Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States; The meaning of "Natural Born." UPDATED | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

ANNOUNCEMENT!PayPal has just canceled my account.

The GoFundMe link is HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT! Tune in to today's radio show. 3PM Central Time.

If you cannot use the RBN player, you can listen to my show HERE

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate." -- Barack Hussein Obama

YOUR RANDOM DHS MONITORED PHRASE OF THE DAY

counterintelligence

Paid advertising at What Really Happened may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied. While we try to avoid advertisers of fraudulent products, What Really Happened assumes no liability for such fraud. Caveat emptor.


Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States; The meaning of "Natural Born." UPDATED

As you read the following, consider this; Ted Cruz' supporters, the Tea Party, the GOP, and the establishment media may all look the other way about the fact that Ted Cruz does not meet the Constitutional requirementss to be Predident or Vice President. But does anyone think that if the GOP anoints Cruz as their candidate, that Hillary's lawyers won't go to court and have him thrown out of the election?

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." -- Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, clause 5

Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President of the United States. He was born in Canada, of parents who were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz's mother claims to have been born in Delaware. The State of Delaware claims not to have any records of her. It makes Cruz's mother a US citizen, but maybe not Cruz himself!

Raphael & Eleanor Cruz emigrated to Canada sometime in the early 1960s and in 1968 Mr. Cruz became a naturalized Canadian Citizen. Eleanor attained Citizenship one year later and Raphael Eduardo (Ted) Cruz was born December 22, 1970, to two parents who had lived in Canada, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws. U.S. statutes would have voided the prior "green card" status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the U.S. green card. In 1970, Canada did not recognize the concept of dual citizen. Hence Cruz is Canadian by birth, ONLY Canadian by birth, despite his parents' lineage! The fact that Ted Cruz claims to have renounced his Canadian citizenship proves this! Again, under Canadian law at the time of his birth, if he is a Canadian citizen, he is not a citizen of the United States!

For Ted Cruz to be a US citizen by virtue of his mother's nationality, the parents would have to fill out a special form at the US Consulate called the Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child was a U.S. citizen. But according to Cruz' own spokeswoman, Catherine Frazer, Cruz's mother did not fill out that form until 1986, in order for Cruz to obtain a US passport to participate in a High School trip abroad. That means that from 1974, when Cruz's family came to the US, until that form was completed in 1986, TWELVE YEARS, Ted Cruz was an illegal immigrant in the United States!

And, there is another complication. Ted Cruz refuses to provide the marriage certificate for his parents, and Ted Cruz' mother bore Ted out of wedlock (before Ted's father's divorce from his previous wife was final), in which case under Section 309(c) of the INA Ted is not a citizen by birth but must be made a citizen through the naturalization process!

Now then, to the "Natural Born" requirement!

Ted Cruz's supporters try to get around "Natural Born" by claiming it simply means any US citizen, an opinion even echoed at Wikipedia!

But if any US citizen could be President, then the qualifier "Natural Born" would not be needed (and is not present in the Constitutional citizenship requirements for Representatives and Senators). Clearly, to the Founding Fathers, "Natural Born" had a specific and obvious meaning, applied exclusively to the Presidency!

The Founding Fathers did not need to define what "Natural Born" meant inside the Constitution as it had been defined in existing legal theory in works such as "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758 and relied on heavily by the framers of the Constitution. "Natural Born" was already legally defined when the Constitution was written as "born inside the nation."

Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen: Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:
§ 212: 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.

"...I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel..." -- Ben Franklin, in a letter to Charles William Fredric Dumas, confirming that Vattel's "Law of Nations" is the legal source used for the Constitution.

The inclusion of the "Natural Born" requirement for the US Presidency was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Chief Justice John Jay, who wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."


Click for larger image

The intention is clear that the Presidency not be open to anyone not born within the United States.

Let me provide a theoretical situation to illustrate why simply being a US citizen is not sufficient to be President. Let us say that back in the 1950s, a US woman moves to the Soviet Union and has a child, who is raised and indoctrinated by that society. Then the woman decides to move back to the United States. Should we allow that son to sit in the White House?

In addition, there are no less than four United States Supreme Court Decisions that reaffirm that "Natural Born" means "Born inside the nation."

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

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

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized," "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." "It is important to recognize that "citizenship" itself is man-made. So we need to separate "natural born" from "citizen". The two are independent of one another. Naturalization statutes can make one a citizen, but not "natural born". That is solely about the physical circumstances of one's birth, such as location."

The Supreme Court elaborated in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

There has never been a United States Supreme Court Decision that ruled "Natural Born" as having any other meaning than "born inside the country."

