The Great Ted Cruz Eligibility Question

How do you run against the Democrat, whoever it may be, and you have this hanging over your head? – Donald Trump on the question of Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility.

From the moment Ted Cruz climbed to the top of the Iowa polls, you knew it was only a matter of time before Donald Trump attacked. The billionaire has been wildly successful at hitting his opponents where it hurts, and there was little reason to think Cruz would get a pass. Trump’s first blow went errant, however, drawing jeers from conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh. When Trump said Cruz lacked the right “temperament” for the presidency – “kind of a maniac” – some of his supporters accused him of using Democrat tactics. This backlash may have had an effect; at the next Republican debate, Trump backed off his earlier remarks.

But while Trump may have decided that attacking Cruz’s wild Senate reputation was a dead end, he certainly wasn’t going to give him an easy path to victory in Iowa. On several occasions, Trump questioned Cruz’s religious background, saying, “Not too many evangelicals are coming out of Cuba.” For that argument to have any weight, however, voters would have to see fraud in Cruz’s religious convictions. Whether you love Cruz or hate him, it’s nearly impossible to see his faith as anything but sincere.

Now Trump, not accustomed to failure, is bringing out the heavy artillery. Namely, the question of whether the Canadian-born Cruz is even eligible to be president. And this one may be a little more difficult for Cruz to deflect.

“The Constitution and the laws of the United States are straightforward,” Cruz said in a CNN interview. “The very first Congress defined the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad as a natural-born citizen.”

Cruz has considerable legal support for that position, but he’s overstating the case when he calls it “straightforward.” The definition is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, and it’s tough to forget the legions of “birthers” who insisted that this very issue made President Obama illegitimate. There was never any doubt that Obama’s mother was an American citizen, so why was his place of birth an issue if the laws in this area are clear?

The problem, as Trump has masterfully pointed out, is not really Ted Cruz’s actual eligibility. The problem is that it leaves Hillary Clinton with a wide opening she can use to cast doubts in a general election. And since there is ample evidence to show that Clinton was the first of Obama’s enemies to paint him as a foreign Muslim, there’s no cause to think she’ll exercise restraint this time around.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question,” Trump said. “Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?”

With this, his third jab at the Texas senator, Trump connected. And it shows us that, with the first primaries coming up fast, this race is about to get vicious.

About admin

515 comments

  1. Not a fan of Obama or Cruz. I find it funny, republicans for the last 7 years were crying Obama was not born in this country and should not be president. Yet, say nothing of Cruz running. I find both parties as the biggest threat to our country, today. Both parties have had a hand in destroying our way of life and most politicians in Washington should be tried for treason…..

    • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      gf..
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • You have obozo’s birther issue wrong! It does not matter if Obozo was born in Kenya, or Indonesia he still would be an American citizen if in fact ms Dunnen is his real mother! The question arises from his obvious forged birth certificate, and the woman who produced it mysteriously died in a plane crash shortly there after!
      As for Cruz’s eligibility, 8 USC Section 12 part 3, sub paragraph d answers the question. He is eligible, look it up for yourself! However, Trump was asked by a journalist about Cruz’s eligibility, to which he initially responded that he was not a constitutional expert! He has further raised a valid point the once nominated a presidential candidate the democrats or Clinton herself could raise the issue, file suit, and cloud Cruz’s eligibility and possibly negate his candidacy! Trump is right, can republicans really take that risk?
      We must remember that Hillary Clinton was the first to raise the issue with regard to obozo’s eligibility. Don’t believe for one second this evil bitch would give Cruz a pass!

        • Don’t tell me I’m wrong without first having referenced 8 USC section 12 part 3, sub paragraph d! Citing someone’s opinion on the subject is not the same as referencing United States Legal code!
          If you were being tried for a crime, would you have your lawyer refer to legal opinion or United States legal code!
          Please do me the curiously of rereading my previous post and then refer to the USC legal code I referenced! Just because you want to believe it requires both parents to be conferred citizenship by birth does not make it fact! Before you establish your opinions know the facts, in this case the US legal code, otherwise you project yourself as ignorant of the law and misinformed! USC is the law of the land, if you disagree with it take steps in court to get it changed, in the mean time, the law is the law! Your reference to some opinion piece will not stand in a court of law, nor will it stand as an argument to my commentary!
          It never fails to astound me how Americans like yourself are so ill informed of the Constitution, bill of rights, and Us legal code. No wonder this country is in the state it’s in!
          God help us all!!
          Trump/Cruz 2016

          • Here are some facts for those who would claim many of us are uninformed when in fact the uninformed are those who ignore the following:
            Please note that referrence is made to parents in the plural.
            Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
            “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 parent(S) who are citizens.”

            John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:
            “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parent(S) owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”

            In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
            “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parent(S) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
            [CRUZ HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP (Canadian/American) owed not only loyalty to his mothers country but to the country of his birth; therefore a ‘shared allegiance;.]

            Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
            “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parent(S) who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

            United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
            “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 parent(S) who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

          • ‘citizens”
            That is the deciding word, CITIZENS, (clue for the ignorant: CITIZENS > MORE THAN ONE!) Also, PERSONS, Plural…. more than one.

          • Citizens and persons is plural. Citizens(s) and person(s) which is how it is written is either/or. Anytime you put the letter ‘s’ in parenthesis (s) at the end of a word it changes that word from being exclusive to being either/or. I suggest you and everyone that liked your comment get your vision checked or work on your reading comprehension issue.

          • I saw no parenthesis in the Constitution around citizens.
            And, in being used in other places is a Constitutional concern, using certain wording without challenge as to if it is Constitutional has been a favorite of Congress for some time.. Many things have been done wrong and either no one caught them or they were done for a less than honorable reason, kept silent and the average American in this day and age has no clue..

          • I’ve been reposting this several times here – – wonder why this/these have never been published – –

            Congressional rule change for people born between December
            23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s
            ability to confer citizenship status on her son. – Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
            was born in 1961; Dunham’s age – only 18 at time of delivery. ”When one parent
            was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent
            must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the
            child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not
            meet requisite status” – “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in
            Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not
            meet the residency requirements!”

            The rules changed again for people born between December 23,
            1952, and November 13, 1986. When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a
            foreign national, the U.S. citizen
            parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth
            of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. Children born out of
            wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a
            resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
            Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship
            only if legitimated before turning 21.

            http://www.ranchodlaw.com/other-visas/citizenship-and-residency/

          • Thank you for stating the above. I remembered reading about it but i couldn’t remember where. So why was Obama allowed to be president since ms. dunham didn’t qualify?!

          • those laws are only relevant if the birth is on foreign soil. If Obama was born in Hawaii as advertised they are irrelevant. She could have been 12 and he’d still be a citizen.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • thank you for the clarification

          • Nancy Pelosi certified that he was eligible.

          • This completely eliminates Senator Marco Rubio as a candidate for the presidency.

          • Children born of foreign national parent(s) are ineligible – i.e. Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Obama.

          • Thank you for your decision in this matter, Paul. Unfortunately, your decision and mind do not carry much weight. For a very long time, the Supreme Court has declined a final ruling on this question. Unlike you and me, the Court looks beyond the law to the “intent”
            of the law. It has been generally agreed by numerous law reviews that the framers of the Constitution were seeking restriction of possible incursion by a foreign power. That has nothing to do with the four names you mention. Think on it. Until the Court rules otherwise, they are eligible; regardless of your opinion or mine. Peace.

          • If Cruz, Rubio (of Jindal should he rear his head again) is nominated, we will not vote for an ineligible candidate. We will lose the election and live under the socialists for another four years. Choose wisely.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Then, Paul, you might as well just vote for Hillary or Sanders. Your actions carry the same result; and communicate to me exactly who and what you are. Withdrawal from the democratic process has never been the answer; and gives rise to tyranny. Is this truly what you want?

          • That is a different action but, yes, it would accomplish exactly that. What you think of me and all of the others who will do likewise is of no concern to me – I will support the Constitution. Choose wisely.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I do support the Constitition, Paul. Please don’t imply that I do not simply because we do not agree. Assuming that you are 100% correct about Cruz and Obama, the legal precidence has been established. Nothing that we say or do is ever going to change this,
            unless the Court issues a historical new ruling. I personally do not think that is ever going to happen. I accept that you are a man of principle. However, principle that results in your withdrawal from our democratic process is questionable. You are never going to win the fight, if you step out of the ring.

          • There is no ‘legal precedence’ when it comes to violating the Constitution. I will not be withdrawing from the ‘democratic’ process, I (we) will simply not vote for an ineligible candidate. Nominate Cruz and lose the election, it’s that simple. Choose wisely.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • SO, you argue that we’re better off with someone who tramples the Constitution, should be on trial for treason, murder, conspiracy and many other things than someone who has a legal parent as does our current POTUS?
            Interesting….

          • Nope, I don’t argue that at all. Obozo is not a natural born citizen and has no busiiness in the Oval Office. If more people understood the law that wouldn’t have happened.

          • You wrote:

            {I will support the Constitution. Choose wisely.

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”}
            ————————————————————————————————–

            You are not making any sense. You cannot claim to support the Constitution while simultaneously questioning why we should accept US law instead deferring to natural law!

            In case you missed something in civics class the Constitution is US law. It is the Supreme law that trumps all others and was created by man.

            As for natural law? There are only the laws of nature, physics and God. None of which has any role in defining a citizenship status. In fact if you wanted to apply the laws of nature or God as above those of man and therefore the Constitution then we are all citizens of the Earth and any eligibility requirements under any laws of man would be void.

            You are also mixing two entirely unrelated topics. Natural Born is not Natural Law! A natural birth under Natural Law (laws of nature) would be a birth that occurred naturally without being induced through artificial means. It has nothing to do with geographic location at birth or what a parent(s) citizenship status is.

            I suggest in the future that if you are going to argue for or against something that you avoid making statements that negate your own argument. You cannot claim something is above the laws of man while arguing on behalf of what you claim was the meaning of a law of man!

          • The Constitution stand above statutory and case law and it supports natural law
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • ONLY ONE PARENT MUST BE A CITIZEN…

            8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III: NATIONALITY AND
            NATURALIZATION

            From Title 8—ALIENS AND
            NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12—IMMIGRATION AND
            NATIONALITY

            SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

            Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective
            Naturalization

            §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at
            birth

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
            United States at birth:

            (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;

          • 8USC does not define ‘natural born citizen’ and is irrelevant. Citizen, yes. . .natural born citizen, no.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • A “natural born citizen” is a person who is a citizen at birth by parentage, not location. You are re-defining the term “natural born citizen” and your definition is wrong. Have a nice day.

          • My definition is correct. Here’s the info on birth on the soil:
            https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/new-evidence-1790-naturalization-act/
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • This is ridicules considering oboma doesn’t do anything by the constitution.

          • I’m not sure how your comment applies to anything?

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • citizen and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing.

          • Well it clearly shows that there are double standards for damocrats and republicans.

          • I completely agree, but the media and legal authorities don’t agree with us.

          • Obie gave up his citizenship for Indonesian citizenship. Obie was never illegible to be president.

          • When did he formally renounce his citizenship? When did he apply to be a legal citizen of Indonesia? Just going to live in a foreign country or going to school in a foreign country has nothing to do with citizenship. I am still considered a “natural born citizen”, yet I lived in Europe for four years.

          • Peter, the issue of Obama having given up his US citizenship was in regard to him attending an Indonesian school where only Muslim Indonesians were accepted. Then there is his Fulbright Scholarship which was only awarded to foreign students. There is also mention of his being adopted by his mother’s second husband and that country then granted him citizenship. There is even suggestions that his mother became a foreign citizen. All of these are either suppositions or actual facts. Left in the dark but the shadow needs to be cleared but I suspect many ignore any effort in that regard and will use the issue of Obama not
            having an American father as being no different for Cruz and ignore Cruz’s ineligibility.

            An American living in a foreign country does not lose his American citizenship. If born in a foreign country with only one parent an American then the child would be an American citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

          • I heard since his mom was working connected to our Government and he went to the American School for Diplomats, Business parents, Volunteers etc.

