by Garrett O’Brien, originally published 25-April-2015
There are on occasions, a post very well put together not only with original source documents but with sound reasoning that supports those documents.
They aren’t debating the matter as the matter has already been debated and the results established but proving without a doubt that the matter has already been substantiated.
While debating someone’s viewpoint that Cruz is not a U.S. citizen, I could not help but feel they had missed something that is already available.
My own work on this disappeared when Facebook closed more than 1500 accounts that were anti-Islam — that was my mistake for thinking Facebook supports the first amendment!
From their words they say they do, however, their actions speak MUCH louder they don’t…
There was nothing in my account (and probably many others taken down) that could not be substantiated if someone had an open mind and the desire to know the facts.
Yet, Zuck has proven by his own actions on more than several occasions he could not care less about facts unless it hits his bottom line.
Returning to my missing work…
I searched the web for someone that may have replicated the same work I did and found Dara Lind’s post on Vox.com, ‘Can Canadian-born Ted Cruz run for president? (Yes.)‘
As the site does not have a reblog option, I am copying it in full here for a couple of reasons…
The first is you KNOW the left is going to make this — and keep making this — an issue (but God forbid when the right did the same about Obama, yes?) and I wanted something on this site to point to…
The second is it provides ample documentation on why Obama is NOT eligible to be a natural-born citizen of the United States — this fact, once established by a proper judicial process, will nullify everything Obama ever signed or auto signed…
We will have a catastrophe on our hands but not as much a catastrophe if we let this fact slide…
Let me repeat that, a fact, once established by a proper judicial process, that will nullify e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g Obama ever signed or auto signed…
- the bailouts for the corporations too big to fail
- removing any and all Islam references from any and all terrorist lists
- Czar appointments
- his secret service protection
- his retirement
- and much, much more…
Though Obama has been smart in keeping his hands and signature off of what he wanted a place to influence his shell game to his end, he can’t avoid anything he has signed — nor anything that comes with the title of President of the United States.
Once his standing as NOT being a natural-born citizen is established by a proper judicial process, he is — in essence — a wolf stripped of any and all sheep’s clothing…
So, the first step is to establish what are the conditions that say anyone is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
To this end, I provide Dana’s post in full, unedited…
Senator Ted Cruz, who has formally declared he’s running for president of the United States, was born in Canada (Calgary, to be exact).
That’s enough for maybe-fellow presidential hopeful Donald Trump to assert that Cruz is not actually eligible to serve as president [< note: paywall]— because the Constitution restricts the presidency to “natural-born citizens” of the United States.
It’s pretty clear Cruz can run for president — smart legal minds have looked at the relevant laws and generally agree that an American born in Canada is still eligible to run the country.
Of the many obstacles that stand between Cruz and the White House, his Canadian birth will almost certainly not be his campaign’s death knell.
Cruz Was Born A Citizen of the U.S.
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.
Cruz also gained Canadian citizenship at birth, the same way anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.
Cruz eventually renounced his Canadian citizenship, after he was already in the Senate, to make it clear that America was his only love.
But his eligibility to run for president didn’t hinge on that; there’s nothing saying dual citizens don’t count as natural-born [emphasis mine].
The problem for Cruz is that there’s actually nothing saying what does count as “natural-born.”
While it’s common sense to assume anyone who’s born a citizen of the US is a “natural-born” citizen, the law doesn’t officially spell that out.
And that’s what creates just a little bit of doubt.
Will Congress Have to Pass a Resolution to Settle the Question?
There used to be a law on the books defining a “natural-born citizen.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790 specified that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
That’s pretty cut-and-dried — and it obviously includes Ted Cruz.
the fact that the law was passed so soon
after the Constitution was written,
by many of the men who had written the Constitution,
indicates it’s pretty close to the “founders’ intent”
of what a “natural-born citizen” was.
One problem: Congress repealed the 1790 Act in 1795 , and replaced it with another law that specified that people in Cruz’s situation would be “citizens” — but not whether they’d be “natural-born citizens.”
Most lawyers agree that this would be a pretty thin case against Cruz.
On March 11, former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement published an article in the Harvard Law Review that argued that Cruz’s eligibility was an open-and-shut case.
“While some constitutional issues are truly difficult,” they wrote, this one isn’t; “the relevant materials clearly indicate” that Cruz counts as natural-born.
The Congressional Research Service doesn’t think it’s quite as obvious as all that; in a 2011 report , they concluded that there are “legitimate legal issues” regarding whether people born outside the US count as “natural-born.”
(However) the CRS concluded that “the weight of historical and legal authority” comes down on the side that they do.
But just because the legal question is settled doesn’t mean Cruz’s citizenship won’t get challenged at all.
In April 2008, the Senate felt the need to pass a resolution declaring that John McCain was definitely for sure a “natural-born citizen” of the US; the resolution was bipartisan, and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were original co-sponsors [again, emphasis mine].
Meanwhile, a man named John Hollander, who’d voted against McCain in the New Hampshire primary, filed a federal suit against McCain and the Republican National Committee for disenfranchising his vote by running an ineligible candidate for president.
Hollander represented himself in court, and doesn’t appear to have made the most impressive argument; the judge dismissed the case that summer because Hollander had no standing to sue.
The moral of the story: it’s pretty darn clear that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president.
At the same time, that doesn’t mean that no one in this country of 300 million Americans will be crazy enough to say he isn’t.
So how does Obama’s history stack up to all this?
This is discussed in part 2, which can be viewed by clicking here
Currently, comments are closed. We have just returned online and are rebuilding many facets of our site. Comments on our site are temporarily disabled until we have the programming for the management of comments tested and placed into production.
About Garrett OBrien
Garrett is the owner of DecisiveLiberty.News. Formerly a Liberal then a Republican, Garrett has seen political parties by default look out for themselves and not the people. Garrett now focuses specifically on our Constitution as it is written. He uses Decisive Liberty as a platform to provide a voice to those that believe neither political party are protecting our Constitution nor our Rights to their fullest as our Founding Fathers wrote them in the First 10 Amendments. For the moment, Garrett resides in Brazil with his wife.