Some other instances of usage of "natural born" before the Convention:

  • 1625, Hugo Grotius, Law of War and Peace. 
    XII. To the above catalogue of those exempted from sharing in the calamities of war, may be added merchants, not only those residing for a time in the enemy's country, but even his natural-born, and regular subjects: artisans too, and all others are included; whose subsistence depends upon cultivating the arts of peace.

  • 5 July 1641, English Parliament, Act for the Abolition of the Court of High Commission. 
    An Act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the State ecclesiastical and spiritual,' [to] such person or persons being natural born subjects to Her Highness, her heirs or successors, as Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, should think meetto exercise, use, occupy and execute under Her Highness, her heirs and successors, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and preeminence in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within these her realms of England and Ireland, or any other Her Highness's dominions and countries, ...
    — 17 Car. I. cap. 11. Statutes of the Realm, v. 112

  • 1720, Valentine, Appeal Brief in Matson v. Thomas, quoting the Charters of the Colony of Massachusetts. 
    That all and every of the Subjects of us our Heirs and Successors, which shall go to and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their Children which shall happen to be born there, &c. shall have and enjoy all Liberties and Immunities of Free and Natural born Subjects, within any of the Dominions of us, &c. to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and every of them were born within our Realm of England;

  • 1748, David Hume, "On the Original Contract". 
    The truest tacit consent of this kind that is ever observed, is when a foreigner settles in any country, and is beforehand acquainted with the prince, and government, and laws, to which he must submit: yet is his allegiance, though more voluntary, much less expected or depended on, than that of a natural born subject. On the contrary, his native prince still asserts a claim to him.

  • 30 May 1765, Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act. 
    Resolved, That by the two royal charters granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all privileges of faithful, liege, and natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England.

  • 19 Oct. 1765, Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress. 
    2d. That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

  • 1773, Sheffield Declaration. 
    Resolved, That Americans in general, (and his Majesty's subjects the inhabitants of this province in particular, by their charter) are intitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born British subjects

  • 14 Oct. 1774, Declaration and Resolves on Colonial rights of the First Continental Congress. 
    Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother-country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

  • June 1776, Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia. 
    Naturalization
    All persons who by their own oath or affirmation, or by other testimony shall give satisfactory proof to any court of record in this colony that they propose to reside in the same [7] years at the least and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born.

  • 28 Sep. 1776, Constitution of Pennsylvania, and here. —
    SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

All of Cruz's supporters, including the corporate media, are demonstrating either an ignorance of the US Constitution, or an utter disregard for it. This tells us that were Cruz to become President, he would continue the long and tragic tradition of recent Presidents to ignore the Constitution to the detriment of the people.

The Constitution is the original contract with America. It is the rules by which We The People allow the government to act as caretaker of our National Sovereignty. If a politician does not wish to work within the restrictions and rules of the Constitution, the honorable thing to do is resign and find useful employment. If Ted Cruz's supporters wish to live in a nation not protected by the Constitution they are free to move elsewhere.

But under the rules this nation operates on, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States, and under the Twelfth Amendment, Cruz may not serve as Vice President either.


UPDATE:

Anna Tomerlin has done some extensive investigation into the family line of Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz.

This is the most complete timeline (with documentation) of Ted Cruz' parents life. It is difficult to wade through but well worth it, as it confirms that Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth.

The high points...

Rafael Cruz (Ted's father) was married to second wife Julia Ann Garza from 1959 - 1996. Ted's mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, gave birth to Ted in 1970, while Ted's father was still married to Julia. There is no record that Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson was ever married to Rafael Cruz. Under Section 309(c) of the INA, children born out-of-wedlock to Americans abroad do NOT become US citizens at birth! They must be naturalized.

If Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson was still a US citizen when Ted Cruz was born, she was required by law to register Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz's birth at the United States Of American Department of State Consular Office with a Report of Birth Abroad. She did not fill out that form until after Ted Cruz' 18th birthday, in order to obtain a passport for Ted to go on a school travel program. But under immigration law, the Report of Birth Abroad must be filed BEFORE the 18th birthday to be valid.

Ted Cruz was not a US citizen by birth.

His "naturalization" is legally invalid.

Ted Cruz is an illegal immigrant.


From a WRH reader:

Dear Michael,

I am an occasional reader of your website and I would like to offer my reasons why Ted Cruz is not eligible to seek the American presidency.

