
(f) foundling

8 C.F.R. § 301(a) is a restatement of Amend XIV § 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".

8 C.F.R. § 301(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) collectively naturalizes other persons

[Ray76]

The law, 8 C.F.R. § 301(g), is a naturalization law that designates a class of persons citizens at birth. Cruz is a member of this class.

Naturalization statute may assign citizenship at any point. It may be at birth; or upon the naturalization of the parent(s); or, for those after 18 years of age, upon completion of a process.

For example:

8 C.F.R. § 301-309 “Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization” collectively naturalizes classes of persons and assigns citizenship at birth.

8 C.F.R. § 310-348 “Nationality Through Naturalization” defines classes of persons who are eligible and a process by which eligible individuals naturalize.

[Ray76]

Eligibility is determined by law, not plebiscite.

[Ray76]

Eligibility is not a political question.

If it were there would be no need for Article II.

[Nero Germanicus]

Courts have dismissed eligibility challenges on the grounds of political question. It’s all in how attorneys frame the issue.

For example: this lawsuit went to the U.S. Supreme Court but was denied a hearing:
Keyes, Barnett, et. al v Obama, et. al.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

Kerchner v. Obama, Mario Apuzzo’s lawsuit was also dismissed, in part, on political question grounds.

[Nero Germanicus]

Look at how many states have told Barry Soetoro to take his Obamacare exchanges and shove them. That’s why he’s gone back to the drawing board.

[Nero Germanicus]

From Black’s Law Dictionary: “Collective naturalization takes place where a government, by treaty or cession, acquires the whole or part of the territory of a foreign nation and takes to itself the inhabitants thereof, clothing them with the rights of citizenship either by the terms of the treaty or by subsequent legislation.”

[Hot Tabasco]

He has gone through life thinking he could never be president.

What a waste, I would have voted for him.......but look at the bright side, he would have been run out of office once the libs found out you're a FReeper and you'd have to go into hiding after the allegations of alcoholism, child abuse, public nudity, bowling, nose picking and littering began.

So count your blessings......

[Ray76]

And your point?

[Red Steel]

LoL. Long time no see , and yeah, 0.E.O is NS for 7th or 8th incarnation.

[Red Steel]

Oops, make ‘incarnation’ = reincarnation. ; ^)

[itsahoot]

Therefore state courts are controlling authority on eligibility.

I forgot this point. States decide how to run their elections and how to dispense their electors, but they are not entitled to their own interpretation of the Constitution, and neither are the Courts, they just took the power and the Congress and the States let them.

[Red Steel]

Here's one for Nero...

- - - -

From Bouvier Law Dictionary, 1914

From Bouvier Law Dictionary, 1914