Posted on 04/07/2016 3:31:41 PM PDT by Suz in AZ
On March 10, Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, lead counsel for the North American Law Center sent a letter to Texas Secretary of State Carlos H. Cascos on behalf of a legal citizen and voter in Texas, as well as in the public interest of the nation, questioning if, when Cruz ran for, was elected and certified by the Texas Secretary of State as the new U.S. Senator representing the people of Texas, he was a legal citizen of Canada.
As of this writing, Pidgeon has not received a response.
Ted Cruz
Attached to his letter, Pidgeon provided a copy of Cruz's birth certificate indicating Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, was born on Dec. 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
He also attached a copy of Cruz's Certificate of Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship, whereas Cruz "formally renounced Canadian citizenship and pursuant to the Citizenship Act will cease to be a citizen on May 14, 2014."
When Cruz was born on Dec. 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Canada didn't allow for dual citizenship, indicating Cruz was only a citizen of Canada.
(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...
I think these judges are thinking they can rely on the 1790 Naturalization Act to base their justification on the intent of the Founders for the term Natural Born Citizen.
Our FRiend Godebert goes into the details better than I can tonight:
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.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/natural-born-citizen-through-eyes-of.html
sounds like ted may not only be the wrong kind of american citizen, he may not be one at all... without paperwork...
no wonder he has been soft on Illegals living in the shadows....
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.