          • But Cruz’s father was not a U. S. citizen until just recently, so Cruz may be a citizen, but is definitely not eligible to be President.

          • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

            A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
            vn….
            ➤➤
            ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

          • Stop advertising your SCAM here. This is NOT the classified section.

          • That is false. Obama could not give up his citizenship (age) and his parents had no power to make that happen either. The only thing that could have happened was that Lolo Soetoro lied on the documentation and to the government about Barry’s citizenship in order to get him into school.

          • And that I think is why Obama’s records are sealed. I think he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro (his step-father) and became a citizen of Indonesia. He most likely never changed that. He probably afforded those expensive schools by virtue of “foreign student” status because his family didn’t have the money to pay for those schools and he certainly didn’t get scholarships.

          • Each of these people had one parent who was an American citizen OR they were born on American soil. That is all that counts as stated by the law, period. Obama’s mother was an American citizen and he was born on American soil in Hawaii. Even if you believe Obama was born in Kenya, he is still a “natural born citizen” of the United States because of his mother’s citizenship. That “birther” issue is so very much dead except in the minds of people ignorant of the law. Have a nice day.

          • ” That is all that counts as stated by the law, period “. . .What law?
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • There is a law that states that only a “natural born citizen” can be President. Then there is another law that defines the requirements for being a “natural born citizen”. Maybe you should take some courses in American History or Civics. Have a nice day.

          • And what law would that be? I’ll tell you what it’s not, it’s not the 14th Amendment and it’s not 8USC. Neither have a thing to do with the ‘natural born citizen’ clause.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I do not know who gave you the authority of the “Last Word”… but When Obie was a boy, he gave up any American citizenship to go to live with step father Soetoro in Indo.
            He attended college as an excange student on the Indo. passport. He has never had his citizenship reinstated as an American.
            Since by now all of his college visas hve expired, and he is not a citizen…. He is an illegal alien; as such he doesnt qualify to be Potus.

          • Once you are an American Citizen, you are always an American Citizen, UNLESS you formally renounce your American Citizenship. Being in another country or going to school in another country does not have anything to do with citizenship. Your knowledge on this subject is lacking. Read some real sources. Have a nice day.

          • Obama’s citizenship was renounced, as was required by Indonesian Law, when he became an Indonesian citizen so he could go to school in Indonesia. He also could not have gotten an Indonesian Passport without Indonesian Citizenship

          • No, Bradley, it was not. The law does not permit that.

          • Where did you come up with this? When did Obama go to school in Indonesia? Why has nobody brought this up in the last seven years? Sounds like a pile of stuff to me.

          • I’ve known about this since early in 2008 — where are you getting your news? He was in the neighborhood of 9, 10. You do remember he said that the muslim call to prayer was one of the prettiest sounds on earth?

          • No, he did not. A child cannot renounce citizenship and the law does not allow a parent to do that for them. Only when the child reaches the age of majority can s/he renounce citizenship. Obama was a ‘born citizen’ but he was not a ‘natural born citizen’. He’s a usurper squatting in the Oval Office.

          • Actually, Paul, Barry could only be a “born citizen” (a.k.a. citizen by statute only) if he had been born in Hawaii as he claims, but there is no definitive proof of even that status since both his alleged short form “certificate of live birth’ and purported “long form birth certificate” are well documented forgeries. You’re right, though, in that Barry is not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and is thus a usurping fraud. What very few of the people posting in this thread appear to understand is that the reason why a natural born citizen’s claim to birthright is superior to that of a 14th Amendment citizen, or a citizen by any other statutory definition, is that the natural born citizen requires no code, statute, or other Act of Congress to declare that he or she is a Citizen. It is simply a fact implied by the very nature of such birth, and instantly recognized by all nations as being indisputable.

          • 1) he was born in Hawaii
            2) Supreme Court defines natural born as one who has a Parent who is USA Citizen….Why don’t you look up the definition. Google it. I did. It said the Supreme Court had decided that natural born meant a USA citizen as a parent no matter where the birth takes place.

          • We don’t know where Obama was born. His birth certificate is a forgery and he’s a serial liar.

            What case would that be, Julea?

          • SupremeAuthorityOnStuff

            The court may define a term, but it cannot change the meaning of any word used in the constitution. Natural born Citizen, as used, and for the purpose of constructing the Law, forever retains the meaning the framers understood- not whatever opinion any later panel might decide. To allow that is dangerous in the extreme. It would amount to Amendment by decree.

          • The SCOTUS must determine the constitutionality of a law. If a lower court were to find a naturalized citizen to be a natural born citizen, it would be incumbent upon them to take the case and straighten out the constitutional question. If a lawsuit is filed against Cruz and not tossed out for standing, it would rise to the SCOTUS regardless of the lower court decision and the SCOTUS would have to decide. If they did so, as they did in Ark and if they made a decision which the people, the States and the Congress disagree with then the only resort would be the floating and ratification of a constitutional amendment. But they MUST decide.

          • Your 100% right Pete, why is it so difficult to convince the idiot steeple! I too have tried for months, yet they cling to their disjointed beliefs regardless of how many fact you present!
            No wonder this country is in the shape it’s in, there is no cure for stupid.
            Trump 2016

          • Nope, that makes one a citizen but not a natural born citizen as proven to you over and over again. Nominate Cruz and lose.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Look. The Supreme court defined it natural born if one parent is a USA Citizen. NATURAL BORN. The Constitution did not define natural born so the Supreme Court did. And it includes McCain, Cruz, and Obama born in Hawaii. Or anywhere.

          • Cool! Cite the case please.

          • Obamas parents had to renounce his US citizenship so he could be an Indonesian citizen and go to school, Indonesian law requires NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP. He never requested it be reinstated.

          • Nonsense. Neither parent had any control over Ovomit’s US citizenship. Daddy lied to get Barry into school as an Indonesian citizen.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • You heard Trump yesterday. Cruz is not born citizen. He is a Canadian-Cuban. People have already filed lawsuit to disqualify Cruz.

          • I see Cruz as a more sensible man that is down to earth. We keep putting liberals in to compete with liberals and wonder why we loose.

          • We will lose this time because you nominate an ineligible candidate if Cruz gets the nod.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • SupremeAuthorityOnStuff

            “Natural born ” primarily refers to the nature of the birth – on American soil is the primary requirement. It’s character also refers to the parents , two of which are required. Two Citizens bearing a child on the soil of one of the states is the only situation the natural birth of a Citizen can be achieved.
            B.H.O. ‘s birth has been documented and attested to by relatives present and witnessing, as occurring in Mombasa. B.H.O.sr. was not American, and Stanley had not been on American soil for a year at the time (also a requirement) Nor, at her age, could her citizenship afford her all rights of citizenship, one of which is conferring citizenship to B.H.O.jr.
            If you really believe what you are arguing, ask yourself what would be the distinction between natural born citizen, natural born, citizen, and citizen of the united states. They are distinct things.Not only distinct but very different.

          • Supreme Court says No Matter Where the Birth, Natural born Citizen is one who has parent citizen of USA.

          • Please cite the case that said that.

          • SupremeAuthorityOnStuff

            Thankfully, the court has no authority to redefine ANY term used in the constitution.

          • If the Mother is a US citizen, it does not matter where she gives birth. On the Moon or mars the child will be a US Citizen because Mom is. If you are a citizen, your child is a Citizen.

          • SupremeAuthorityOnStuff

            But, NOT natural born.

          • Definition of who is a US Citizen
            8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III: NATIONALITY AND
            NATURALIZATION

            From Title 8—ALIENS AND
            NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12—IMMIGRATION AND
            NATIONALITY

            SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

            Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective
            Naturalization

            §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at
            birth

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
            United States at birth:

            (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;

          • Citizen, yes. . .natural born citizen, no. Cruz is doubly ineligible – foreign national father and born on foreign soil.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Read what the Law states…..Defining what his Natural Born…..

            You make NO SENSE when you state…” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.” If the courts were/are to determine this they will/or at least should BASE IT ON THE LAWS AND THE CONTSTITUTION….

          • May I ask you one final question, Paul? Do you really believe the Supreme Court will invalidate the Presidencies of Obama and/or Chester A. Arthur by ruling Cruz as ineligible?
            Perhaps; but I don’t believe that will ever happen. I think it is more likely that we may soon be witness to a repeal and re-write of Article Two. My Congressman and Senator have already told me that this step is under consideration.

          • If we demand it and force them to look at it, yes.

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • What you quote, from §1401(d) doesn’t even apply to Ted Cruz. Look to §1401(g) for the correct application, as Ted’s father was an alien at the time of Ted’s birth, not an American national. A “national,” as used in the statutes, is anyone who has allegiance to the united States of America, but is not a “citizen of the United States.” To understand how this is possible, you must understand that a “citizen of the United States” is either a 14th Amendment citizen, or a citizen as declared by U.S. Codes and/or Statutes. A “natural born citizen” requires no such declaration or Act of Congress, as his/her national status and allegiance is a settled matter, at time of birth, which is understood and accepted by all nations as indisputable. Not so when the father of a child is a foreigner, as the child inherits both the father’s name and nationality at birth. Up until May of 2014, Ted Cruz retained his Canadian citizenship, as well as U.S. citizenship, and to complicate and divide his allegiance even further, he was also a Cuban at birth due to his father’s nationality. Ted’s father did not become a citizen of the U.S. until 2005. Anyone born with 3 different national allegiances at time of birth is the ultimate example of why the Founding Fathers included the “natural born citizen” requirement in our Constitution for the united States of America.

          • Yes it does.

          • You and I seem to know this, but no one in the media, legal authorities, and others don’t seem to have a problem with Senator Rubio’s candidacy.

          • That is something over which we have little control. all we can do is educate and hope to wake people up to the law to prevent future usurpers.

          • Paul, I agree, but it has become tiresome to watch the ignorant and unlearned disregard the Constitution which our Forefathers gave their all to create.

          • We all have limited time and resources. After seeing what a usurper can do to the country, I have chosen to fight this fight and I have been very pleased with the responses and support I’ve gotten. I will continue until all usurpers are gone and will pick up the fight again should another pop up. I may not accomplish anything but my children and grandchildren will know that I did what I could to protect and defend the Constitution as I promised when I enlisted in the Air Force.

          • I’m proud of you my friend. I, as well, will continue the good fight.

          • To the good fight!

          • SOSADFOROURCOUNTRY

            Good job Lynn. Thanks for writing down the research. Having the “s” at the end of “parents” being US citizens is what I have been trying to get across on various posts on various articles regarding eligibility for POTUS. This was our founders’ and authors’ of the US’s constitution intention when the put in the requirements for POTUS, that both parents be US citizens prior to giving birth to future candidates.

          • Citizens and persons is plural. Citizens(s) and person(s) which is how it is written is either/or. Anytime you put the letter ‘s’ in parenthesis (s) at the end of a word it changes that word from being exclusive to being either/or.

          • Well said.

          • He did; how is that relevant? You do understand ‘natural BORN citizen’ I presume?

          • Paul, it is defined by the fact that any one is a citizen who has one American Parent, in this case his mother. Do you think the Tea Party would support someone that was not a Citizen and very Conservative? Who are you working for, who is your candidate? Are you a Lib? Tell me where you are coming from. I personally support Dr. Carson not just because he a strong Christian like Ted. I met and asked strategic questions to determine where Ted stood. Dr. Carson has a ready made advertising campaign. Dr. Carson has written several successful books, and has a motion picture showing his life and his being raised in a poverty household. I have heard story after story about this man’s kindness and he is quite capable to choose a cabinet that will give us back a Constitutionally based government. Trump calls himself a Christian but his behavior in reference to saying Dr. Carson could not change has no understanding of the power of God to transform a person’s life, Much less not knowing why he believes what he says he believes. Also in Texas we had a governor who had no understanding what it meant to be born again saying he was born right the first time, meaning he had no understanding what being born again from above means. Trump has no concept in this area. How could this man represent 84% of this country who are evangelical Christians? Again I have talked with Senator Cruz and he was extremely knowledgeable about what needs to happen in Washington. Not a sound bite but he knew why and understands where the Constitution came from. Something that Trump will not know. Again, I said Ted Renounced his Canadian citizenship because he had dual Citizenship with the US. Who are you that you think you know better than what has been said about what is a natural born Citizen? Are you a Constitutional expert? I doubt it. If Ted had not been considered a naturally born citizen do you not think he would have had to go through a naturalization process? Our president having lived in Indonesia and his stepfather there made sure he was a Muslim. This president came to America and was listed as a Foreign Student at Occidental College. A black radio talk show host in California stated that Michelle convinced Obama to become a Christian so he could run for office. You don’t become a Christian by just saying you are. I have never heard of him renouncing his Indonesian Citizenship. We do have a real live foreign president whose name was Barry Soetoro.