I am not a jurist, practicing attorney or law student and limited in the depth of knowledge in matters of constitutional and federal law that addresses Ted Cruz's status as a viable candidate for President of the United States. But I feel incumbent upon myself to give thought to all the facts of evidence and law regarding Mr. Cruz's citizenship status relative to his qualification under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. I'm essentially a simple layman, retired from a non-legal professional trade who desires our courts of law to not only be impartial but separated from the temptation of exercising judicial discretion aligned with the winds of political discourse that constantly swirl around it. I ask your indulgence and patience as I attempt to give my view on this topic, crudely as it may appear written.

I read the Amicus Curiae brief on Elliot v. Cruz submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by Einer Elhauge, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School (see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/305974556/Elliott-v-Cruz-SCOPA-Elhaughe-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-29-MAP-2016 ).

I read Delaware Law School Professor Mary Brigid McManamon's research paper titled, "The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood" (see: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444766 ) and her Washington Post article (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html ).

I also gave due consideration to the opposing point of view written by Messrs Katyal and Clement in the Harvard Law Review (see: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/).

I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Cruz is not eligible to be president, not based on British common law, or American case law precedent but only on constitutional and federal statutory law, specifically Articles I, II, the 14th Amendment and Title 8 USC. I did so because it is what we laypersons understand as the legislative powers of Congress and their constitutional authority to enact public laws that are in effect today.

The issue of "natural born Citizen" as mandated in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 is bantered about ad nauseam: what does it mean, how is it applicable to Ted Cruz, are there exceptions, etc. Law historians and scholars try and answer the question, "Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?" by looking at early American history and extrapolating from that a plausible explanation. The average citizen (myself included) tries to absorb the plethora of legal thought put forth by the genius of the bar and finds itself in a quandary; who is right? If I may be so bold as to speak for the nation; we don't want another Supreme Court "Bush V. Gore" scenario which to this day I still cannot fathom the justiciability that allowed the court to even hear the case over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to recount the ballots.

I carefully read all 7 articles and 27 amendments of the Constitution looking for reference to citizenship (see: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ). The 14th Amendment is the only definitive part that declares who is eligible to be a citizen, i.e., "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." I asked myself, "Does Ted Cruz meet the definition of citizenship according to the Constitution?" The answer is no, without question he is not a "born" or a "naturalized" citizen of the United States.

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 did not provide for the Congress to enact naturalization rules, Ted Cruz could never be a citizen at all but of course it did. Yet what kind of a citizen is he? The answer lies in the federal law that is subordinate to the Constitution, Title 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth (see: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title8/html/USCODE-2014-title8-chap12-subchapIII-partI-sec1401.htm ).

Ted Cruz qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth even though he was born in Canada, under paragraph(d) "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;".

Effectively Cruz is a "citizen by surrogate" due to his mother's U.S. citizenship. He also held citizenship as a Canadian at birth. Therefore he was not deemed an alien which would have required him to be naturalized (8 USC, Part II) in order to become a U.S. citizen. As I read it, what is important is that no where in Section 1401 or in the entirety of Title 8, is there ever a mention of "natural born citizen".

A natural born citizen is not a nebulous term, it has specific and historical meanings as a position of standing and a legislative body can bestow or deny such a privilege as it sees fit. For example, in 1784, the colonial government of the Maryland General Assembly awarded Marquis de Lafayette and his descendants the title of natural born citizens of Maryland forever, as noted on page 198 (see: https://books.google.com/books?id=l_VDfk08AWIC&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false ). Here a governing body chose to not only give American citizenship to a foreign born citizen but also his future unborn heirs. Clearly governments recognize the meaning of natural born citizen is not just the act of birth but a title of standing, too.

The other more glaring observation is this: how can a person be considered naturally born in one or more countries at the same time? It is a physical impossibility and therefore the only way for a person to be considered natural born in a country other than the nation where the birth actually occurred is by legislative act. Does 8 USC explicitly grant the privilege of natural born status to a citizen at birth (Part I, applicable to Cruz) or to an alien who has be naturalized (Part II)? The answer is no.

Since Ted Cruz is a citizen by virtue of this federal statute alone and not the Constitution, he cannot be affirmed to be a natural born Citizen as the law proscribed that right of title by omission and therefore is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

The opposing camp differs and I would like to comment on that.

Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of the State of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Mr. Cruz's natural born citizenship status and eligibility to be on the Pennsylvania ballot in his 22 page written decision (see: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.pdf ). Judge Pellegrini relied heavily upon common law precedent (i.e., Stare decisis) in cases supported by commentary from legal historians, scholars and articles germane to the subject of the petition. Judge Pellegrini quoted Mr. Charles Gordon former INS counsel, as saying the answer to the natural born question "... must be had elsewhere, ..." but he chose not to give equal consideration to public law currently in force or to dissenting opinions such as those submitted by Professors Elhauge and McManamon mentioned earlier, considering them a "minority view".

