Replies

many of us are so dam*d tired of so MANY of our Constitutional rights being ignored or infringed upon.

Amendments 1,2,4,5, etc and so forth and so on.

I repeat that i like most of what I hear from Senator Cruz and I am quite prepared to vote for him despite the eligibility issue (this represents a significant change in my POV). The D’s have destroyed much of the constitution including so obviously the qualifications clause ... Obama’s own claimed parentage alone disqualified him for goodness sakes!.... regardless of whether he was born in Kenya, as his grandma and aunt maintain, or whichever of the two Hawaii hospitals he’s claimed as his hatching site.....or whether he was indeed hatched, but on Planet Ferengi (the race of liars in sci fi TV).
ANYWAY, America desperately needs someone who can repair the damage of the past 6 (to be 8) years. I intend to vote for the person who looks most capable of doing this.
And Calgary (bless the place) is now FINE with me, notwithstanding the eligibility issue it (and Cruz’s daddy) raises.

Politics is the art of the possible.
If a natural born citizen runs who is Cruz’s equal, I will of course vote for him or her.
I admit to being impure about this now. Maintaining my previous intellectual virginity was a losing strategy. If the D’s can draw on the entire world’s population (or that of the United Federation of Planets) to install a Demolition Derby individual in our White House, someone who breaks or subverts or destroys anything and everything about our country he can get his hands on......... then its time I stopped being such a sticker, purist about constitutional clauses, too. Fight fire with fire?
Anyway, its all IMHO and I am not going to try to convince anyone of anything about this. People have their minds made up anyway. Its almost like going to a “feminist” meeting to discuss alternatives to “free abortions”

a noble cause, but frankly beyond my capabilities.
All the best,
fhc

I share your skepticism Mama Texan. We have sparred with some clever Obots, demonstrating both their erudition and that the end justifies the means. Hard to tell how many have grasped the subtle difference between citizen “by” birth and being “naturalized” “at” birth, as are all of those, including Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Nikki Haley (who has refused to be drawn in to the subterfuge).

Like most of you, as much as I like almost everything Ted Cruz says, he would not be a permanent president, and I believe the Constitution should be. I keep hoping Cruz will use his eloquence to clear the fog, and finally explain to those who will listen that of course the Constitution didn’t define the term natural born citizen. Its authors intentionally didn’t include definitions, as James Madison explained, because languages change over time. To preserve the meaning of its framers, a truth based upon natural law which they felt was eternal, the Constitution must be interpreted with the language familiar to its framers. Chief Justice Waite explained in Minor v. Happersett, “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.”

We are seeing the mindless drone from those repeating the nonsense about the 1790 “Act to establish an uniform rule for Naturalization”. First, it is a “Naturalization” rule, not a natural born citizen rule. Only the president must be a natural born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen. Naturalized at birth means naturalized. The 14th Amendment’s authority comes from Article 1 Section 8, the naturalization provision of the Constitution. Second, words mean things; the First Congress Act says “shall be considered as”, not shall be, or are natural born citizens. I never forget Bill Clinton’s famous maxim “it depends upon what is is.” Bill was correct. Justice’s Marshall, Waite, Jay, Hughes, Gray, and many more cite Vattel. Minor didn’t cite Vattel because Chief Justice Waite knew he was creating precedence. All the justices deciding Minor v. Happersett agreed. Second, anyone who actually reads the First Congress’ Naturalization Act should have noticed that it was rescinded, entirely replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act in which “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen.”

Harvard’s two operatives lied, never mentioning the reversal of their keystone citation. Harvard’s Larry Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson, in their letter in which Obama, Leahy, McCaskill, Clinton, waved their hands in April 2008, Senate Resolution 511, to say sure, McCain has a few problems, but the framers didn’t really mean or understand the implications of what they said. Democrat law professors pointed out earlier that the Canal Zone had not been declared, as embassies are, sovereign territory until the year after McCain was born - an unfortunate oversight. Obama and McCaskill tried earlier to pass what might have become an amendment, Senate Bill 2678, Feb 2008, The “Foreign born Children of Military Citizens Natural born Citizen Act”. That act failed to pass, but had some merit. I agree with the sentiment, but note that it was McCain’s opponent who was sponsoring that act. Why did they want to run against John McCain?

I would like to see an amendment crafted to make Cruz eligible. We have time. But to ignore the Constitution, while I too will vote for an ineligible Cruz if he runs, is wrong. Democrats could, and I think they will, challenge the eloquent Cruz’ eligibility with Warren, or Hillary, or how about Holder, or Kerry? Republicans will have spent the effort to elect he inelibible Cruz. The law is clear, even if so many prefer to ignore it. Who is more culpable, the Democrats, Pelosi, the only person to sign any document asserting that Obama is a natural born citizen, or the Republicans, who knew the truth all along, three of them having tried to amend Article II Section 1 between 2001 and 2006 (Hatch, Rohrabacher and Nickles, along with Democrats Conyers, Menendez, and Barney Frank).

Anyone who really wants to understand the legal history behind John Jay’s note to Washington should spend some time at Mario Apuzzo’s remarkable blog puzo1.blogspot.com. His legal scholarship puts Harvard’s sellouts to shame. He uses reasoning and clear citations to demolish the earlier Tribe letter and the recent Katyal/Clement Harvard Law Review propaganda. Katyal and Clement carry on, and get quoted by the “authorities”, citing the 1790 Naturalizaton Act - the one that was rescinded in 1795.

While it may seem off topic, these discussion remind me of the observation by M. Stanton Evans, who died very recently, that during the war on Joseph McCarthy, a series of attacks on McCarthy mostly sourced at the New York Times mentioned the vicious attacks by McCarthy on American film directors by his House Un-American Activities Committee. But McCarthy was a Senator, and had nothing to do with those famous hearings! The Times never admitted their mistake, or lie. They probably figured, as so many liberals, that true or not, McCarthy was a scoundrel. Those lies were a means to an end. I’ll leave the end goal of the Harvard phonies to guess at in another thread.

Our foundations have been preserved on paper and I hope more will take the time to read a bit. I suggest that any who haven’t actually read Minor v. Happersett, the unabridged version, do so. Wong Kim Ark is a mess but Minor, written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is brilliant and clear, as brilliance allows. The clincher of its importance came when Leo Donofrio and friends noted that Soros/Podesta’s Center for American Progress had collaborated with the largest free legal document site, Justia.com, and corrupted some twenty five cases that might have pointed curious questioners at the truth that Minor v. Happersett was treated as precedent by the Supreme Court. The CEO of Justia.com admitted that it had been done, but claimed a programming error! Sure. Many of us grabbed the “Wayback Machines” earlier version of the cases that proved the crime was perpetrated some time during the Summer of 2008.

Read Mario Apuzzo’s historical blog, where Mario, as good attorneys do, corrects legal misdirection and provides citation. The law should be logically consistent. You needn’t be a lawyer to understand good reasoning, and Mario isn’t trying to mislead.