          • No, Dexter, it is not. I have given references proving my position and it is supported by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, six SCOTUS panels, John Jay, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Emerich De Vattel and numerous constitutional attorneys who argue it. Here is one reference in case you missed it: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

            I am a constitutional conservative who has supported Republicans all my voting life and that will not change. if an ineligible candidate is nominated I will leave the box for the presidency blank. Others who feel as I do will vote third party and some will likely stay home in protest. I have not settled on a preferred candidate yet, there are things I like about all of them and things I don’t like about all of them but the bottom line is that I will vote for any of them over any Democrat unless the candidate is ineligible.

            I agree with everything you say about Obama and that outcome is distressing – I am comforted in my lack of support for McCain, also ineligible, only from the fact that my vote would not have changed anything but his voting record tells me that he would not have been significantly different from what we have now.

          • You haven’t answered my question, where are you coming from. Who are you supporting? I defined it at the end of my paragraph, the same that is in the law, by his Mother’s citizenship. I support these two because I am tired of Candidates who do not know our true history. Ted does for sure. May I suggest you obtain Wallbuiders.com “American Heritage Series” 10 DVD’s, read “America’s God and Country” by William Federer, “Original Intent” by David Barton. You will be dumbfounded how far away from the original intent of our laws and how our history was rewritten form 1875 to 1925.

          • I do not doubt how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution – I live it. That doesn’t mean we can’t strive to get back to it.

            I don’t know who I will support yet but it will not be Cruz or Rubio (or Clinton or Sanders or other Democrat).

          • Let’s take one look at those whom you consider Natural Born Citizens, Nixon, LBJ, and so on. That is why it is so important to get to know where the candidates really stand. I want mine to know WHY they believe what they believe and not just say they believe. Ted, Carson, Huckabee fall into these categories I will not give up supporting Dr. Carson until and unless he loses in the primaries..

          • You’re a good man, Dexter. I do the same which is why I am still evaluating candidates. OTOH, I start by eliminating ineligible candidates like Cruz, Rubio and Jindal when he was in the race.

          • I believe that when parenthesis are placed around a letter (S) it indicates one or the other. Parent or parents. (It saves room and money) So Cruz is eligible by virtue of having one parent as a citizen.He has renounced his Canadian citizenship, so there should not be any problem. Even as desperate as Hillary is she can’t deny by the facts.

          • NO, the originals had simply ‘parents’. I simply
            capitalized and placed in parenthesis the ‘s’ to put emphasis on the plural.

          • No she can’t deny, but she can lie and influence the gullible. As another pointed out it was Hillary that went birther on Obama and there is every reason to believe she would do the same again with Cruz. For that reason Cruz is actually a handicap for the party if he gets the nomination.

            Trump is basically hated by the RNC and DNC because as he has said many times he cannot be bought which is true. If he can’t be bought then he can’t be controlled and that scares both parties and their deep pocketed puppet masters to death because they won’t ever be able to call in any favors to push their agendas.

            Right now Hillary and Sanders are still running on a socialist and victim platform like they always do. Almost the same old, same old with ramped up rhetoric and a new twist. This time anyone that isn’t a victim is the enemy.

            Trump on the other hand could be said to be running on a campaign of what the rest of us non appointed victims and anti socialists want to hear. That may be true, but at least he is addressing those things.

            In the end all any of us can do is vote based on our beliefs.

          • There is no parentheses in the applicable U.S. codes, and a “natural born citizen” has no other national citizenship that should be renounced. Ted Cruz was born with THREE national citizenships – Canadian, Cuban, and U.S. This is even worse than Barry Soetoro’s situation!

          • Parent(s) means either one or both, that’s proper legalease.

          • This also eliminates several of our 1st Presidents?

          • No it does not for there was an exception for them since there was no United States at the time of their birth. All who were established as citizens at the time of the founding were listed as being of the soil and their children as well as themselves would have been considered as ‘natural born’ being that they were born in American although under British rule at the time of their birth.

          • NO, they were the exceptions for the United States did not exist at the time of their births. Born before the founding only meant they were born British citizens but once the Constitution was established they were accepted as being natural born for they had been born to the soil.

          • Lynn, I was being sarcastic!?!?

          • That has nothing to do with now — that was for them because the country was brand new and most Americans weren’t BORN American citizens.

          • So the constitution was only for those born in the 18th century is your take?
            How about if Castro fathered a child to an American mother and she gave birth in Cuba to his son or daughter? Would that child be eligible to be president of the United States? According to all you Cruz apologists that child would be eligible for the difference between Cruz and Castro’s child would be no different.

          • I see your point — but in this information age we would know. We can easily look at Cruz’s fathers background and see where his loyalties lie. Wasn’t so easy back then. The whole crux of the matter was loyalty to the country.

          • It is not so easy today to read anothers mind and clearly assertain their loyalty. Look at the two recently that came to this country legally and ended up killing a number of people who had even given them a wedding celebration. NO, as long as I cannot read minds I will go with the feelings expressed by the framers of our constitution.

          • The crux of the matter is the law. Six SCOTUS panels all affirm that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil and is born of citizen parents and Cruz agrees:

            “In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
            Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
            Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

            Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
            Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

            Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
            Cruz: “I would agree.”

            Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
            Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”

            Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
            Interviewer: ‘At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.’”

            Cruz’s definition was 100% correct, the interviewer was wrong. Cruz is ineligible.
            http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

            “AUTHOR NOTE: Everything presented in this column is verifiable fact. Now we will see how many American patriots care about these facts.”

          • It would but for the grandfather clause which made them eligible until ‘natural born citizens’ were available.

          • You’ve got it! When you add the fact that the Founders relied heavily on The Law of Nations by Vattel which describes natural born citizen in the same terms, and it’s pretty definite that Cruz is not what the Founders were looking for as presidential material. The SCOTUS has had multiple opportunities to change the definition placed in Dred Scott and has chosen never to do so.

          • OMG people! It does not matter what was relied on or what was not relied on. The only words that matter are those written into the Constitution and the law. Not anything prior or what was referenced. Also when it comes to the law the Constitution is supreme and trumps all else.

            That being said there are only two legal types of citizen. You are either a citizen at birth based on being born to citizen parent(s) or you are a Naturalized citizen that must take an oath and renounce allegiance to any other country.

            A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be POTUS. That only leaves one other type of citizen. A citizen at birth. Since a naturalized citizen cannot be a natural born citizen and there is only one other legally recognized type of citizen that is the one that is natural born.

            So there you have it. As long as a citizen met the requirements to be a citizen at birth then they are natural born and eligible.

            It does not matter if we have a different opinion or not. Until either Congress amends the Constitution or the Supreme Court takes up the issue then any citizen eligible for birthright citizen is natural born. Those are the facts whether we like them or not.

            We only have two choices. Either vote based on our opinion or don’t vote.

            For those saying a person might as well vote for Hillary or Sanders if Cruz gets nominated, that is a bad suggestion. For every person that is Republican that does not vote for the republican candidate that is a one vote lead for the other party. If however you actually vote for the other party’s candidate then you are giving them a 2 vote advantage.

            It’s simple math. Say both candidates “R” & “D” have 50 votes each. If you take one vote from candidate ‘R’ you end up with ‘R’ has 49 and ‘D’ has 50. If however you take that vote from ‘R’ and give it to ‘D’ then ‘R’ still has 49, but ‘D’ now has 51 equalling a 2 vote advantage instead of just one.

          • ” That being said there are only two legal types of citizen”. . .you were doing well until you said that. There is a ‘citizen’, a ‘native born citizen’, a ‘naturalized citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’ all referenced in the law. Nice try though.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • There have been clarifications made to the citizenship laws since 1900. You might want to check.

          • Citizenship law has nothing to do with the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of Article II, Section 1. Congress has no authority to write such law.

          • If you are a citizen, it does not matter where you give birth or if the father is anonymous, the child will be a US citizen. Period

          • Once again your ignorance is showing. Congress says that your assertion is true ONLY under specified conditions one of which is the age of the citizen mother where the father is a foreign national.

          • Julea, perhaps you did not read my previous post in which I stated: “An American living in a foreign country does not lose his American citizenship. If born in a foreign country with only one parent an American then the child would be an American citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.”

          • Rather, what is astounding is that attorneys and judges can not seem to grasp simply English and twist all legal codes to fit their opinions.
            Much of our original codes and intents were based on English Common Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.. Blackstone delivers a concise definition on types of citizenship, it is unfortunate that those definitions were not included in the original requirements of eligibility for President or Vice President. Had they been included this would be a mot argument.
            The Minor v Happersett ruling in another example of taking something out of context to rule on citizenship. The use of the 14th Amendment, which was written to insure slaves were granted citizenship, is now used a blanket grant for anchor baby citizenship. Because of a judges and attorneys opinion and ill use of our codes.
            Just as out trial by a jury of our peers is a Constitutional right, attorneys now employee tactics and experts to ensure that Jury of our peers is stacked in favor of the out come the attorney seeks.

          • ” Twist all legal codes to fit their opinions…”
            That, in my mind , brings up such thins as…
            The ‘ Affordable Cae Act ‘ !!

          • The Constitution does NOT refer to any trial by “jury of peers” as you just mentioned.The Constitution specifies “Grand Jury.”

            Peerage refers to the various classes of nobility, but the Constitution forbids the recognition of Titles of Nobility. Therefore, no jury can consist of any persons of Noble Class/Peerage Class.

            This is another example of how the precise language of the Law has been twisted & misaligned by those who have interest in making the Law as ambiguous as possible.

          • Article III, Section 1, last paragraph: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury. . .” No mention of Grand Jury. The 5th Amendment says that the Grand Jury must produce a ‘presentment or indictment’ before such trial can occur. And finally, the 7th Amendment says that ‘the right of trial by jury shall be preserved’. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/jury/moreinfo/dialoguepart1.authcheckdam.pdf
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • The problem is that absent of a clear written definition or statement of intent then the constitution is open to interpretation. Because congress failed to specifically exclude anchor babies then that despicable situation is legal.

            Another conundrum is the the US allows dual citizenship which runs contrary to the oath of allegiance a naturalized citizen must take! If not for that dual citizen clause there might be a loophole in that the 14th amendment states that all persons in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US. Mexican anchor babies are subject to Mexican jurisdiction as follows.

            The Mexican Constitution states that Mexicans Citizens by birth are: persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents’ nationality or immigration status in Mexico. persons born abroad of a Mexican Citizen born in Mexico.

            Congress has a built in remedy if they choose to use it.

            Amendment 14, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

          • Anchor babies are citizens per the Ark decision (not per the 14th Amendment) but they are NOT natural born citizens.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • 8USC does not define natural born citizen. It is ignorant to reference that NATURALIZATION code.

          • No Freedom Without Education
            “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

          • The cited code does not define natural born citizen. Sorry. To be eligible for POTUS or VPOTUS, you have to be the child of two U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. The Founders did not want those two specific positions to be held by anyone whose birth circumstances provided divided loyalty concerns. Cruz is a Canadian-American and a Cuban-American. Period.

          • Nothing in the constitution defines natural born. You are either born a citizen or you are naturalized. As long as a person meets the legal qualification for birthright citizenship they have to be considered as natural born under the law because there is no third type of citizenship. It’s one or the other.

