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.

[CodeToad]

Who cares? If the Democrats/Liberals/Communists can have Obama without ANY proof of ANY citizenship for ANY country as their president, then we can whomever we want. Rule of law no longer exists.

[Nero Germanicus]

Where a constitutional principle is not specifically spelled out, court rulings are used to interpret meanings. In America, the concept of natural born citizenship has relevance to the election of presidents and vice-presidents.

There is a biblical principle: “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet all kinds of contingencies and exceptions have emerged to that basic principle over the millennia. One such modern day exception is “justifiable homicide,” a LEGAL principle.

Minor v. Happersett (1874): “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve traveled for work to other countries. I find the concept of my child being born a month earlier or later, corresponding to US or foreign soil, would change her status of being able to be president silly.

Some would argue that the entire requirement is silly, but nevertheless that's where they drew the line.

Congress attempted to address the issue in 1790 with the "naturalization act of 1790", and Vattel addressed it even earlier than that. I personally think that being born in a Foreign country is no bar to serving.

I find no evidence in the writing of the Founding Fathers thought that way as well. Children of ambassadors and military born overseas would have the same standings as children born in the US.

If Vattel is the Authority upon which Article II is based, then the Children born of American Parents in foreign countries in the service of our nation, are indeed "natural born citizens."

If you can show me where in the Constitution it defines Natural Born citizen, then we can hold it above the congressional law.

If you can show me where "Arms" are defined in the Constitution, then we can hold it above congressional law. But if you can't, then congress can ban anything it wants, right? Isn't that your reasoning?

Otherwise, the Constitution set up the powers of Congress to make applicable law.

Which means they can ban any weapon they want to, they can ban any speech (remember, it's not defined in the constitution) they want to, and they can pretty much do anything they want to.

I wouldn't want to live under a government which operated by your theory. You wouldn't either, but you certainly need to ponder how your argument works to their advantage.

[Ray76]

And what has that to do with the principle that a Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from office?

[thackney]

"naturalization act of 1790" That would be an act by Congress. You have stated they have no ability in defining Natural Born Citizen. If that is an acceptable method to define, then go to my previous statements.

You want to add requirements that don't exist in the constitution or in law. As you said before it is axiomatic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Show me the original definition. Then you can claim it was redefined.

I have a better one. Show me how changing something doesn't change it.

No matter what it meant in 1787, if your CHANGE it, it won't mean the same thing it did before.

[DiogenesLamp]

Any ‘FR’eeper bothering with birtherism vis-a-vis Ted Cruz is a RAT OPERATIVE.

Yeah! We should ONLY apply it to Obama. What kind of fool wants our own side to follow rules?

[Tau Food]

And your point is?

My point is that there is no need to change the consitutional system by which we have selected presidents in 57 straight elections. More specifically, I oppose the notion that it would be a good idea to create a new "candidate screening" role for the Supreme Court, a role which isn't provided for in the Constitution and a role which the Court has never even hinted is among its constitutional powers.

The constitutional age, residency and citizenship standards are set forth in the Constitution. "As you said, "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is." A majority of electors are at least as capable as a majority of Supreme Court justices to apply the constitutional eligibility standards to candidates. As far as I am concerned, a majority of electors selected by the people are a lot more trustworthy than a majority of very political Supreme Court justices who have been chosen by politicians to further a political agenda while wearing creepy-looking robes.

But, what's important is not my opinion, but the opinion of the founders who delegated to electors the power to choose presidents and created no role in the process for the Supreme Court. Obviously, our Supreme Court appreciates this limitation. If some folks cannot accept this country's historical commitment to republicanism and believe that everything must be decided by courts, well, those folks are just bound to remain unhappy because after the next election, the score will be 58-0.

Ted Cruz - 2016

[DiogenesLamp]

Go back to scrubbing the DNC's toilets. You're not changing any minds here.

Minds have to be open before they can change.

[MHGinTN]

Take your hidden agenda to some other website where the twisting is appreciated. ... “A majority of electors are at least as capable as a majority of Supreme Court justices to apply the constitutional eligibility standards to candidates.” If you really believed that I would say you are a fool. But I suspect that that talking point is from a source not in your tauhead.

[DiogenesLamp]

According to every judge including SCOTUS who has been presented with POSHITUS' lack of documentation, NBC is ambiguous, not settled law, and if it's sauce for your goose, it's sauce for my gander.

Nobody has any standing, so anybody can run for POTUS.

The tables have turned, indeed. Now it's a last-stand fight for the Republic. You gonna let a few ignored laws stand in the way of electing a Reaganite Conservative?

Now this argument I can understand and even agree with. They don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't have to either.

My position is this. I don't believe Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" as was meant in the 1787 Article II of the US Constitution, but if he wins the Nomination, i'm going to vote for him.

[Nero Germanicus]

Everything but if you want to argue the issue in the abstract, be my guest.

“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
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

[Tau Food]

You may love (even worship) ivy league-educated judges, but consider the following:

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

Just give it some thought.

[MHGinTN]

I’ve already watched several conventions of these mythical electors who are ‘wise to History’. They are hacks rewarded for their blind loyalty to the party who sends them to the vote in DC. Your premise is rejected.

[MHGinTN]

Any ‘legal’ removal ... I would guess Lincoln, Arthur, and Kennedy might take exception.

[Ray76]

What do you claim is a change to the Constitutional system?

Legal issues are determined by the Judiciary, that is exclusively their role. This is not a “new candidate screening” role, there is no sua sponte action, if a court finding of fact determines that a person is ineligible that person is removed from Office.

[thackney]

In my opinion, it hasn’t changed. Children born from US citizens are US citizens; they are naturally citizens from birth, there is no other naturalization process required to become citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

I do not jest. Anyone who litigates against Cruz must cite relevant case law that will be turned against zero instantly once any judge accepts it. Precedence.

The relevant case law is Rogers v Bellei.

Aldo Mario Bellei was born in Italy to an American Mother and an Italian father. He shares the exact same citizenship status as Ted Cruz in all the relevant particulars.

Bellei was Stripped of his citizenship because he failed to meet the residency requirement stipulated in the STATUTE PASSED BY CONGRESS which made him a citizen.

As I have pointed out NUMEROUS times in the past, a "natural born citizen" CANNOT be stripped of citizenship. As the Court said in Bellei,

Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.

Conditional citizenship is NOT "natural born citizenship." If you are a "natural born citizen" what you do subsequent to birth can have no impact on your citizenship.

Checkmate, sucka.

I think you need to look at the board again.

[DiogenesLamp]

Posterity means our children and our children's children.

The Constitution was ordained and established to secure the blessings of liberty to our children, their children, and their children's children, and so on and on.

Just noticed this while reading through "Rogers v Bellei."

“It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time [when Rev.Stat. § 1993 was under consideration] attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,”

“the heritable blood of citizenship was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship.”

“Foreign Relations of the United States, Pt. 1, 1873, p. 259.”

[Ray76]

I’ve explained how a Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from Office.

If you claim this is erroneous then please rebut the specific error with facts and a minimum of rhetoric.