Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by 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.
And here’s one for Red Steel:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”—US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Then Little District court Gibbles has it wrong.
Make that OBot puppet Gibble gets it wrong...
“President Obama Names John A. Gibney to United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia - April 14, 2010”
Who would you nominate, as a conservative American?
Right now? Rick Santorum. Easy.
Okay. Thanks.
You’re welcome! I love Cruz, he’s my senator. I’d like him to stay as my senator. :)
Here’s another one for Red Steel, from a Ronald Reagan appointed federal judge. Dr. Orly Taitz sued Obama under the Washington D.C. Code which has a “Quo Warranto” statute which, if successfully implemented, compels an elected or appointed official to prove by what authority he or she holds office upon being challenged on their credentials.
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
And from a George W. Bush appointed federal judge.
Captain Connie Rhodes, an Army dentist, wanted Obama to have to prove his eligibility before she deployed to Iraq. Captain Rhodes sued her commanding officer at Ft. Benning, Georgia, Colonel Thomas MacDonald.
Rhodes v. MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
FogBlower, all you are doing is showing the duplicity and the cowardice from the bench. Never get to discovery with them no matter what. And besides, Taitz fumbles and stumbles about in court and why FogNut Obots give Taitz all of their affection.
Lets see now...from Obama. Stolen Social Security number(s), forged birth certificates.
Yup, the government are all hiding under behind their mommy’s skirts.
The point was that judges appointed by both liberal and conservative presidents have rejected and dismissed eligibility lawsuits going back to 2008.
Those folks who are disappointed in a decision always blame the judge for ruling incorrectly. That goes with the territory but under our system, a bad decision by any one judge can be overturned on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court of the United States, so any single judge’s ruling is always subject to review by a higher court with more judges involved.
At least some of the blame for the lack of discovery in eligibility cases must be laid at the feet of attorneys on the “Obama is ineligible” side. Discovery is MUCH easier to achieve in criminal actions. Serious crimes such as forgery, government document tampering, identity theft, election fraud and felony fraud have been alleged and yet not one CRIMINAL investigation has been launched by any prosecutor anywhere in America. It is the responsibility of attorneys alleging crimes to convince both law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys to pursue official (not volunteer) investigations.
While Rome burns...
There is plenty of evidence to justify criminal investigations on Obama and his Admin, and much more to kick him out of office for defiling his oath of office.
The next step is to find a law enforcement official and a prosecuting attorney willing to pursue criminal charges.
The only ways to kick him out of office are on a conviction for High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Senate (currently that would require 22 Democrats to vote guilty) or resignation.
If, for example, the actual forgers were to be found and prosecuted, Obama might resign like Nixon did in order to accept a pardon from new President Biden.
I.
Impeachment is a POLITICAL process, LEGAL matters are Judicial.
Impeachment is a political act of the Legislative Branch.
Conversely eligibility is a legal matter determined Judicially.
If eligibility were a political matter then there would be no set standard and the mandate of Article II § 1, cl 5 would become an arbitrary and shifting standard - a party controlling the Legislature could with impunity install ineligible persons in the Executive. Article II § 1, cl 5 would be surplusage.
II.
Article II commands that an ineligible person shall not be President. A person who is not President can not be impeached.
Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after, a person failing to meet the requirements is at all times legally disqualified.
Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is. If the Framers intended an exception they would have written one.
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.
III.
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
IV.
The Legislature has no power to interfere with a Judicial determination of ineligibility.
There is no Legislative role, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5. There is no requirement that the Legislature impeach, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5.
To allow an ineligible person to remain in Office on the premise that the Legislature has not impeached would be an improper interference with the Judiciary and an improper combination between the Legislative and Executive Branches.
V.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from Office.
In my humble opinion, impeachment and trial is the only JUDICIAL process that can impact whoever is elected President under the provisions of the 12th Amendment. The person who receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”
It is obvious that once the person who has received a majority of the votes of the Electors takes the Oath of Office, that individual is the duly elected President of the United States and the Courts have ruled exactly that position.
Furthermore, the 20th Amendment addresses the process of choosing a president if the President-ELECT “failed to qualify.” There is no more President-Elect after someone takes the Oath of Office.
The Constitution mandates that a “TRIAL” be held in the U.S. Senate with the Chief JUSTICE presiding and 2/3rds of the Senators must find the impeached individual to be GUILTY of “High CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS.” To deny the judicial ramifications of impeachment is foolish.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to TRY all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be CONVICTED without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
JUDGEMENT in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party CONVICTED shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.”
“In my humble opinion, impeachment and trial is the only JUDICIAL...”
Is Impeachment conducted by the Judiciary? No, it is conducted by the Legislature. It can not be considered “Judicial” because it is not.
Ineligibility is a matter of law. Matters of law are for the Judiciary.
Article II § 1, cl 5 specifies “no person [] shall be eligible to the office of President”, not “no person [] shall be eligible to election”. Election does not launder ineligibility.
There is no role for the Legislature, to allow an ineligible person to remain in Office on the premise that the Legislature has not impeached would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5.
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
So let's hear no more about the French writings of Swiss philosophers like Vattel. "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is."
Until the Constitution is changed, the voters and their electors shall continue to apply the same standard that has always been used - "natural born citizen." "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is."
A suggestion to preserve one's sanity - accept the results of our Constitutional process.
Ted Cruz - 2016
And your point is?
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.