Ted Cruz 'birther' row may go to court as Democrat gets ready for case focusing on Cruz's MOTHER

If Cruz or any one else was running for POTUS is born to a mother and Father who are both citizens of this country and he is born on U.S. soil, this would not be a question.

There is no doubt that a child born under these circumstances is a NBC, any other configuration opens the argument he is not, ergo the dispute we are having right now.

Said child requires no statute, no intervention or definition from congress, it just is a natural, indisputable conclusion of Nature and Natural Law.

Now ask yourself, what do you think the Founding Fathers intended with the phrase Natural Born Citizen?

I will gladly vote for Cruz should he be the nominee, I think he is a good conservative man who is not without fault though I’ll sacrifice my principles in order to keep Hillary out of office. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Even Snopes agrees with Cruz.

No problem then. To respond to Grayson's lawsuit, the Cruz team just needs to print out a copy of the page on the Snopes site.

Alan Grayson just needs to find a like-minded Liberal judge, and the Obama Administration goes into overtime.

Every time the Democrats mention Cruz's birth place,
Republicans should immediately mention the lack of any documentation that would qualify Obama as a natural born citizen who is eligible for the office of the Presidency. Obama's administration must be shown to be the illegal, illegitimate administration that it is so that every thing that the Democrast have imposed on America through this fraudulent President can be overturned in the future.

That is what I was wondering about. 1940 census is helpful.

Grayson's from Florida. We could possibly have him Baker Acted.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

-possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
-is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Sticks and stones may break our bones, but being called a birther does not bother us, in fact, we do have questions about Obama and about Cruz, so if you want to sum this up as "birthers" go right ahead. We "birthers" wear the label proudly. We will admit we are wrong and are concerns are baseless, when we are rationally persuaded otherwise. Just so you know, being called names is not the slightest bit persuasive; we are just not that weak and insecure. But I guess the point is not to persuade us it is just to shut us up because you cannot present good reasons why we should think otherwise than we do.

I totally agree with you that Obama is an illegitimate president, and furthermore I think the office of president should be considered to have stood stood vacant for the last 8 years; that legislation signed by Obama, appointments made by Obama, executive orders by Obama, etc., are void. So why oh why are we messing this up by trying to make Cruz a legal candidate when he clearly does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements? Let us elect a president about whom there is no question regarding his constitutional right to serve as president, so that there is an easy way for some future congress with some intestinal fortitude, and loving this country more than their careers, and caring nothing at all about what the media say, to fix all terrible things Obama has done?

Democrats present the dumbest arguments.

The mother of Ted Cruz... smh.

Have you seen this?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

Yes. But I think it confirms Cruz’s mother wouldn’t have been a Canadian citizen at the time it was issued, right?

Looks to me like they are relying on people who support Cruz more then anything else. This is Breitbart, so I suspect this article is intended to get out in front of something coming down the pike. It is seldom that Trump mentions things that do not end up escalating.

As we learned repeatedly during the Obama era, he has NO STANDING to sue, so it should be thrown out as quickly as the Obama eligibility suits, n’est pas?

He’s just a “concern troll”. He’s pretending to care about the impact this might have on Cruz, all the while doing his level best to make sure it has as much impact as possible, even if that means posting trash from lib scum like Grayson.

“How did he examine that birth certificate when no one can find a record of it?”

Oh gee, I wonder how.

Do you think that maybe Cruz’ mother might have a copy of her own birth certificate?

What of it? Everyone knows they were living in Canada at that time, and that is all that document actually shows.

BS. It’s liberal drivel. “Defending” yourself from morons is stupid.

They are ALL WRONG. Get over it.

Geez, what cowards and idiots some FReepers are.

A document uncovered by Breitbart News indicates that the parents of Sen. Ted Cruz were named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada's federal election of July 8, 1974. Ted Cruz's parents are listed as "Cruz, Eleanor, Mrs." and "Cruz, Raphael, self employed," both at 920 Riverdale Avenue, South West in Calgary, Alberta. Canadian law restricts (and restricted) federal voting rights to Canadian citizens.