            The one overriding fact is this. Only the Supreme Court or Congress can make a change. Until then Cruz is eligible until decided otherwise by the Supreme Court. The only other option is for Congress to amend the constitution and even if they did it would not be retroactive.

            The Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the issue because if they decide the requirement is 2 citizen at birth parents then that invalidates the entire Obama Presidency and every piece of legislation he signed and every Executive action he took, Obamacare and all appointments. That would also invalidate the appointments of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan. Quite the conundrum for the court unless they still had a majority vote without them.

            Again. It does not matter what anyone believes is a natural born citizen because what we believe does not matter. We can only vote our beliefs. That’s it.

          • Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Emerich de Vattel, four SCOTUS panels and common sense all tell us what a ‘natural born citizen’ is.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • According to James Madison you also had to be born on US soil.

          • Would you try and argue that any law passed by any legislative body trumps (no pun intended) the Constitution? If so, why do we have a specific procedure for changing it?

          • These people do not want to be confused by the facts or the truth. I have been trying for months. They would rather live in a universe of un-truths.

          • Show me where 8USC defines ‘natural born citizen’ please.

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I believe you read what I just posted. I said American people are now know there is something wrong with Repubs and TPs. First I have no idea why they still have Cruz as one of candidates when they know he is not born US citizen. The guy was born in Canada to a Cuban father. He his therefore a Canadian-Cuban citizen. This is a Country of laws. Cruz should drop out before he is arrested as alien. Further, I do not know what they are going to do with Trump and Bush III. Trump has vowed to go Ross Perot if GOP does not nominate him. Bush III has it up to here with Trump that he wants to go solo if GOP nominates Trump. Dr. Carson is so upset GOP White voters do not want him after finding he is Black. Carson thought was White. In fact he hates to be seen among Blacks. Now he is waking up. He has hired a Black guy as campaign manager; but that has alienated his White staff. They do not want to be managed by a Black male. I love that Repubs and TPs are now confused and fighting one another. This is paving the way to have Hillary as the only likable candidate. What a day to see Hillary sworn in as President of this Great Country!

          • I’m not even going to dignify you comments with an argument, your not worth the time and effort to educate a mindless fool! Folks there is no cure for stupid….

          • Please do not regret if you vote for Cruz who wants to merge USA, Canada and Cuba.

          • Please site an instance where he has implied your claims as one of his intentions if elected president! Making claims without substantive factual support can only be considered wishful thinking and propaganda, in an effort to undermine someone’s campagain!
            Take some time and read 8 USC 1401 sec d, g!
            Personally I support Donald Trump, however I despise anyone who circulates rumors to discredit another person, it’s unchristian, and destructive!
            If on the other hand, if you have facts to support you outrageous claim, please bring it forth so we all can see, otherwise keep your disjointed ideas to yourself, these forums are not intended for the purpose of deseminating propaganda!
            Trump 2016

          • 8USC is not relevant to presidential eligibility and you have already been shown proof that a natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents and on US soil.

          • When he shut down the US government, Cruz spent 5 days in Cuba. Then he flew to Canada for the last day of government shut down here. Cruz also has voted for the Pipe line from Canada – his home country.

          • I am not the one started the Ted Cruz scandal. Tell that to FoxNews, Trump and Bush III campaign groups. Yesterday Trump was asked if Cruz is eligible. He said that he cannot say – but Democrats are filing lawsuit in all states to disqualify Ted Cruz. I believe they are right. How would like a stranger coming to this country and becomes commander-in chief to send our men and women to wars. A foreigner! That is crazy. You told me you are a Veteran. How would like your commander-in chief to be a foreigner. Not me. No doubt Trump calls Repubs and TPs in Congress as stupid. Now I agree with Trump.

          • He is not Canadian – Cuban — his mother is a U.S. citizen. And by no stretch of the imagination is it possible for Hillary to be likeable.

          • You heard Trump. Cruz is no American citizen. Cruz was so dumb today to compare himself to John McCain. John was born in a US military post in Panama.

          • Dennis, another point is for Obama to go to school in Indonesia he was required to be a citizen of Indonesia. Since Indonesia law says “No Dual Citizenship” Obama’s parent has to renounce his US Citizenship. There is NO RECORD of him ever requesting it be reinstated, So Obama was not a citizen.

          • OR daddy had to lie since there was no way that either parent could renounce Barry’s US citizenship.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • You’re right, Paul. Neither Stanley nor Lolo could have renounced Barry’s U.S. citizenship. If Lolo adopted Barry, as was the case with Barry’s sister, Barry could have become an Indonesian citizen, although to my understanding Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. If that is correct, then Lolo had to have lied when he filled out the school registration for Barry. Of course renouncing Barry’s U.S. citizenship would not have been necessary anyways, as he has never offered valid proof that he ever was a U.S.citizen by birth, let alone a natural born citizen.

          • IF they made him an Indonesian citizen they might not have renounced it but they in effect overrode it.

          • ELECTION 2016

            CRUZ AND RUBIO: NEITHER IS ELIGIBLE

            Exclusive: Larry Klayman applies definition of natural born citizen Obama skirted
            Published: 7 days ago

            image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/11/Larry-Klayman_avatar.jpg LARRY KLAYMAN About | Email | Archive

            image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png Subscribe to feed

            image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

            Having established that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim under Shariah law thanks to his Muslim father and by virtue of his actions, and thus as the winner of the “Muslim of the Year” award, it now appears that our ineligible “leader” can be more precisely defined as a Shiite.

            This week, Obama again failed to back up and defend our oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni Arab nation, when the terrorist Islamic Iranian government sponsored the setting afire of the Kingdom’s embassy in Tehran. This comes on the heels of nuclear missile tests and other acts of provocation by Obama’s mullah brethren in Iran. Clearly, the “Muslim of the Year” has shown his true colors; he is not only Muslim, but in his heart a Shiite. No wonder he so eagerly bowed down to the ayatollahs in Tehran and deceitfully and illegally rammed through a so-called treaty paving the way for these Islamic maniacs to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, Western Europe and of course Israel. The Shiite lover’s dream of an Islamic caliphate is, today, on the brink of reality.

            In a predictable twist of fate, however, the more novel story this week is the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” eligible under our Constitution to run for, be elected and serve as president of the United States. First raised with regard to the Muslim of the Year in 2008, “eligibility” has reared its head yet again. Long since buried when this requirement was applied to our president – indeed courts have refused to address the issue in several cases I and others filed – not surprisingly it has now taken on public and legal interest now that two white guys, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both born to only one citizen parent at the time of birth and in the case of Cruz also born in Canada and until recently holding dual citizenship, are in the spotlight of a presidential primary election. As any reader to this column and WND knows, “natural born citizen” is defined thanks to the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations as a person born in the United States or its territories to two citizen parents. The framers and thus the Supreme Court look to this codified treatise to define crucial terms in the Constitution.

            Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban-Canadian father, and until last year was a dual Canadian-American citizen. In 2014 he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship in the nick of time to run for the presidency. Rubio, on the other hand, was born in the states, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. Thus, these Cuban-American senators are technically ineligible to be president.

            While I really like Cruz and see him as a true patriot – I feel otherwise with regard to Rubio who is in my view a two-faced phony – it is indeed ironic that they would now undergo intense scrutiny by Democrats and some Republicans alike such as Sen. John McCain, who hates Cruz, while our black Muslim president effectively escaped all scrutiny, despite having likely been born in Kenya to only one American parent. We now have confirmation that indeed the concept of affirmative action is embedded in our living Constitution.

            Donald Trump is of course the current political benefactor of this debate, as Hillary Clinton initially was in 2008 when she ran in the Democratic primary for president against Obama. But the bigger consideration is the reason the framers inserted the “natural born citizen” requirement into the Constitution. Except for the offices of president and vice president, all other references in the Constitution refer only to “citizen.” Thus, there has to be a difference in legal interpretation.

            The reason is that our framers, most of whom were grandfathered out of the “natural born citizenship” requirement given their recent immigration from England, realized that the newly formed nation would encompass many persons with dual loyalties, those whose families owned land and wealth and had close relatives in the British kingdom. They thus wanted our president and vice president to be one step removed from foreign influences.

            Until the election and king-like rule of the Shiite Muslim of the Year, the issue of natural born citizen was merely theoretical. But with the favoring of Islam and foreign interests at every turn of his presidency, to the detriment of the United States, we now can see why the framers inserted this into the Constitution.

            For Sens. Cruz and Rubio, it is too bad they were not also born to black mothers or fathers. If they had been so fortunate, like Shiite Obama, they may have escaped scrutiny. But for these Cuban-American pale faces, their chances to win the Republican nomination for president is likely doomed. By my estimate, there is roughly a third of the Republican electorate which knows and cares enough about the Constitution to cause them to vote for other GOP presidential candidates. And, this makes The Donald the likely winner at this point of the primary season.

            Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.

            Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/cruz-and-rubio-neither-is-eligible/#7CDet4hSsEhJrsgJ.99

          • Are you a constitutional lawyer, Dennis?

        • Here is the link to the USC I referenced, just in case you are to lazy to look it up, or too ignorant to know how to!
          uscode.house.gov › view › subchapter3

          • (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;

          • PatriotParatrooper

            You are correct that they are a citizen. No argument there, but they are not a natural born citizen if both parents are not us citizens. Thats why there are only two offices that require a natural born citizen, the president and the vice president. And that’s why you’ve never heard obama call himself a natural born, he calls himself a native born citizen.

          • try again, dead head.

          • Irrelevant as David indicated just above. 8USC does not define ‘natural born citizen’

          • this code does not apply in this case(s), the Constitution has precedent.

          • You and Repubs and TPs should credit yourselves as clowns. First as to voting for Ted Cruz who is not US citizen as their nominee. Just because he is soft spoken, makes him US citizen? No. But I do not know what they are going to do with Trump and Bush III. Trump has vowed to be another Ross Perot if GOP does not nominate him. Bush III is so angry with
            Trump that he wants to go solo if GOP nominates Trump as WH candidate. GOP is in such a mess this time around. I love it though because people will have Hillary as the only
            candidate.

          • That’s awesome!! Someone that should be in prison and may be later convicted of her roll in the use of a private server sending classified materia (you notice the last release by the gov of her emails have been noted as classified)l. The only ones not convicted in the White Water scandal…every other party was indicted and convicted hmmmm. Asleep at the wheel with Benghazi and unable to do her job. People connected with the Clintons have a high death rate. This is what the liberal fools of the US are wanting to run our country….

          • Yes, Ted Cruz should be imprison for faking as US citizen when he is Canadian-Cuban citizen. Look he closed US government for 10 days which caused lay off people; He voted for the oil pipe like from Canada his home country. We should sue Ted Cruz for his removal from USA..

          • Bush can go solo — I don’t think it’ll make any difference at all.

          • Did you hear Trump today mock Cruz is not American? He was born in Canada.

          • Cruz is almost certainly an American citizen.

          • You poor soul. Texas attorneys have filed lawsuit to remove Ted Cruz from the Senate and GOP WH line-up. He cheated on his Senate papers that he was from Delaware; when actually he should have said he comes from Canada.

        • Congressional rule change for people born between December
          23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s
          ability to confer citizenship status on her son. – Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
          was born in 1961; Dunham’s age – only 18 at time of delivery. ”When one parent
          was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent
          must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the
          child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not
          meet requisite status” – “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in
          Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not
          meet the residency requirements!”

          The rules changed again for people born between December 23,
          1952, and November 13, 1986. When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a
          foreign national, the U.S. citizen
          parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth
          of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. Children born out of
          wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a
          resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
          Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship
          only if legitimated before turning 21.

          http://www.ranchodlaw.com/other-visas/citizenship-and-residency/

          • So who changed it and did they did this legally because no one was to change this Constitution ?

          • Congress was given the power to make immigration and naturalization law and such laws have been changed often over the years. In particular the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Naturalization Act of 1795 clearly show that children born on foreign soil are not ‘natural born citizens’. You might enjoy this article on the subject: Naturalization Act 1790
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • CORRECT~~ It Takes 2 American Citizen Parents to have a Child Here in the US—to have a Natural Born Citizen~~!

