Bottom line: Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. constitution

Cruz was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. He can be a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). He is not and cannot be a natural born citizen under the common law because, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born in the United States and he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.

Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents. They are both citizens of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are not and cannot be natural born citizens under the common law because, while they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents.

READ MORE

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. - May 25, 2015

EXCERPT:

President Obama, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal are all "citizens" of the United States "at birth,” but only by virtue of some non-common law positive law. None of them are "natural born citizens" by virtue of common law which provides the only definition of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in the United States. Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of a naturalization Act of Congress, by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent. None of them were born with the complete facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen and which allows one to be a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen without the aid of any positive law. They are all missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States. Obama was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli if he was born in the United States) and Great Britain and then Kenya upon conversion through its independence from Great Britain (through jus sanguinis from his father). Cruz was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus sanguinis if his mother was still a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth) and born a citizen of and in allegiance to Canada (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from his father). Rubio and Jindal were born citizens of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from both of their parents). They are all therefore under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States, but also subject to a foreign power and with natural sympathies for those foreign nations, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents and Commanders to have. Being born subject to foreign powers and influence and with such sympathies, they are not nor can they be natural born citizens. Not being natural born citizens, they are not eligible to be President.

READ MORE

Eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo explains why Ted Cruz, like Obama, is NOT a "natural born citizen"

Excerpt from The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter by eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo:

Squeeky Fromm also comes to the aid of Ted Cruz in her June 25, 2013 article published at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/ .   In this piece, which she passes off as a decision against me rendered by an imaginary judge, she argues, albeit without any historical or legal support, that my definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth is wrong.  She maintains that Cruz, who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. “citizen” father and a U.S. “citizen” mother is a “natural born citizen.”

She attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minordid not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were “aliens or foreigners.” Here is the quote from the Court:  “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 can see from what the Court said that at common law if a child was born in the United States to alien parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”  It also follows from this common law rule that at common law (not to be confounded with statutes), any child who was born out of the United States, regardless of whether born to “citizen” parents or alien parents, was also an alien or foreigner.  This common law rule was reflected in Congress’s Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and naturalized at birth children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents or naturalized them after birth if born to alien parents.

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Squeeky Fromm quotes Wong Kim Ark’s comment that the English common law jus soli rule continued “to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” This statement does not prove that a “natural born citizen” was defined under English common law and not under the law of nations. What this statement means is that through the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who their citizens were and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802, and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

Squeeky Fromm repeats that “citizens at birth” are equivalent to “natural born citizens.”  But like Jack Maskell, she begs the question that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens.” Other than just assuming, like Jack Maskell, that her statement is true, she fails to provide any evidence that her statement is true. Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

She argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).  Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Despite her statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By her own concession, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,” regardless of when they obtain their citizenship. . .

A judge can deny the motion based on law and fact, but he has no right not to docket it

Judge Lamberth is the same judge who approved the secret subpoena to obtain e-mails of FOX reporter James Rosen and even of Rosen’s parents based on a subpoena signed by Attorney General Holder. Lamberth gave this approval after two judges refused to give such an approval. Later, when redacted subpoena was declassified, it was kept hidden from the public for 18 months. Recently Judge Lamberth issued a public apology claiming that it was a clerks’ fault, that clerks in his court did not do their job and did not post the subpoena in the electronic docket. . .

Apparently the clerks of the court are not willing to be thrown under the bus and now they provided a recorded statement that in Taitz’ case the documents are not placed on the public docket not because of the actions of the clerks, but by the order of Judge Lamberth.

READ MORE

IRS attorney posted threats that if attorney Taitz discloses her identity “men in black will pay her a visit and this visit will not be friendly and will not be pleasant”.

I, Orly Taitz, am a licensed attorney and President of Defend Our Freedoms not for profit CA Corporation dedicated to exposing corruption in the government and judiciary and educating the public about their constitutional freedoms and ways to fight lawlessness and corruption in the government. I attest that following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

READ MORE

As a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms

My friend, Robert, reminded me that "Obama's first job as an attorney was representing the Joyce Foundation, in convincing law professors that the 2nd Amendment did not pertain to an individual right--in spite of an understanding by all, for 200 years, that it was a right conferred by our Creator, and only enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

Here's the complete story via PJ Media's 2008 article:

Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment.

Obama above the law?

1/25/12: Hon. Brian P. Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, responds to President Barack Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta: “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the …proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Hey, even Nixon wasn't above the law (remember Watergate)?

US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

New from Attorney Leo Donofrio:

The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Read more

An attorney discovers the real truth about Obama's long-form birth certificate

While I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii, this document recently offered is an obvious forgery on many different fronts. Proper credit to those who spotted other anomalies, but Miss Tickly has done something others have failed to do. She’s really proved it’s a fake and she deserves serious credit for ingenuity of analysis. Her discussion of the boxes marked for “twins” nails this fraud down beyond question.