Judge Pellegrini wrote in his summation, 'Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with common law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen" includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth'. It appears the ruling by Pellegrini took the well traveled road of safe passage and was done principally to expedite the political process for the coming presidential election. The decision was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306564556/Elliott-v-Cruz-SCOPA-Judgment-Affirmed-2016-03-31 ) however it can quickly be concluded the matter was "rubber stamped" as the judges per curiam, simply affirmed the lower court's ruling without any written commentary as to the basis of the affirmation.

Pellegrini also cited The Harvard Law Review article (mentioned above), which was an opinion presented by two prominent and esteemed attorneys at law (Messrs Katyal and Clement) who both served in a number of high official positions within the federal court system as well as teaching at prestigious universities of law. However neither attorney ever served as an appointed or elected judge in either a State or federal trial or appellate court in the United States where they had to render a decision in a criminal or civil case (see: http://www.hoganlovells.com/neal-katyal/ and http://www.bancroftpllc.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ ).

Their commentary is based on extensive analysis of legal proceedings from British common law and U.S. federal statutes that were in place in early American history. For example they cite documents where subjects of the King of England born abroad were considered natural born citizens. The Supreme Court of the United States stubbornly continues to refer back to the musings of pre-constitutional British jurists even though the American colonists separated from the tether of English tyranny and their laws and economic control on July 4, 1776 and thus were no longer bound by English parliamentary dictates.

The article goes on to refer to the first congress of the United States that enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790 which explicitly declared children board abroad of parents who were U.S. citizens being granted the right of natural born citizen status. However the authors conveniently left out a discussion about the repeal of the Act five years later in 1795 (footnoted only) and replaced it with a naturalization act that did not include natural born citizenship status for foreign born children of U.S. parents in addition to their U.S. citizenship birthright. The subject of natural born was never again written into any of the subsequent naturalization acts signed into public law. Thus the Congress has for over 200 years, rejected the notion that natural born citizen status should be granted to persons born in foreign sovereignties by removing such declaration deliberately from 8 USC as it is in force today. I believe it is an error to rely on repealed laws as a basis to answer a legal question other than to give acknowledgement of the past, just like we recognize the failings of slavery, suffrage, prohibition, etc. but refrain from repeating such acts in context and purpose.

The authors then go on to write regarding Ted Cruz "... has been a citizen from birth and is thus a natural born within the meaning of the Constitution." However the Constitution never defined what constitutes a "natural born Citizen" and left it up to the Congress to do so, as its principal charge is to make laws and regulations promulgated from them. The Constitution only addresses persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and makes reference to such persons only as citizens, not natural born citizens.

To reiterate, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be the President because he doesn't meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born Citizen due to the omission of the natural born citizen status anywhere under 8 USC which is the only federal body of law where Cruz can be granted citizenship due to his birth in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen parent.

-- Addendum --

Lastly, although my non-legal opinion responds to why Ted Cruz cannot be the President, it doesn't speak to the perplexity that has troubled our greatest erudite educators of law to this day, which is the question; what does "natural born Citizen" really mean, by definition? I might as well give my thoughts on that topic as well.

The solution cannot be found from any common law or American case law precedent, cannot be discovered from any archeological legal quest such as to uncover the Tablets of Testimony kept in the Ark of the Covenant or through examination of the Shroud of Turin, a venerated object of Christian belief or in spiritual and heavenly whispers disclosed to prophets and sages of old. I believe the answer has already been determined not by written or oral law but by the American people themselves since the First Congress of the United States.

Each executive since George Washington on up to the current head of State who occupies the White House today, was installed into office by the Electoral College in concert with the will of the people who elected them on the ballot. Despite their differences of political philosophy, personal wealth, age, background, etc., every one of the 44 presidents all had one thing in common besides their gender which is; they all were born within the several States that make up the Republic, every one of them (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_birth).

By virtue of the requirement in Article II that each candidate be a natural born Citizen and each president to date has been elected without challenge and in full compliance with this provision; it is therefore an irrefutable constitutional fact in evidence that "natural born Citizen" can only mean what Electoral College history has bound by precedent and tradition; that a natural born Citizen is a citizen born within the States of the Republic, or territories or incorporated possessions of the United States of America and no other citizenship status can comply with Article II.

Nevertheless, this current knot of political contention needs to be unwound so the American laity can focus on the important issues of each candidate's platform who seeks the presidency.

Thank you for your time.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA