Posted on 04/08/2016 5:08:31 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
“In 2 weeks the North American Law Center will release proof that Ted Cruz is a fraud. They have issued his campaign a warning that if Cruz doesn’t tell the truth and step down they will release their proof – the truth that so many refused to believe or listen to.” – Karen Bracken
The North American Law Center issued this stark notice to the Cruz campaign on their latest podcast on April 3 (19:00 mark) –
“We’re talking about American citizens (who) think a guy who’s Canadian-born is eligible to be a U.S. president – without any documentation whatsoever. If Ted continues on – we are going to release the files we have, two weeks from tonight, and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics… If we have to stop this guy from defrauding this nation, then we are going to do that.” – J.B. Williams, N.A.L.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at endingthefed.com ...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86759.pdf
7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-577; 05-27-2015)
Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee hee...
The baby-killing faggot-loving communist filth have zero credibility. The "old timers" have it right.
Let me simplify it for you. It will involve a new filing in a Federal court like the DC circuit and would have nothing to do with any State filing or court. It would be new case done by a democrat operative and its effect would be national. Or, say its in the 9th cir, or any District the dems control the judiciary then it takes out so many states he could not win anyway.
Now what are the odds that Hillary and democrats do not already have such a court and judge lined up just waiting?
Why only relate the obsolete part of the law?
In 1795, they negated the wording of the 1790 Act.
Because the 1790 Act of the very first Congress demonstrates the original intent of the Founders.
IOW, Nero selects and chooses cafeteria style from obsolete Acts of Law and attempts to apply them selectively to legitimize a particular candidate.
The Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.
Never mind then.
Good day.
It didn’t work for conservatives trying to stop Obama.
Attempts to get injunctions in federal district courts and at the Supreme Court failed every time.
But time will tell. This issue obviously has zero impact on Cruz supporters.
Sorry, I dont mean to be a pain and I am trying to follow your trail, but when I attempt to access that URL, I get a page not found error.
I’m posting the arguments that have been used by Senator Cruz’s attorneys in actual eligibility lawsuits and thus far and they have prevailed every time.
Original intent is determined by what came first. Judges who are originalists pay attention to those acts and rulings. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The Naturalization Act of 1795 was superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1798, and then came The Naturalization Act of 1802.
But the ORIGINAL thinking of the Founders and Framers is embodied in the original act.
I found it easily the first time. The second time I found it for you I needed to use a cached page.
Try using the google cache link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QXNJkxPbhsMJ:www.state.gov/documents/organization/86759.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I searched Google, pasting in the link when it didn’t come up after you wanted the link, and then selected cached. I don’t know why within the span of a few hours the link has changed but that is where I found it, non cached this afternoon. I was searching the Fam 7 documents and never did find the one I had a couple weeks ago that spelled out that the classifications for determination under statute did not generalize to all situations. I bounced it off of CBolt at the time. I hate to think there is scrubbing going on.
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/
Early Congressional Statutes.
Because the English statutes are of little help, Cruz and the articles cited by the court below really rest strongly on the fact that in 1790 Congress passed, “An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” which provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
However, Cruz and those articles fail to address the following evidence that this Act fails to support their position.
First, nothing in the 1790 statute indicates that it meant Congress thought that in 1787, when the Constitution was written, a “natural born citizen” was understood to include someone who was born abroad to a U.S. citizen. To the contrary, there would have been no need to pass the statute if such persons were already understood to be natural born citizens. Indeed, the legislative history affirmatively indicates that Congress was trying to change who became a citizen at birth. See McManamon, supra, at 332-33. Thus, the statute affirmatively indicates that the 1790 Congress did not believe that the 1787 Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizens” included children born abroad to U.S. citizens.
Second, even on its face, this statute did not say that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were natural born citizens. The statute instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural born citizens but should be treated as such. Further, the Act’s title indicates it is a “naturalization” Act, and by definition Congress can only “naturalize” someone who is not already a natural born citizen.
Third, there is not a whiff in the statute or legislative history to suggest that Congress thought it was changing who was constitutionally eligible to be President. Nor is there a scintilla of evidence that Congress thought it had any authority to change the constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.” The legislative history indicates that Congress was instead focused on changing naturalization law because (under the then-prevailing principle that aliens could not hold U.S. land) the change would alter the extent to which foreign-born persons could hold lands in the United States. See id. at 332-333.
Fourth, when the 1790 Naturalization Act was reconsidered in a few years, James Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize “aliens.” 4 Annals of Cong. 1027 (Dec. 29, 1794). Madison’s observation again confirms the point noted above that Congress can only naturalize persons who are not already natural born citizens.
The bill was then committed on January 2, 1795 to a three-person committee that included Madison. Id. at 1058. On January 5, 1795, Madison reported a new Naturalization bill. Id. at 1060. The bill reported by Madison was adopted by Congress, and it amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.”
See An Act To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and To Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject, ch. 20, § 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415 (1795).
This amendment clearly indicates that the view of Madison, and of the Congressmen who adopted his amendment, was that children born abroad of US citizens were natural aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be considered “natural born”.
Fifth, the view that the 1790 and 1795 statutes did not alter the constitutional meaning of the “natural born citizen” eligibility requirement was confirmed by the most contemporaneous scholars. In 1803, St. George Tucker published an edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that added his own notes on American law.
After citing to the 1790 and 1795 U.S. naturalization statutes, he stated that that “[p]ersons [] naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural-born citizens, except . . . they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.”
