Some were wondering when Part 2 would be published — here it is!
I had been waiting for a good counter-point to argue but all evidence brought forward by those saying Cruz is not eligible fell short of having any wisdom behind their argument. LOTS of knowledge being used incorrectly does not make a substantiated argument but only aloud fool. All were creating Post Hoc Ergo Post Hoc fallacy that fell flat long before the posts or articles were even finished. When any wants to sharpen a knife on a sponge, it is time to take leave and let them be — they are not about to listen to anything nor anyone save their own voice and those that agree with it…
I did however come across a comment published by a one Most Rev. Archbishop Gregori that doesn’t follow the fallacy… Can’t find much about the Reverend save that he supposedly had a one-on-one conversation with Obama early in 2011 (January or February) [the link provided is broken and Google searches didn’t provide any more clues]. His Disques profile note him as a member of the Orthodox Catholic clergy in Webster NY and is a contributor to the Patriot Action Network. Not much else about him is on the internet… yet…
Here’s his rebuttal to one of the fallacy/arguments where the author claimed once again Cruz is not eligible for the U.S. Presidency… I’ve added links to his references as well as corrected a few items (such as 1874 corrected to 1875 – the year of the hearing and decision of the Minor v Happersett case)
Background: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote. The 19th Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex. Minor v. Happersett continued to be cited in support of restrictive election laws of other types until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to guarantee voting rights. [wikipedia]
“A clear and undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 [Clause 5] natural-born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to parents (that’s plural, meaning both Father and Mother) who are citizens. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases”.
“In the Minor vs. Happersett case, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt. By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship which was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. By so doing, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
“In order for this precedent to be reversed, 1 of 2 things are necessary…
- A Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did, or;
- A Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case.
“NEITHER OF THESE EXIST.
“The argument as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is really a moot point, because even IF he was born in Hawaii, he would be a citizen of the United States, but NOT a “natural born” citizen because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.
Counterpoint: True however his mother WAS a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. The Law of Nations is credited with placing the father as the determining factor of a child’s citizenship. In both Obama and Cruz’s cases, their mothers were U.S. citizens at the time of their births (and still are in Cruz’s case, Obama’s mother did die as a U.S.citizen). In Obama’s case, his father never pursued U.S. citizenship — in Cruz’s case, his father did gain U.S citizenship in 2005. Obama’s mother had to have been a resident of the U.S. for 10 years, at least 5 of which were beyond the age of 14. Ann Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born, further removing Obama’s eligibility as a citizen (my personal opinion agrees with many that say we have a illegitimate President).
“Marco Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida, which makes him a “CITIZEN” of the U.S. His parents were legal immigrants from Cuba. They did NOT become U.S. citizens until November 1975, which makes Rubio a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.
“Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, who then went to to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. Cruz’s father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. Therefore, it can be argued that since Ted Cruz’s mother holds U.S. citizenship, then Ted is also a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen. However, having been born in Canada and his father holding Canadian citizenship at the time, means that Ted also holds dual citizenship with Canada and the United States. This makes him doubly ineligible to be president.
“Cruz announced he was giving up his dual citizenship When the issue of his ineligibility came up in mid – 2013. Apparently, Cruz believes that he [can] make himself a legal “natural born” citizen at any time, just by renouncing his Canadian citizenship. Here is the inconvenient truth: Sorry, Ted, but like the fraud in the White House, you were born with dual citizenship, and you cannot become a “natural born” citizen even if you do renounce your Canadian citizenship. It just doesn’t work that way.
Counterpoint: There’s nothing saying dual citizens doesn’t count as natural-born — no source documentation can be found that says anything of this sort. Cruz’s desire to renounce his Canadian Citizenship came about after ‘The Dallas Morning News’ brought the Canadian citizenship matter to his attention. Cruz immediately started the renunciation process as his allegiance and heart are with the U.S. and not split between Canada and the U.S. The Reverend, while documenting strongly in the beginning has now fallen upon personal opinion and has not provided anything documented to substantiate his claim.
“Even though Cruz was born in Canada, he was American from the moment of his birth.
“Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was a US citizen from Delaware.
“His father, Rafael Cruz, was a Cuban national who had received a green card while living in the US (he eventually became a US citizen in 2005).
“Under American law, Cruz would be born an American despite having only one US citizen parent as long as that parent — his mother — had physically lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years had been after her 14th birthday.
“Cruz’s mother easily cleared that bar, so Cruz’s citizenship is not debatable.
“In the case of Bobby Jindal, his parents arrived Feb 1, 1971, his mother was was five months pregnant when they arrived on U.S. soil and obtained green cards, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge Louisiana. His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards. His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen. It can also be argued Jindal became a U.S. citizen via the fraudulent ‘anchor baby’ bastardization of the 14th Amendment. In any case, his parents were not illegals since they obtained green cards, but they were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.”
I have not shared all my opinions here, mostly due to time constraints at the time of this publications.
We all know this is NOT going to go away and the Left will undoubtedly make an issue of it while sweeping Obama’s citizenship issues under the rug or sealing them up permanently somehow in a court of Law.
Your counterpoints and supporting points are welcome in the comments section below…