          The Exception~~Still has to be 2 American Pron Citizens as Parents & those Citizens Must be Assigned to a Foreign Country by the US Government like a Foreign Diplomat Or Military Officer~! In the SERVICE of the US GOvernmnet.

          CRUZ= Excluded from being Natural Born. “REASONS:”
          1 -Cruz born on Canadian Soil & has Canadian Birth Certificate
          2- Cruz has a Father that was a Cuban Citizen when he was born in 1970.
          3-Cruz May have had a Mother that gave UP her American citizenship to become a Canadian Citizen in before Cruz was born.

          If his Mother did Not give up her American citizenship~~ Cruz could be a DUAL Citizen & it Could transfer to “Ordinary Citizenship”~! NEVER Natural Born Citizenship. DUAL Citizens have to be registered.

          I Cruz was Not any Kind of Citizen before he got into the Senate~~then that is a Problem too.

          • We allowed a blue lipped moronic Kenyan to be president.

          • The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

            There are only two ways to become a citizen under the Constitution. You are either a naturalized citizen that takes an oath of allegiance or you are a natural born citizen, which would be anyone else. There is no third type. Perhaps you are trying to argue that a person that is neither naturalized or natural born (base on your opinion) is not a citizen at all?

            The Constitution is clear. Only two citizen types exist. Naturalized or Natural Born. A person can only be one or the other or neither. If neither then they cannot be a citizen at all. Good luck making that argument.

          • {We Have the same Last Name, as it is my maiden name.}My Great Grandfather came to this Country 200 Years ago & settled in S.E. Ohio.} Cruz is Not a Natural Born Citizen~! One of my Grand-daughter’s has a “Natural Born Father ” & a Mother who was NOT yet a Citizen when she was Born~~& she WAS born here~~BUT__she is just a CITIZEN~~NOT a Natural Born Citizen. {Her mother had not yet achieved her Citizenship here.} A Naturalized Citizen is one that Studies –takes a test — OATH & Becomes a citizen~!

          • Cruz was ‘born a citizen’; he was NOT a ‘natural born citizen’. He is ineligible.

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Paul you are Correct~!~~Cruz was NOT Natural Born~!

          • Saying it is so does not make it so. Being ‘born a citizen’ does not make one a ‘natural born citizen’ as Alexander Hamilton proved for us.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • 8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III: NATIONALITY AND
          NATURALIZATION

          From Title 8—ALIENS AND
          NATIONALITYCHAPTER 12—IMMIGRATION AND
          NATIONALITY

          SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

          Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective
          Naturalization

          §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at
          birth

          The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
          United States at birth:

          (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;

          • §1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

            Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:

            (1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

            (2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

            (3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possession; and

            (4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years—

            (A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and

            (B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

          • You copy/past well and nobody argues that the information you provided is correct – e.g. nobody doubts that Cruz and Rubio (unfortunately) are citizens. None of that makes them natural born citizens however.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • 2 Parents & Child Born HERE~! See this:
            http://www.freedomoutpost.com/?s=Natural+Born+citizen

            This Above article Speaks about RUBIO too.

            Then Devvy Kidd just wrote an Article with many references{links} about both Cruz &Rubio~!

            http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd703.htm

        • Unless he was Frank Marshall Davis, and at the present, nobody really knows.

          • In which case his actions were deliberate and criminal.

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • Mr. Dumas is correct as outlined in the law. I do not know who spoon feeds you your “facts”, but they are wrong. Only ONE parent needs to be an American citizen. That’s it. You can say whatever you want, but unless you agree to this simple truth, you will not be making accurate statements. Have a nice day.

          • The simple truth is that when the Constitution was penned, only the FATHER had to be a US citizen, mom became a US citizen automatically when wed. It is the citizenship of the father that was required under the law. Today, mom does not automatically take the citizenship of her husband and must be a citizen in her own right. TWO US citizen parents are required.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • The law was changed decades ago and women are now legal citizens at birth. Obama’s mother was Hawaiian, a territory of the United States at the time of her birth, therefore making her a citizen of the United States. The fact that she married a person from another country does not mean she lost her American Citizenship UNLESS she applied for citizenship of that nation AND formally renounced her citizen ship as an American. Only one of the parents needs to be an American Citizen as the law has been for several decades. Have a nice day.

          • If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen. If he was born in Kenya he is not a citizen. It’s just that simple.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • If both parents have to be citizens then Obama is not eligible.

          • Correct, we have a usurper squatting in the Oval Office.

        • I have debated on both sides of this issue for a long time and in my debating I have found that Cruz is eligible. Cruz’s mother is a US citizen and his father had residence in the US prior to his birth. People are going after Cruz and not questioning Rubio, who was born to immigrants in Florida. His birth may also be questioned as to what country his parents were under jurisdiction of at the time of his birth. Meaning they would have had to sworn allegiance to the US prior.

          http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

          http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada

          • They are probably not questioning Rubio because they don’t believe he can win.

          • I know people questioned when Rubio first stated he was running and he has been called an “anchor baby” candidate, but that was it. Cruz is viewed as a greater threat, but his citizenship is without question, because his mother is a US born citizen. He and his parents were unaware of the dual citizenship until 2013, when a Dallas paper reported it. He had it removed within nine months of notification.

          • Cruz was born a Canadian citizen and his father was a foreign national. He is ineligible to be POTUS.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • YOU BORE ME BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. You talk with yourself as multiples and you are deep need of psychological help.

          • That’s OK, you frighten me. Our country is going to hell thanks to people like you.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • It is people with your type of stupidity that put us where we are today.

          • HIS MOTHER IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AT HIS BIRTH — he is NOT A Canadian-Cuban citizen. Geeezzzzzzzz.

          • Right~1 Rubio is not Constitutionally Eligible either~! Rubio’s Parent’s did NOT become citizens until Marco was 4 years old.

          • Rubio is equally ineligible.

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Cruz was born on foreign soil (ineligible) AND he was born of a foreign national father (ineligible). He is doubly ineligible to be POTUS.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I TOLD YOU TO KISS OFF. I’M IN NO MOOD FOR YOUR MULTIPLE PERSONALITY, BS. CRUZ IS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE 14TH AND THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 AND BECAUSE OF THE BELOW WEBSITE…….http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

          • Nope, he not per the founding fathers and the Naturalization Act of 1795. Don’t screw this up or we’ll lose the election. Choose wisely.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • The “Naturalization Act of 1790” was written so that American personnel that had children “a sea” would be given “natural born” citizenship. It is based on the British common laws of which our forefathers were familiar. Not your a’hole interpretation.

          • And on what do you base that assertion? Hmmmmm?

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • Now this is where ” at this point, why does it matter ” REALLY comes in.

        • Sorry, you are wrong. Did you look it up?

          • Sorry, Julea, but Alexander Hamilton said that ‘born a citizen’ is not sufficient to be POTUS. Did YOU look it up?

        • No. look it up

      • Wrong!
        “American citizen if in fact ms Dunnen is his real mother”
        She was not of the age to pass on citizenship by simply being the mother.
        IF, those learned in the Constitution and British Law could be honest, Obama would be found to be a British subject whether or not he was born in Kenya, Hawaii or on the moon
        Cruz is not eligible either, for one simple fact: He held Canadian citizenship for 42 or 43 years.(and don’t come back with the “mother” thingy either.).

      • Dennis – agreeing with your statement “if in fact Ms Dunnen is/was his real mother. (please note that her name was Stanley Ann Dunham) Ann Dunham was never shown pregnant with “O” – – several months of information missing until she showed up at Seattle, WA, (with baby “O” in tow) to register at the University of Washington for Fall classes. – – What never seems to be published is this – –

        Congressional rule change for people born between December
        23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s
        ability to confer citizenship status on her son. – Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
        was born in 1961; Dunham’s age – only 18 at time of delivery. ”When one parent
        was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent
        must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the
        child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not
        meet requisite status” – “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in
        Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not
        meet the residency requirements!”

        The rules changed again for people born between December 23,
        1952, and November 13, 1986. When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a
        foreign national, the U.S. citizen
        parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth
        of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14. Children born out of
        wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother were U.S. citizens if the mother was a
        resident in the U.S. for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
        Children born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father acquired U.S. citizenship
        only if legitimated before turning 21.

        http://www.ranchodlaw.com/other-visas/citizenship-and-residency/

      • You appear to be confused about these matters. First of all, if Barry was born in Kenya then his mother could not have conferred U.S. citizenship status on him as she was under the required age to do so at the time of his birth. If born in Hawaii, as claimed, he could be considered a U.S. citizen, but not a ‘natural born citizen,’ which requires being born in one of the united States of America to parents who are both American Nationals (State Citizens). Ted fails the test on two counts: 1. not born in one of the united States of America, and; 2. his father was a Cuban. Your citation of relevant U.S. Code is also wrong, as the correct citation is 8 U.S.C. Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, §1401. Further, §1401(d) does not apply to Ted because his father was not a “national,” which as noted above means a State Citizen. The Definitions section for Chapter 12 defines a “national” as “a person who owes permanent allegiance to a state.” Only §1401(g) applies to Ted, which says, “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States…..” It should be understood that a “natural born citizen” is one who does not need a U.S.Code to explain his or her citizenship status, as such person’s status at time of birth is instantly recognized by all nations as being unquestionable. That is why the Founding Fathers included the “natural born citizen” requirement – to prevent anyone with a divided birthright allegiance from becoming President of the united States of America.

      • Trump in November!

      • I told you Repubs and TPs are morons. Where are you, Joe Arpaio, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain, Allen West and other not to question Cruz eligibility for the WH job? Remember the WH job is most important job in this Country. It sends people to wars to protect this Country.
        Some come back from wars wounded and some die there. And you Repubs and TPs want to nominate a foreigner as president? You must be mental case. Stay with Trump – at least I can stand him
        although he is different from normal thinking people.

        • Other than stupidity, what is your problem with repubs and TP’s. Did not the dems want a foreigner as president. And not only a foreigner, but one that went to great efforts to conceal his past, got his education on a foreign student visa, and had the overwhelming support of Pelosi. So who is the moron here?

          • You also voted for Arnold, former Cal governor to be president. Cruz is same as Arnold -smooth talkers. Good luck with your ignorance. Vote for a foreigner. I will vote for Hillary,.

          • Actually, I am not a citizen of California and therefore did not vote for him. And good luck on you vote for Hillary. A known liar who only is interested in power and money and not some nobody like the regular citizen, except during her campaign. Maybe a short stay in a socialist country will give a preview of what she wants for America.

          • Did you really say:”A known liar who only is interested in power and money.” Do you know what GOP memo says: TPs and Repubs enter politics for exactly focuses as you state. They love money and power at the expense of Women, Blacks and other racisl minorities.

        • Better than putting a criminal in the White House ….Hillary for prison 2016

          • Yes, Ted Cruz should be sued by the immigration to deport him back to Canada or Cuba.

          • lol you idiots crack me up. How about we deport the millions of hispanics before we try and deport someone that has done it the RIGHT way? Oh wait, that’s not pc to you morons…grow a brain before you post.

      • I know I am just wasting my time trying to talk common sense to you. You say Obama’s birth certificate is an obvious forgery. Well I would like to inform you that Bill O’reilly on his show said that Obama’s birth was recorded in two news papers in Hawaii. I know you don’t want to believe this because you don’t want to. So you can get hold of Bill and argue with him. I don’t think he would say this if he wasn’t positive. It would go against what he believes. He is a far far right Republican.

      • Cruz is a Constitutional Scholar, I have not doubt he can show proof of his legitimacy in little to no time. I do not see this being hung up in the Courts for more than a day!!

      • Your reference does not answer the question. Sorry.