ST. GEORGE TUCKER, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 374 n.12 (Philadelphia, William Young Birch & Abraham Small 1803) (emphasis added). See also McManamon, supra, at 331 (collecting other scholars in the early 1800s expressing similar views).
Sixth, the interpretation that anyone whom Congress deems a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen would run counter to the plain purpose of the clause, which was to impose constitutional limits on who is eligible to be President. If Congress can by statute expand the meaning of a constitutional limit on who is eligible to be President, then the Constitution would impose no effective limit on Congress.
In what world do you live in? A naturalized citizen can never be a natural born citizen. If you sift through my posts on this thread, as well as others, you will find many court cases and State Department documents that state that a child born beyond our borders must be naturalized. The ONLY time a document said those born to U.S. citizens across the seas are NBC was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was repealed in 1795 and the term natural born citizen disappeared forever when speaking of children born outside the jurisdiction of this country. You must be young but I was taught in school when we used to have civics class that to be qualified to run for president you must be born in the U.S. PERIOD. I can provide a link to the textbook if you like.
When the Supreme Court says that those born overseas can only receive citizenship at birth through the process of naturalization, then honest people accept it.
In this day of political correctness and for fear of pissing people off, people willingly forget what is right. People who are not true conservatives are getting sucked in by the New World Order - a group that hates borders and the Constitution of this country. Don’t be one of them.
No statute can make one “natural born”, it can make one a citizen, but not a “natural born” citizen.
The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when James Madison said:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.
How is that for founder intention?
44 Presidents all born on American soil.
47 Vice-Presidents all born on American soil.
Along comes Raphael Cruz born in Canada. We should accept that ‘Ted’ has special privileges and is exempt from the presidential qualifications. After all, he is an esteemed Constitutional scholar and has declared himself eligible. He is the son of a foreigner who rejected American citizenship for fifty (50) years in favor of Cuban and Canadian citizenship. He is the son of an American born mother who dwelled in England and Canada for the most part of a decade of the years surrounding Ted’s birth. And his wife served on CFR and is well funded by Goldman Sachs. The most we can say about Ted’s origins is that he was born within the perimeter of the globalist dream of the North American Union.
Nice rant but there was no such thing as political correctness in 1790 when the ORIGINAL Congress exempted children born “beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States” from needing naturalization and declared them to be “natural born citizens.”
The fact that a later Congress changed the wording is irrelevant to what is clearly the original thinking of the Founders and Framers.
But hey, if you can find any evidence of a Certificate of Naturalization ever being issued to Senator Cruz, I’m willing to change my mind.
Yes, I’d love to see a link to a textbook because in my humble opinion no such statement was ever made in a textbook, but I can be proven wrong if you can find such a statement.
All those who believe Senator Cruz is ineligble need to do is convince a judge or get a bill through Congress which states that a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” is not necessarily synonymous with being a “natural born citizen.”
The first President of the United States to qualify as a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren who assumed the office in 1837.
Historian, Secretary of the Navy and Founder of the U.S. Naval Academy at Anapolis George Bancroft wrote in his “History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States” (1884) (Volume 1 Page 346):
“One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the the of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president,” and for the foreign-born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September, the modification, with the restriction as to the age of the president, was unanimously adopted.”
Mr. Bancroft had interviewed an elderly James Madison in preparation for his books on the formation of the Constitution.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-3262
Thank you, that is a great link and a very special look at the perspective of the Founding Fathers.
However I hope you are not using the link in your post above to argue that the Founders did not know exactly what they meant by NBC, born on US soil to two citizen parents. Your link supports the great store Madison set by not allowing any foreign born Presidents except for the foreign born men who had done service and/or had shed blood in service during the birth of our Nation.
In the creation of the exception for “citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution, Madison and the other signers limited to only this one circumstance any exception to the natural born citizen requirement.
The possibility of a misreading of the Naturalization Act of 1790 caused Madison to require its Repeal and the substitution of the Act of 1795 which more clearly spells out the intent to grant citizenship but not NBC to children of citizens born outside our Country.
How can a single member of Congress “require” anything? In 1793 James Madison accepted French citizenship and thus became a dual citizen.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0129
George Bancroft’s point was that the first 21 year and then finally the Article II Section 1 14 year residence requirement was the way the Framers dealt with allowing persons born abroad to eventually qualify for the presidency.
As men of many nations had shed their blood in the cause of American independence.
I think you’ll find that in 2016 there are relatively few Americans who believe a child born abroad to an American citizen parent who has spent 42 years living in the U.S. and who qualifies under the law as a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” should be denied the right to become president.
But time and the courts will tell.
Required: to claim or ask for by right and authority
b archaic : request
The following is a portion of an earlier post containing the event I was referring to:
Fourth, when the 1790 Naturalization Act was reconsidered in a few years, James Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize “aliens.” 4 Annals of Cong. 1027 (Dec. 29, 1794). Madison’s observation again confirms the point noted above that Congress can only naturalize persons who are not already natural born citizens.
The bill was then committed on January 2, 1795 to a three-person committee that included Madison. Id. at 1058. On January 5, 1795, Madison reported a new Naturalization bill. Id. at 1060. The bill reported by Madison was adopted by Congress, and it amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.”
See An Act To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; and To Repeal the Act Heretofore Passed on That Subject, ch. 20, § 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415 (1795).
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.