We’ve seen dialogs like this before. Be careful of the ringers embedded in seemingly serious, even if wrong, reports. In this case note the seemingly incidental comment:

“Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was a U.S. citizen - giving him ‘natural born’ citizenship under the U.S. Constitution - although there is little legal precedent for that theory being tested on a presidential nominee.”

The Constitution says no such thing, but this is one part of the strategy of confusion that worked well with Obama. The only statement by any branch of the federal government mentioning the granting of citizenship to a child born “beyond the seas” was the “Naturalization” Act of 1790, an Act which was entirely rescinded in 1795 and further clarified 1802, leaving only the term “citizen”. That is the sophistry employed by Mark Levin and more importantly, Obama’s Harvard Law adviser, progressive Obama campaign board member Larry Tribe, with help from former solicitor general Ted Olson, whose amazing wife must be turning in her grave. Their contribution to Obama, a letter explaining that our framers would have made McCain eligible had they thought about it, was in the Leahy, McCaskill, Clinton, Obama, Senate Resolution 511, not actionable since resolutions are for making political statements. Tribe and Olson, and Levin, cite the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was entirely rescinded by Washington and Madison in 1795.

Natural born citizenship was never again mentioned in any Congressional Act. There no reference in the 14th Amendment to Natural Born Citizenship. Separation of powers prevents Congress from interpreting the Constitution. The only mention of Natural Born Citizens came from 14th Amendment originator, Ohio abolitionist, congressman, and judge John Bingham, who explained: “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 citizenâ€¦.”

First, the 1790 Act was about “Naturalization”. Naturalized citizens, whether or not they take an oath, and whether or not they are “Naturalized at Birth”, are naturalized. Our presidents must be naturally born as citizens. Every U.S. Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 except John McCain - The “Senator John Sidney MaCain is a Natural Born Citizen Resolution”. In the body of SR 511 is the unequivocal statement by judge and former DHS Director Michael Chertoff: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,â€ Chertoff replied. â€œThat is mine, too,â€ said Leahy.â€

The distraction here is discussion around Cruz’ mother. She appears to have been natural born, but that is irrelevant. Cruz’ father was a Cuban citizen. As Obama was honest enough to admit, “Because my father was a subject of the British Commonwealth I was born a British subject”. Because Cruz’ father was a Cuban citizen, his son was born a Cuban citizen. He was naturalized by Congress, with authority from the 14th Amendment, itself based upon the Constitution: Article 1 Section 8 requiring Congress to create “an Uniform Rule for Naturalization”. Before 1868 the only federal citizens were natural born citizens, or those who were citizens of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

This is an amazing part of our history which reflects the difficulty our framers were having uniting colonies, each of which had different naturalization laws, many of which didn’t allow naturalization of slaves. One couldn’t guarantee equal protections unless slaves, who were not then made citizens in many states, could be move freely between states. Bingham, who also adjudicated the conspiracy trials of Lincoln’s assassins, was an amazing man, who wrote the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and is being assiduously avoided by “Constitutional Experts”, self defined or not, such as Mark Levin.

We could amend Article II Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies natural born citizenship, cited in dozens of Supreme Court Cases, which definition was nailed down, made precedent, by the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett, and reiterated by our entire Senate (John McCain didn’t vote since the resolution was about him) in April of 2008. But after twenty six attempts to amend it, Minor v. Happersett confirms the definition used in a Constitution that was designed without definitions so that interpretation would be difficult to confuse - but clearly not impossible. Madison explained why in a letter Mark Levin quoted in his Liberty and Tyranny, p 37. Languages change so terms need to be interpreted in the language an common law familiar to its framers.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Cruz’ mother was a citizen. His father was an alien. He was naturalized, in spite of a remarkable Congressional act submitted in 2014 declaring that someone born a naturalized citizen is not naturalized. Who could believe we are reduced to such such Kafkaesque sophistry to be governed by people who have forsaken our Constitution. Both parties were complicit when they collaborated to run two ineligible candidates, against a non-citizen Calero, in 2008. Now we have three candidates who are naturalized citizens.

To those who cling to the seemingly sensible assumption that McCain, a POW, born to citizen parents was obviously eligible, read Senate Bill 2678, originally sponsored by Obama and his campaign co-chair, Clair McCaskill, “The Foreign-Born Children of Military Citizens Natural Born Citizen Act”, February 2008. It failed to pass, so the Senate Judiciary committee obviously understood the issue, and did not declare the Act moot. Not so obviously they all knew, or would have been advised that they had no authority to modify the Constitution, as interpreted by Minor v. Happersett. But the bill is real. They know, even if the media and most citizens don’t.

This author believes that reinterpretation is a ripe issue. Vattel, used extensively and cited by our Declaration, Constitution, and Supreme Court, more than any other source before 1829, did advise treating children of two citizens on official government business as “reputed” natural born, but that interpretation has never been adjudicated. Try some scenarios and the difficulties in extending the interpretation will become apparent. We have a strong executive, commander-in-chief as well as President.

The first five Federalist Papers show that the risk of foreign usurpation was primary among concerns of our founders and framers. Realize that our current office holder was born to non-citizen, non-resident, whose allegiance was, take your pick, to socialism/communism and Islam. His son told us about being guided by “Dreams From My Father”. He told us he was a naturalized citizen. It appears that Obama was chosen for this job. Some day we may learn the whole truth.

If we should happen to have Cruz and Rubio prevail, and we still pretend to be guided by the Constitution, Amendment XX explains that Congress will determine the presidency. Hillary wouldn’t have to challenge. Democrats are already doing that, and the law, for the time being, is still written on paper. The positive law quoted above may not hold, but it will be our loss since every article and amendment is now in play.

We have all learned of the tactic employed by observant Muslims called Taqiya. Much as Cruz says all the right things, with Rubio and Jindal not too objectionable, Islam should have made us more sensitive to the need for honesty. If they can lie about interpretations which are so fundamental to our foundations, how can we believe anything else any of them tell us. No observant Muslim can declare sole allegiance to our Constitution, since Sharia is so contrary to our guaranteed individual rights. Trump’s position exposes that truth. Read Stephan Coughlin or Clare Lopez or Robert Spencer or Milestones if you are curious. Cruz has lied about principles he should have learned about in law school. Instead he is using sophistry also learned in law school to confuse those with too little time to read original sources.

For the best summary of current discussions, Mario Apuzzo, whose eligibility cases were shut down, most likely by Kagan and Sotomayor. http://puzo1.blogspot.com. We’ll see if Levin honors his boast to debate anyone with credentials, since Mr. Apuzzo has accepted Levin’s challenge. Levin is demonstrably wrong, using bluster and insults to quench real discussion. I doubt that Levin will debate Apuzzo. I hope I’m wrong.

Levin can’t undo George Washington and Madison clearing up what appears to have been wording in the 1790 act that left too many doubts. Levin can’t not have seen, if he read it at all, the note in the Congressional Record (See HeinOnline — 1 Stat. 103 1789-1799) explaining that the 1790 Act had been rescinded. He can’t insert phrases into Wong Kim Ark, already a confusingly written decision, that imply that the two terms, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen are the same. While I appreciate Levin’s mind, and would thus far support his application of Article V to regaining control of both Congress and the executive by appealing to the brilliance of our framer’s inclusion of a mechanism that permits states action to amend the constitution, his comments about citizenship are just wrong, and without any foundation in written law. He sounds like another Alinsky student on the issue.

Levin is sounding more and more frantic, declaring those who know that Cruz’ mother being a citizen does not make him a natural born citizen, “a-holes” and kooks. This is the behavior of someone who knows his career is being affected by his lies to protect us from the truth. His only recourse is to attack his questioners. Truth is not on his side in this case - sad because he has taught many of us so much about our history, and his behavior could end his tenure as a loving supporter of his father’s books, and his insight into our founders and framers. After this chapter in history let’s hope he explains what cause him, what cause, has made him a tool for anti-constitutional propagandists. As one of my favorite Democrat attack dogs Jim Carville once said, “Follow the money.”

The question still remains....What did the Constitution mean by naturalized citizen?

I looked up the same thing on ancestry.

My question....How was Ted listed in the 1970 census?