      • You are correct that it was a Washington COM-Post Reporter that brought the Subject of Ted Cruz’s eligibility up…and Trump answered it by saying that he Did Not Know….Not as has been put out there that he said he wasn’t eligible….All he was saying was that Cruz should be a Court to issue a document saying that he was…So then the D****RATS cannot file a Lawsuit…and so that if Cruz became the Nominee that that issue would not be hanging over him…

        • What a court says is irrelevant. If Cruz or Rubio is nominated, we will lose the election. Choose wisely.
          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I am only stating the Laws….No way am I stating in my comments support for any candidate….I will not vote for Rubio or any other of the assorted RINOS….I believe that Cruz is Eligible and would vote for him…but I am supporting Donald Trump….

          • If you support and manage to nominate Cruz, we will lose the election. Try to find someone we can all support please.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Did you even READ what i wrote??

      • Judging by the many false beliefs you have posted in this thread, and the fact that you fail to edit and correct misstatements and misspellings that you have made once notified of those errors, I am now thinking that perhaps you have also spelled your last name incorrectly. I would suggest a correction is in order, which can be accomplished by adding a “b” after the letter “m,” and an additional “s” at the end.

      • When you are speaking of Obozo, are you referring to the foreign student Barry Soetoro from Indonesia that went to Occidental College as a foreign student? Oh Yes, Senior Obama was either a citizen there because of his stepfather.

      • You are so mistaken:

        THOUGHTS ON THE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF CRUZ AND RUBIO FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

        Article II, Section 1, pa. 5: “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.”

        Why is it that only natural born Citizens, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
        the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President?

        The answer is simple. Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had parents born in England or various other European countries. If the Constitution had not made an exception to the
        requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen, no one living in the United States at the time of its adoption would be eligible to the office of President since they were not Natural Born Citizens, or ‘natives’ as required by the common law of England at the time (which further required actual birth in United States territory a
        requirement that has been modified by court interpretation since then). It is very clear that being a Citizen born
        of foreign parents is not the same thing as being a natural born Citizen, and a child born of foreign parents is therefore not eligible to be President under the Constitution.

        Why is there a requirement that only a Citizen born of Citizens, or a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be President?

        Again, the answer is very simple: It is a loyalty issue. Children born of foreign parents have divided loyalties, many times dual citizenship, loyalty to their parents and to the country of the parents. They do not necessarily
        owe undivided loyalty to the country of their birth.

        Since the common law is the only precedent requiring ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ we need to inquire what is the common law.

        “The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, contained the ‘natural law’ applicable at the time of the writing of the Constitution and was read and applied by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

        Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the
        father’s citizenship was a ‘loyalty’ issue.

        Let’s see who is a “Natural Born Citizen” under the common law precedent at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

        A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law as required by the common law of England applicable to the
        United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution — it specifies that a child must be born in
        the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.

        A ‘Citizen’ or what is also called a ‘citizen by birth’ on the other hand is one who by ‘constitutional or statutory’
        provision, and not necessarily by ‘natural law’, is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born.” A ‘natural born citizen’ does not mean the same thing as ‘citizen by birth’. The law of
        nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be ‘natural born’ citizen of that state.”

        If Osama Bin Laden’s mother had taken advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Saudi Arabia (or any other foreign country like Kenya) to have a baby born in the United States she might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,”
        and if the mother and child returned to Saudi Arabia and raised the child there, learning to speak English without experiencing fully first hand United States history or culture and then at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the next fourteen years in the United States, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, he would be eligible to run for President under the erroneous interpretation of the main article to which this comment applies even though he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ under the Constitution. This will no doubt raise concerns over the loyalty of Osama Bin Laden to be commander-in-chief of the US army and rightly so as absolute loyalty and our national security by the commander-in-chief of the army are the reason for the language found in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and in fact such concerns were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington who together with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
        drafted the Constitution.

        It is interesting that the above facts apply directly to President Obama, the son of a foreigner from Kenya, a man of obviously divided ‘bowing’ loyalty, a Muslim who lacks undivided love for this country as evidenced by his repeated verified failures to salute the flag, his efforts to incite class and racial conflict and institute
        ‘wealth redistribution’ i.e., socialism, contrary to the free market principles and natural rights incorporated in the constitution.

        However, this is not clearly applicable to Rubio or Cruz, so, why do I maintain that they are not eligible? Because the principle of ‘loyalty’ and ‘national security’ incorporated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution applies not only to them but to anyone who becomes President in the future as much as it applies to
        President Obama and potential candidate Hillary Clinton in the area of national security at the present time.

        It is not likely but not impossible that Cruz or Rubio or Trump, or maybe Clinton and any future candidate will disregard the separation of power between the legislative and executive powers, the war power in particular, or attack differing religious beliefs, and the separation of church and state; and the encroachment on private property and excessive fiscal spending that is bankrupting the country; or the fraudulent use of corporations
        like Solyndra, and scandals like ‘fast and furious’, and IRS intrusions, or appoint communist or socialists and/or
        Muslims and convicted felons as proletarian Czars; and disregard the immigration problem of ISIS into the United States, or the nuclear problem with Iran, North Korea and the invasions in the Ukraine by Russia., evidencing total disregard for the protection of America, its ambassadors and the world, and
        finally but not least the lack of transparency and constant lying to the people.

        From the Judicial point of view, consider the following:

        The question is this: Is it necessary that a person be born of a father who is citizen in order to be a natural born Citizen? The case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark is inapplicable as that case does not address, or even mentions, who is or is not a “natural born citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution holding merely that a person born in U.S. soil was a citizen but not holding that he was a “natural born citizen”; The case of Perkings v. Elg is not applicable as Marie Elg was a “natural born citizen” because her parents were both, at the time of her birth, naturalized U.S. Citizens.

        Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) involved the question of whether a Missouri constitutional provision which limited the right to vote to male citizens denied the privileges and immunities clause of citizenship of the Fourteenth Amendment to a female citizen otherwise eligible to vote. Other states did not
        so restrict the right to vote. The court found that the privileges and immunities clause did not include the right of suffrage as it existed at the time the constitution was adopted and had no choice but to affirm the judgment
        of the lower court. The case has never been overruled by the Supreme Court and the case stands today for the same proposition it did in 1874, although with the passage and ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment the issue of female vote has no further force. In the Happersett case however, in the course of reaching its conclusion, the court found pivotal and necessary to determine whether Minor was a citizen of the United States finding that she was a “natural born citizen” and articulated the now-famous quote frequently cited 88 U.S. at 167-168: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that at common law, [as that term is understood in September 17, 1787], 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. Thus, the Court (and inferentially, the Founders) acknowledged that a “natural born Citizen” is one born of two citizen parents, consistent with the teachings of Emmerich de Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations essentially concluding that children follow the condition of the father (Think of ‘Dreams of my
        Father’, by Mr. Obama).

        Emmerich de Vattel ‘The Law of Nations’ was of critical influence on the Founding Fathers. De Vattel is the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the revolution. I J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775 Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition of
        Vattel’s Law of Nation and remarked that the book ‘has been continuously in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889)…See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 US.. 452, 462, n. 12 (1978). Further, James Madison’s notes document that various delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 cited de Vattel. Finally John Jay’s letter to Washington, argues for higher eligibility requirements, that the president needs to be a “natural born citizen” rather than merely a citizen of the United States representing a sharp
        departure from the Committee of Detail’s recommendations, made on August 22, [1787; See Madison Notes, August 22, 1787]; Clearly the Founders would not accept a lower standard of merely being a citizen born in US soil, when a higher standard was available to assure clear and undivided allegiance and fidelity and guaranteeing the survival of the new nation, erecting as effective a practical barrier to the entry into the presidency of foreigners, securing our liberties on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis as possible. They adopted a higher standard of a citizen whose parents were also citizens, and did not accept the lower criterion, like the politically correct progressive position argued by leftist-socialist-Marxist-progressive liberals,
        that any-one-who-is-born-here-can-be-president.

        Finally, consider this question: Is an anchor baby born of Mexicans living in the United States who has resided in the United States for 14 years and who is 35 years of age, a “natural born Citizen” as
        contemplated by the Founders and eligible to be President?

        A fairly compelling and documented argument can be decisively made that this is a result the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Indeed, the record plainly discloses that such a result was one they intended specifically to foreclose by setting a higher presidential eligibility standard. And this reasoning applies to Cruz and Rubio.

        • Here is an Article with Links to the TRUTH~! THhs woman has Researched this subject & others for over 20 years, & has Expert Links too~! Not Media Taking Heads~!

          http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd710.htm

        • “THOUGHTS ON THE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF CRUZ AND RUBIO FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES”

          All that writing after was for nothing! “Thoughts on eligibility” are neither fact or law, but rather they are opinion.

          Until the Supreme Court takes up the matter or Congress amends the Constitution all the “thoughts” in the world don’t matter.

          • What a great and thoughtful empty comment and masterful rebuttal. It adds lots of detail and evidence. Love your citations to the law and the Constitution. Extraordinary reasoning

          • The SCOTUS HAS taken up the issue and has provided guidance on the subject – they defined ‘natural born citizen’ as a person born on the soil and born of citizen parents. Their position has been ignored to date and all we can do is fight to get another case before them such that stare decisis is established by them OR force Congress to float a Constitution defining the clause.

          • Craig Reynolds stated: All that writing after was for nothing! “Thoughts on eligibility” are neither fact or law, but rather they are opinion. So what are the facts and the law and the language of the Constitution that support YOUR opinion? Where are the citations to the law? Where is your well founded opinion seeking the truth beyond bias, prejudice and partisanship?. Until you support YOUR opinion you will not persuade anyone much less the Supreme Court. I submit to you that the OPINION of the Supreme Court of the United States will review a well founded, properly documented brief, one in particular that refers to the actual language of Article 2 of the Constitution, the record and the jurisprudence. Your naked statement that the language of the Constitution is neither fact nor law is is just that a ‘naked statement’ empty of any reasoning and not worthy of further argument.

          • Do you have reading comprehension issues or an inability to follow along? For starters I never said that the language of the “Constitution” is neither fact nor law”.

            I was referring to “your” thoughts in your overdone “opinion”. There are no “thoughts” on the eligibility of Cruz or Rubio in the Constitution or any other person. The Constitution is not a collection of opinions, it is a collection of facts because it is the Law of The Land. It is also not subject to interpretation by anyone other than the Supreme Court.

            You and everyone like you seems desperate to overlook the very clear FACT that the Constitution does NOT define “Natural Born” It clearly states that there are two types of citizen. “Naturalized” and “Natural Born”. There is no third type. Either you are a “Naturalized” citizen or you are a “Natural Born” citizen because there is no other choice.

            Do you understand what that means or are emotions overriding your ability to see things as clear as they are? If you are a citizen that did not have to go through the Naturalization process then you can only be a “Natural Born” citizen. You must be one or the other or you are not a citizen at all.

            I do not have to “cite” anything as the Constitution is a very clear and simple document. Try reading it as written and not with your “opinion” as to what you think the intent behind the words were. If you are referring to me not citing anything outside the Constitution that is pointless. Nothing outside the Constitution matters.

            Lastly I do not have to convince you or anyone else I am right because you are arguing about something that is not in the Constitution. A definition of “Natural Born”.

            There are ONLY two ways I would become wrong and you right and neither has happened yet.

            1- The Supreme Court must take up the matter and render a legally binding opinion.
            2- The Congress must amend the Constitution to put in a definition of “Natural Born”.

            Until one of those happens I will remain right and you wrong. The burden of proving that your are right is on you.

            Here is one more fact for you. If by chance either Cruz or Rubio were to win the election they would become President just as Obama did and remains. You can huff and puff and spout off about some nonexistent definition of “Natural Born” all you want, but you won’t blow their house down.

            If you are so sure you are correct and can prove it then go ahead and file a brief with the court.

          • For some reason lay people discussing legal and political issues regularly employ fallacious, irrelevant, illogical and unintelligible ‘Ad Hominen’ attacks. They usually call the person who challenges them ‘overblown’ ‘ass”, ‘birther’. ‘crap’, ‘fools’ and all types of creative words attacking the person but avoiding responding to the substance
            and the merit of the issues involved. Such responses are simple knee jerk
            reactions evidencing stumped thought processes, lack of understanding and just
            plain lack of education.

            I don’t know Mr. Craig Reynolds and he certainly doesn’t know me so it pleases me no end that he is upset attacking me which means I hit a raw nerve, he understand what I am saying, he has no reasonable response but still refuses to admit his mistake and will never change his position. No, Sir, I don’t have reading comprehension issues or an inability to follow along. Thank you.

            What I am doing is pursuing the truth without a trace of bias for or prejudice or desperation against Mr. Ted Cruz or Mr. Rubio or anyone in particular. I have a great deal of respect for them. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat but I am
            Independent and don’t have a vested interest in any of them or any party. The
            only vested interest I have is for the truth wherever it may lead.

            So, for starters when you claim that: “All that writing after was for nothing!” Thoughts on eligibility” are neither fact nor law, but rather they are opinion.” you
            disregard that what I am writing is a direct quote of Article II, Section 1,
            pa. 5, including the letter from John Jay, the notes of James Madison, the ‘Law
            of Nations’ of Emmereck de Vattel, the case law mentioned, and more historical
            verifiable data which are matters of public record. My thoughts are strictly
            limited to the language of the Constitution as written by the framers of the
            Constitution, not as written by me or by you, or anyone else. So, Sir, you are undeniably stating without any minimum amount of evidence and support that Article II, Section 1, pa. 5 is neither fact nor law. Period. The rest of your comment is
            simply absurd and evidence of lack of understanding. I don’t know about your
            education but can infer from your statement that it is either incomplete or
            lacking.

            Since I believe you are not a lawyer it is very probable that you don’t understand the meaning of precedent and the common law which still binds the courts at all levels,
            including the Supreme Court of the United States. So the FACT that the Constitution does NOT define “Natural Born” as you say means that the jurisprudence of precedence of the common law defines the meaning to the words of the Constitution, and that includes the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”. Furthermore, neither
            the Constitution nor the Common Law state that there are two types of citizens,
            “Naturalized” and “Natural Born”, as you state, but rather uses the word
            “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” which under the common law and case law
            mean respectively “Citizen by Birth” and “Native”. A “Naturalized Citizen” is a
            person who becomes a US Citizen by voluntary choice as an adult, swearing
            allegiance to the United States of America and renouncing allegiance to any foreign country or sovereignty.

            To quote you: Do you understand what that means or are emotions overriding your ability to see things as clear as they are? So, your remaining statement is a total absurdity which is not supported by the language of the Constitution, nor by Common Law, Natural Law, or case law.

            To quote again: “If you are a citizen that did not have to go through the Naturalization process then you can only be a “Natural Born” citizen. You must be one or the other or you are not a citizen at all” With adequate deference, given the circumstances since I don’t know you, this is plain garbage, however were I to know you I am sure I could be more specific.

            The rest of your commentary is so uniquely absurd that it does not deserve any further commentary. You do not need to reply to this comment but if you do please know that I will not reply to any further personal unintelligible ‘Ad Hominen’ attacks. There is no need for more stumped thinking.

          • A mile of words and a complete avoidance of being called on lying about what I said. (it’s a lie because you deny having reading comprehension issues.)

            You should have acknowledged it, apologised and did a proper rewrite. Instead you went full tilt liberal avoidance and have lost all possible credibility.

            It is I that will no longer waste time replying to you.

      • Only 8 USC Section 12, part 3 yadda yadda does not supersede or override Article 2 Section of the U.S. Constitution. Sorry.

      • Another good thing to remember, being a useful idiot is usually fatal. Look at Chris Stevens, and going back to the Hitler regime, do you remember the Brown Shirts and the “Night of the Long Knives”?

      • I’d say you know who you are talking about Dennis ! That hillary person !!

      • It has to do with Obama’s mother not being old enough to transfer citizenship to him if he was born outside the country.

    • The difference is …Cruz is a patriot

      • and reportedly a CFR member and his wife works for or did work for one of the large banks with connections with the Bilderberg’s, Rothschild’s, Illuminati and a few others.

        • Since when did working for a living become a crime? These “connections” that you speak of, do you really think Trump would not have already hit him with it, if he wasn’t afraid the inference would make him look like an ass?

          • Heidi is on the Board of the “CFR” & Wrote a Report in 2015 entitled ‘Building a North american community” about the NWO-Proposed “North American Union” that advocates NO BORDERS between the USA~~Canada & Mexico.
            http://www.cfr.org/canada/build-north-american-community/p8102

          • Boy, you better get this info over to Trump…his staff must really be slipping to not have submitted this to him for consideration to use as ammunition against Cruz. Just imagine NWO advocate …ties to Illuminati….oh my!!! The horror!!! 🙂

          • You think TRUMP does NOT know it all? He is railing against the NWO~~but not in so many words~! His actions & words say he is a NATIONALIST~!

            TRUMP is not WORRIED~! Why should Trump worry? Ted is GOING NOWHERE~! Others will get rid of Cruz for him, in due time. He would Never uses Cruz., he is Bought & Paid for– plus– Cruz is Not even Constitutionally Eligible for V.P. either.

          • Well I want to thank you for all that info Anne…you have certainly enlightened me. I now feel much more secure in knowing that Trump is going to win and not a potential terrorist like Cruz who doesn’t know anything about foreign policy and homeland security like Trump does 😉

          • YOU Welcome.{Sarc.}~~~Cruz HAS been Selling America down the Road to hell{NWO} –just like the rest of the RINOS & Demoncrats in the UNIPARTY~! It you want to experience the NWO{Globalism} QUICKER go to Europe in the “EU”~! it is THERE NOW.

          • Well alrighty then…I hope you have prepared well…you know us survivalists have to stick together. My understanding is that the sky is going to fall this year. It’s a scary thing when Obama starts collaborating with the Pope. Got my bunker, survival food, five years supply of water and plenty of firepower and ammo ready. Let’s dance.

          • I HAVE been Prepared for Years~!

          • The issue is not working but working for who. You know what, people with an attitude like your is what has America on a down hill slide to become non-existent. .

          • Damn, so that’s what the problem is…people with attitudes like mine. Perhaps I need an attitude adjustment Cruz-style…spanking. And here I thought our down hill slide was due to our absence of values regarding life and our debauched lifestyles.

          • your a waste of space. In fact you should be in space.

      • Did you need to bring that up ?? Now you have started a whole new argument.

      • No~~ He is a globalist~!

    • At least Cruz has been upfront about where he was born, supplied a copy of his American Citizen mother’s birth certificate. Unlike Obama, who refused and still does, to supply a certified copy, not to mention will not release his college transcripts to prove he actually attended Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Good old foreign student, Barry Sotero.

      • And, Cruz held Canadian citizenship for 42 or 43 years, (all his life so far) and never made any attempt to clarify, he has attempted with a statement he renounced his Canadian citizenship, BUT, after holding it for all his life, it takes more than just making a statement, he has to go through immigration now, which makes him an illegal immigrant and an illegally elected senator…. (your turn now, start with his mother……. being an American citizen but remember 42 or 43 years as a Canadian….. BTW: His mother may well have taken Canadian citizenship like his dad did)

        • How long have the campaigns been going on now???? It’s funny how nobody had the “intelligence” to question his eligibility until he started going up in the polls and likely to win Iowa and the nomination eh??? Amazing the fear that the truth can make the establishment experience.

          • I’ve been at it for 8 years and Cruz has been no exception. Where do you think the lamestream media came up with the question in the first place – from the Internet.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Most Americans have no clue on the Constitution and the politicians who advocate the NWO/OWG under the UN say nothing (if they even know) Also, Rubio & Jindal are not eligible due to birth to non-American citizens at the time of their births and possibly Santorum is not eligible and even Jeb Bush may not be, he listed himself as Hispanic on an official document, what is his lienage.

          • Oh my…perhaps we should notify the FBI.

        • Moron!! He had duel citizenship and so have a lot of people!!!

          • Foreign birth is a disqualifier as is a foreign national father. Cruz is doubly disqualified.
            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • What is the African muslim slime doing in our white house with all his sealed records that somebody paid for( oil companies) Trump offered 5 million to have his records unsealed and the sewer rats in the white house would not permit it !!!! how does that grab you idiot??

          • Idiot !! You do not carry a dual citizenship for 42 or 43 years when it is customary for a dual citizen (if in fact he ever was) to declare which country they want to be a citizen of at age 18 per immigration regulations. Cruz is a Canadian citizen.

      • Oh… might just add that this trend of not bring forward the persons college transcripts seems to be a new policy for Dems.

    • I agree that’s why we’re voting for trump 2016 …he’s not a puppet professonal. pollition …and he doesn’t owe anybody any favors so they can’t pull him around by the nose and make him do what they want so they can keep there jobs trump doesn’t care he’ll pay for his own campaign …I hate professional pollitions there whats wrong with the U.S. now… they caused this mess it will take someone like trump to fix it…it’s do or die now times run out so trump 2016 for w.h. and Hillary sent to prison for murder and treason 2016

    • The repubs left Obama alone because they planned on running Cruz, and I bet they knew Cruz was not eligible either. (Even McCain was suspect or Congress would not have voted that he is an American citizen).

      • But at least” Insane McCain” had 2 American Citizen Parents who were in he Service of the US Government at the time.

        • You are correct, but there was some concern McCain was not born on a military base or territory but in a Panama hospital and was a Panamanian citizen with a Panamanian birth certificate, otherwise why did Congress vote that he was a Natural Born Citizen? I believe his place of birth was of great importance to the illegal immigrant who did get elected and McCain did not want any close examination of his life, so he ran a crummy candidacy.

          • Not according to his birth certificate. If that were the case then he would be ineligible.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I hastily add that that was discussed during his run for the presidency and could well be a significant portion of the reason he lost. I held my nose and supported him believing him to be an eligible candidate but others likely didn’t. Good observation. . .choose wisely.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • hat Could be correct–I just saw something to that effect today–but at ;least he had 2 Citizen Parents & his Parents were serving the USA Government. Our Congress IS NOT OUR Friend~~they are ONE “Uniparty” voting together~~Against US~!
            This is what i read today & Devvy Is a Person who has been doing deep research for over 20 Years. I truly respect-what she says.
            http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd703.htm

    • There is a strong question as to where Obama was born. Have you seen a legitimate Birth Certificate, I have not!!! And did he not come here as Barry Soetero a foreign aid student who did not go back to Indonesia where he was a citizen? And does that not make him a illegal alien in thisCountry?????.

    • He could have settled the problem by providing a legal birth certificate.

    • Your post name describes you and your corrupt mentality perfectly. 1st the difference between Cruz and O-bum bum. Cruz has been out front about where he was born from day one. The part that destroys your argument is the part where Cruz’s Mother WAS/IS an AMERICAN CITIZEN. That automatically made Cruz an American Citizen. And whether you like it or not THAT IS THE LAW. So, get over it. Obum-bum has dodged, weaved and lied about the discussion of his place of birth. I took his word for it. The only folks associated with the GOP who have worried about Obum-bum’s eligibility have been folks like you and The Donald. Had the GOP found that O-bum-bum was defrauding our nation by not being a citizen, PROMISE, Obama would be under a prison by now. So in reality “Hoffa” THIS IS A NONE ISSUE. You are one of the few actually worrying about it.

    • Yes, the UNIPARTY has been in Power since Bush #1 & the Counrty has Been Destroyed~! Only a TRUMP , who is a NATIONALIST , can bring it back. It will Take a LOT to do that~~aginst all the NWO Globalist’s~~ that are now embedded in our Government~! “Talk about the enemy within”~!

    • Cruz has basically the same qualifications as McCain who was born in Panama. Now if you will read my comment about his relationship with the Savior you might discover why his fellow Senators can’t stand him and especially the black kettle McCain. If Cruz says he is going to do something, unlike his fellow Senators you can bank on it. I guess you don’t like the Tea Party either.