Miss Tickly Proves Obama’s New Document Is A Fraud ==> ==> ==>
link re-routed due to Chicago politics:
MISS TICKLY PROVES OBAMA's NEW DOCUMENT IS A FRAUD

["Miss Tickly" is the pseudonym of a professional graphic artist.]

L A POLITICAL PRISONER RICHARD FINE TREATED WORSE THAN TERRORISTS AT GITMO

From Full Disclosure: VIDEO

Story from American Thinker:

In a disturbing case of politically motivated retaliation, prominent Beverly Hills attorney Dr. Richard Fine has been incarcerated in coercive solitary confinement for close to fourteen months at the Los Angeles County Men's Jail.

The Fine Pursuit of Exposing Corruption

Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation discusses Obama's eligibility to be President

An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly

VIDEO: Floyd Reports looks at Obama Eligibility Question - Interview with Attorney Gary Kreep.

Who is the object of Orly Taitz's actions? And who is respsonbile for endangering her life?

Posted on Pesky Emotional Republican (who hat tipped me but beat me to the punch on posting this :-)

Orly Tates writes:

I was very reluctant to talk about this matter, since it is very unsettling for my children, my husband and probably most difficult for my mom and dad, but since someone has posted my e-mail on rense.com, I guess I will need to talk about it.

Indeed, I got a number of threatening messages. One person threatened to shoot me and burn my body for the world to see. A few days ago my husband’s car died. It was taken to the shop and they found that a fuse was missing and they could not find that fuse anywhere in the car. At the same time a warning signal went on in my car. It took me a few days to get to the mechanic, as I had to fly to Tulsa OK. When the car was checked on Thursday, they found that a clamp was removed and a vapor emissions hose was disconnected. It caused the gasoline vapors to go to the engine, which could’ve caused a combustion. My whole family could’ve died. I reported this to the police. I am preparing dossier #9 with all the details.

A number of people have written to me that I have to hire 24/7 security and they have written that they support me, they are all behind me, and they are praying for me. This is all very nice, but I can’t pay the security with the word of support and prayers. Typically those companies charge $40-$50 per hour. Multiply that by 24/7, this is very expensive.

I get letters, e-mails from attorneys. Mostly it’s big mouth, big ego and grand standing letters. There are only a couple of attorneys helping here and there. What most of these attorneys don’t understand, is that Obama was born and raised with the ideas of radical communism. I lived in a communist society and I can tell you that the group that will be dissipated first- will be lawyers. When Obama is nationalising anything and everything and creating one governmental totalitarian bureaucracy, you will be talking to the walls. There were hardly any lawyers in the Soviet Union. Two main reasons:

a. the populace was impoverished and they couldn’t pay the lawyers

b. as you know, you can’t fight the city hall, and the whole country was one big city hall.

Let’s take health care. Say you are a brilliant lawyer. You had a great career and now you are in your fifties or sixties, you need life saving surgery and some governmental bureaucrat decides that it is not worth spending thousands of dollars on surgery for some big mouth lawyer, it makes more sense to use this money for this bureaucrat to go on vacation or to bring a bunch of illegals from Central America, they will be cheap labor, docile and silent. You will be frustrated, you will file law suits from here to the Supreme court and nobody will listen. Just like now they don’t listen, they don’t hear a word, nobody in law enforcement, nobody in Judiciary, nobody in the government. They are all utterly corrupt and violating their oath of office and it will only get worse and worse. Do you know what the outcome is going to be? You will die young from a treatable condition, as I’ve seen people dying young in the Soviet Union, while they were easily treated from the same diseases here in US .

Here is another example for some brain dead big mouth lawyers. Obama is depressing Christianity and promoting Islam, calling it a religion of peace and tolerance. Look around. How many Christian churches and Jewish temples are there in Saudi Arabia? How many Jewish lawyers are practicing in Kuwait or Iran, do you know, you idiots? I’ll tell you- big fat zero. How about women’s rights? In many of these countries women are not allowed to vote, they are forced in arranged marriages with much older men, taking a “proud” position of wife #3 or wife #4. Many are stoned for infractions. How about you- homosexual men and women. Look how they are treating homosexuals- with hangings and lashes. What you all don’t get, is that you will be loosing your liberties and constitutional freedoms more so then anybody else. Obama is talking about liberties and freedoms, but in his core he is a radical communist, radical Muslim, raised in a mob influenced environment of Chicago dirty politics. This man is completely destroying the economy of this country and the constitutional freedoms of this country and he has never proven any legitimacy for the position he holds.

So here is your choice. You can continue kissing Obama’s boots until you will be thrown under the buss or until some fuses and hoses will be disconnected in your car, if god forbid you speak up, or you can join me and fight for true transparency in government, you can fight to take the country back, to have true balanced trade and bring all the manufacturing back to this country, so we can finally get out of this economic slump and see our people going back to work, producing and proudly supporting their families.

www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=2012