Why are Ted Cruz and his Mothers documents sealed?

Freedom Outpost ^ | 3/20/16 | Elliot

[Zenjitsuman]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfHxyO9UEAEq2SG.jpg

Why do we seem to have another Obama on our hands.

Why isn't Cruz made to unseal his banking records His dealings with Cuba His Mothers birth records, her INS records showing she was inside America within a year of his birth?

[Spaulding]

Have you found a court that agrees with you yet...??? Yes okie01, many of them. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

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.

With time I could provide a list of over twenty supreme court cases; state courts have no authority to interpret the meaning of terms in the Constitution. The list would obviously include Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg, but the point is made. I suspect that it would make no difference to those whose beliefs are based upon other than our founders and framers' intent. Ted Cruz, with the same constitutional law professor as Obama, clearly thinks he can depreciate the Constitution too. At least Obama never claimed to be a natural born citizen; he let John Roberts do that for him, which should, if we ever return to respect for the Constitution, cause Roberts to be impeached for directly failing to honor and defend the Constituton. Even Cruz' con. law professor, Larry Tribe, pointed out that Ted was lying about law he knows reasonably well.

Ted, often described as brilliant, is clearly not so smart as he thinks, or his supporters boast. Anyone who knows Constitutional law knows Ted is lying about the authority in the 14th Amendment to create natural born citizens. There is no such authority, not one word about natural born citizenship, and John Bingham, author of the citizenship section, was explicit on that fact in his lectures to the House in 1866.

Cruz has burned his bridges for an appointment to the Supreme Court, or should have, if we manage to move away from oligarchy to representative democracy. Ted may have to face charges for having been a Canadian citizen while a Texas senator. Our naturalization oath requires "sole Allegiance", and Ted is a naturalized citizen, still a Canadian citizen until 2014. Ted will probably still find the doors open at Heidi's Council on Foreign Relations, or even, now that Obama, not Congress as the law requires, has opened the doors to Cuba, as an executive for Heidi's Goldman Sachs' Cuban division. Our founders, framers, Montesque, Paine, Pufendorf, Bynkershoek, Vattel, Blackstone, Wilson, Marshall, Jay, Washington, Jefferson, ..., all understood that the most universal determinant of a man's allegiance is the allegiance of his parents. Ted's father fought with Fidel; Obama's father's allegiances were to Marx and Allah, passing his son to Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Khalid al-Mansour and Obama's patron, Alwaleed bin-Talal.

[CA Conservative]

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't explain why some lawyers' FOIA has been refused.

All FOIA requests for that data will be refused by law, regardless of who is requesting it.

[LucyT]

.

Why do we seem to have another 0bama on our hands?

Why isn't Cruz made to unseal his banking records; His dealings with Cuba; - His Mothers birth records; her INS records showing she was inside America within a year of his birth?

Why did Cruz not disclose his million dollar loan from banks - and what the loan terms were?

Since Cruz is such a smart guy why are his College records still sealed?

>Since Cruz is such a smart guy why are his College records still sealed?<

Unsealing his College records would tell us whether he attended as a foreign student and obtained grant money AS a foreign student. We've already gone through this once and look where it got us; we shouldn't have to deal with it again.

.

[Starstruck]

Why don’t you release your mother’s records? Maybe because you don’t have power of attorney and maybe mom doesn’t want them released?

[toldyou]

College?

From Wikipedia:

Education

Cruz attended two private high schools: Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas; and Second Baptist High School in Houston, from which he graduated as valedictorian in 1988. During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group known at the time as the Free Market Education Foundation, a program that taught high school students the philosophies of economists such as Milton Friedman and Frédéric Bastiat.

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992 with a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year, and with his debate partner David Panton, also Team of the Year from the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Cruz and Panton would later represent Harvard Law School at the 1995 World Debating Championship, losing in the semi-finals to a team from Australia. Princeton’s debate team named their annual novice championship after Cruz.

Cruz’s senior thesis at Princeton investigated the separation of powers; its title, Clipping the Wings of Angels, draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to US President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and that the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state.

After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree. While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz’s time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant”. At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.

Cruz serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[LucyT]

Anyone can write anything in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn’t a valid document.

[taxcontrol]

Think very carefully on that question and what it implies. That repealed act established a precedence. The precedence is that being born on US soil is NOT the ONLY way to be a NBC. That precedence was set by the very founding fathers of this nation. Further, that repealed act was replace and the one that repealed and replaced it, was also repealed and replaced .... until we get to today’s code:

USC Title 8 Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.

And today’s code clearly says Sen Cruz was BORN a US Citizen and has been from birth. He has never been naturalized and has never needed to be naturalized.

[Arthur McGowan]

Cruz and Mark Levin use the same scholarly, airtight legal argumentation on this question: “Get off my phone, you big dope!”

[taxcontrol]

Now there is a point I can agree with. I am still a Cruz supporter but before Iowa, I have been predicting Trump with about 1,300 delegates after the primaries. That means he goes into the convention with a majority.

If Trump is the nominee, I can hold my nose and vote for him in the General. I can’t say the same about any other GOPe candidate.

If the GOPe does some shenanigans to deny either Trump or Cruz the nomination, then I will support Trump/Cruz if one or both go independent. The GOPe is the threat from within and needs to have their power stripped away.

[Arthur McGowan]

One thing about Cruz’s birth certificate, it doesn’t have the typefaces of eight different typewriters on it.

[okie01]

Yes okie01, many of them. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

Gee, why are these rulings being ignored...???

[Arthur McGowan]

There is no evidence that Soetoro was born on foreign soil. There is also no evidence that Soetoro was born in Hawaii. The fact that the “birth certificate” is a pathetic digital fabrication does, however, prove that something is being hidden.

[Arthur McGowan]

Thanks. A voice of rationality in t he wilderness.

[Arthur McGowan]

But “ALL” does not mean “ONLY.”

[Ray76]

Statutes “conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens” is naturalization. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898)

[taxcontrol]

Being born a US Citizen at birth is NBC.

[okie01]

however, prove that something is being hidden.

Personally, I tend to agree. But we don't know what. And the burden of proof is on the challenger. With only suspicions, well-founded as they might be, we're stymied...

[stormer]

Jack Ryan was taking his wife to clubs where he wanted to watch other men have sex with her. I’d say the electorate has the right to know if their senator was doing that.

[Ray76]

In your opinion, not that of the U.S. Supreme Court.