      • No, McCain was born on US territory according to his birth certificate. Cruz was born on foreign soil AND his father was a foreign national. BIG difference.
        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • He was born on a military base in Panama but the objective is to understand the loop holes concerning Ted. We can call the kettle black because this is a game play and McCain does not like Cruz because of Cruz’s strong Conservative point of View. Many in the Senate don’t like him because he stands for the issues that protect and affect the American People. I like Cruz, but I will vote for Trump holding my nose if he becomes the Republican Candidate. I think Dr. Carson would make the best candidate by reputation and by the fact he has a movie about his life and many successful books. His wife Candy helped him write his books and she will be a great asset for conservatism. With the advertising and name recognition Dr. Carson has an excellent chance and like Cruz has a super personality. If you want to think about it this way on Cruz, His name in Spanish is the word for Cross. He has sacrificed to become a Senator and has paid the price to go against the Senate’s go along to get along. A strong Christian who will represent the people and more especially the People of Christ.

          • Cruz is ineligible and if he is nominated we will not vote for him. We will lose the election and will live under the socialists for another four years or more. Please find somebody we can all support.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • And you are either a shill for the Democrat Party or slow brained.

    • I agree, I don’t care for either guy. When Cruz talks I just see a used car salesman. But he could apprentise under Trump as a VP. He would help with getting the Latino votes and eventually maybe make a good president after Trump is done with him.
      About both parties, your absolutely right. I really can’t tell the difference from both sides. Ryan is a traitor with releasing the purse strings to Obama in this last budget raising. 2016 will be absolutely terrible with all the tax increase’s and the high debt ceiling.
      This money has to be paid back in some way or things will really crash.
      The government has no choice but to force all the 401K and other types of retirements to buy government bonds to pay back the debt. They will force us to do this. Sadly I don’t trust anyone to keep my money safe, especially the government.
      Look what they are doing with SSI, they have not given raise’s the last three years. Usaully they get a one to two percent increase annually. The Senate and Congress voted them self a 1.5 % raise.

      Now they are increasing medicare so they can help pay for the failing Obama care. Trump is the only guy I want managing this country. He is a proven winner and thats why our own Republican party is afraid of him. He will force them to manage the country right.

      • If Trump chooses Cruz to run in second seat we will lose the election as we will not vote for an ineligible candidate (see the last sentence of the 12th Amendment).
        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • Hope we can agree to disagree. But the law clearly says if his mother is an American citizen, then no matter where he’s born he still a natural born American by law. The law is very clear about this.

    • It is not about where so much as the FACT that his father was NOT a citizen, unless it was Davis. I believe the location was put out as a smoke screen. It is a problem, but not as big as the father problem.

    • Not funny hoffa, the following is a solid analysis of the issue of natural born citizen:

      THOUGHTS ON THE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF CRUZ AND RUBIO FOR THE
      PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

      Article II, Section 1, pa. 5: “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.”

      Why is it that only natural born Citizens, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
      the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President?

      The answer is simple. Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had parents born in England or various other European countries. If the Constitution had not made an exception to the
      requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen, no one living in the United States at the time of its adoption would be eligible to the office of President since they were not Natural Born Citizens, or ‘natives’ as required by the common law of England at the time (which further required actual birth in United States territory a
      requirement that has been modified by court interpretation since then). It is very clear that being a Citizen born
      of foreign parents is not the same thing as being a natural born Citizen, and a child born of foreign parents is therefore not eligible to be President under the Constitution.

      Why is there a requirement that only a Citizen born of Citizens, or a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be President?

      Again, the answer is very simple: It is a loyalty issue. Children born of foreign parents have divided loyalties, many times dual citizenship, loyalty to their parents and to the country of the parents. They do not necessarily
      owe undivided loyalty to the country of their birth.

      Since the common law is the only precedent requiring ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ we need to inquire what is the common law.

      “The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, contained the ‘natural law’ applicable at the time of the writing of the Constitution and was read and applied by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

      Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the
      father’s citizenship was a ‘loyalty’ issue.

      Let’s see who is a “Natural Born Citizen” under the common law precedent at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

      A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law as required by the common law of England applicable to the
      United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution — it specifies that a child must be born in
      the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.

      A ‘Citizen’ or what is also called a ‘citizen by birth’ on the other hand is one who by ‘constitutional or statutory’
      provision, and not necessarily by ‘natural law’, is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born.” A ‘natural born citizen’ does not mean the same thing as ‘citizen by birth’. The law of
      nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be ‘natural born’ citizen of that state.”

      If Osama Bin Laden’s mother had taken advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Saudi Arabia (or any other foreign country like Kenya) to have a baby born in the United States she might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,”
      and if the mother and child returned to Saudi Arabia and raised the child there, learning to speak English without experiencing fully first hand United States history or culture and then at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the next fourteen years in the United States, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, he would be eligible to run for President under the erroneous interpretation of the main article to which this comment applies even though he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ under the Constitution. This will no doubt raise concerns over the loyalty of Osama Bin Laden to be commander-in-chief of the US army and rightly so as absolute loyalty and our national security by the commander-in-chief of the army are the reason for the language found in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and in fact such concerns were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington who together with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
      drafted the Constitution.

      It is interesting that the above facts apply directly to President Obama, the son of a foreigner from Kenya, a man of obviously divided ‘bowing’ loyalty, a Muslim who lacks undivided love for this country as evidenced by his repeated verified failures to salute the flag, his efforts to incite class and racial conflict and institute
      ‘wealth redistribution’ i.e., socialism, contrary to the free market principles and natural rights incorporated in the constitution.

      However, this is not clearly applicable to Rubio or Cruz, so, why do I maintain that they are not eligible? Because the principle of ‘loyalty’ and ‘national security’ incorporated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution applies not only to them but to anyone who becomes President in the future as much as it applies to
      President Obama and potential candidate Hillary Clinton in the area of national security at the present time.

      It is not likely but not impossible that Cruz or Rubio or Trump, or maybe Clinton and any future candidate will disregard the separation of power between the legislative and executive powers, the war power in particular, or attack differing religious beliefs, and the separation of church and state; and the encroachment on private property and excessive fiscal spending that is bankrupting the country; or the fraudulent use of corporations
      like Solyndra, and scandals like ‘fast and furious’, and IRS intrusions, or appoint communist or socialists and/or
      Muslims and convicted felons as proletarian Czars; and disregard the immigration problem of ISIS into the United States, or the nuclear problem with Iran, North Korea and the invasions in the Ukraine by Russia., evidencing total disregard for the protection of America, its ambassadors and the world, and
      finally but not least the lack of transparency and constant lying to the people.

      From the Judicial point of view, consider the following:

      The question is this: Is it necessary that a person be born of a father who is citizen in order to be a natural born Citizen? The case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark is inapplicable as that case does not address, or even mentions, who is or is not a “natural born citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution holding merely that a person born in U.S. soil was a citizen but not holding that he was a “natural born citizen”; The case of Perkings v. Elg is not applicable as Marie Elg was a “natural born citizen” because her parents were both, at the time of her birth, naturalized U.S. Citizens.

      Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) involved the question of whether a Missouri constitutional provision which limited the right to vote to male citizens denied the privileges and immunities clause of citizenship of the Fourteenth Amendment to a female citizen otherwise eligible to vote. Other states did not
      so restrict the right to vote. The court found that the privileges and immunities clause did not include the right of suffrage as it existed at the time the constitution was adopted and had no choice but to affirm the judgment
      of the lower court. The case has never been overruled by the Supreme Court and the case stands today for the same proposition it did in 1874, although with the passage and ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment the issue of female vote has no further force. In the Happersett case however, in the course of reaching its conclusion, the court found pivotal and necessary to determine whether Minor was a citizen of the United States finding that she was a “natural born citizen” and articulated the now-famous quote frequently cited 88 U.S. at 167-168: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that at common law, [as that term is understood in September 17, 1787], 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. Thus, the Court (and inferentially, the Founders) acknowledged that a “natural born Citizen” is one born of two citizen parents, consistent with the teachings of Emmerich de Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations essentially concluding that children follow the condition of the father (Think of ‘Dreams of my
      Father’, by Mr. Obama).

      Emmerich de Vattel ‘The Law of Nations’ was of critical influence on the Founding Fathers. De Vattel is the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the revolution. I J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775 Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition of
      Vattel’s Law of Nation and remarked that the book ‘has been continuously in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889)…See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 US.. 452, 462, n. 12 (1978). Further, James Madison’s notes document that various delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 cited de Vattel. Finally John Jay’s letter to Washington, argues for higher eligibility requirements, that the president needs to be a “natural born citizen” rather than merely a citizen of the United States representing a sharp
      departure from the Committee of Detail’s recommendations, made on August 22, [1787; See Madison Notes, August 22, 1787]; Clearly the Founders would not accept a lower standard of merely being a citizen born in US soil, when a higher standard was available to assure clear and undivided allegiance and fidelity and guaranteeing the survival of the new nation, erecting as effective a practical barrier to the entry into the presidency of foreigners, securing our liberties on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis as possible. They adopted a higher standard of a citizen whose parents were also citizens, and did not accept the lower criterion, like the politically correct progressive position argued by leftist-socialist-Marxist-progressive liberals,
      that any-one-who-is-born-here-can-be-president.

      Finally, consider this question: Is an anchor baby born of Mexicans living in the United States who has resided in the United States for 14 years and who is 35 years of age, a “natural born Citizen” as
      contemplated by the Founders and eligible to be President?

      A fairly compelling and documented argument can be decisively made that this is a result the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Indeed, the record plainly discloses that such a result was one they intended specifically to foreclose by setting a higher presidential eligibility standard. And this reasoning applies to Cruz and Rubio.

    • Yes ~ The “UNIPARTY” is Run by the NWO Globalist Elite & it’s Agenda~!

    • Why would an occupier of the people’s house spend millions to keep any information from coming to light, unless he had something to hide? Why would he forge a birth certificate, or have a SS# from a state he has never lived in, from someone that has been dead for decades? For all we know about him, a bird could have deposited him on a fence post, and he hatched out in the sun, and that is the way he wanted it to be.

    • So, who would you have run the country, the TEAMSTERS?

      • They aren’t?

        .

        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • The whole issue of Obama’s birth origin has always been a stupid diversion. There are so many other issues to nail his ass on. Those were and are diluted and ignored. The two terms of Obama says far more about the state of mind of our country than it does about voting for this far left wing ideologue. I’ve not like him since before he was nominated in 2007. That has not changed and all of my suspicions are confirmed.

      Oh, and why do you think he goes easy on Muslimland? Go figure it out.

      • That is a personal opinion which we do not share. Don’t screw this up.
        .

        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • Sorry, as much as I despise Obama, the “birther question” never held water for me. For all his numerous faults, there is no doubt he is, BY BIRTH, an American citizen. That leaves open the question of whether or not he renounced his citizenship (Obama attended college in Californina on a student visa in a foreign exchange program), but by birthright, he is without question, a citizen. Likewise is Cruz, and with Cruz there is no question that he may have renounced his citizenship.

      • ” all his numerous faults, there is no doubt he is, BY BIRTH, an American citizen.”. . .Unless he was born on foreign soil that is true.

        ” That leaves open the question of whether or not he renounced his citizenship,”. . .He did not and his parents couldn’t.

        but by birthright, he is without question, a citizen. . .so long as he was born in Hawaii.

        ” Likewise is Cruz”. . .also true, mom was a US citizen.

        “and with Cruz there is no question that he may have renounced his citizenship.”. . .Irrelevant. You do understand ‘natural BORN citizen’ I presume?

        Cruz was born on foreign soil (ineligible) and his father was a foreign national (ineligible). He is doubly ineligible to be POTUS per the founding fathers.
        .

        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • This treason TRIAL concept seems to be a thing of the past.. No one even gets their hand slapped these days.. They either ignore or laugh at one another. That’s what party’s of crooks do… Yes, that includes ALL of Washington’s parties.

    • It isn’t and never has been that he was not born in the US. It is that he lies, then furnished an obviously fake birth certificate, and then some people who were in a position to know what happened regarding his birth died under strange, unexplainable, and awkward circumstances. And that is where it has been left. So he has some big-time “splainin'” to do.

    • Yes and we want to put a man in there that can’t get long with anyone. My wife said she would vote for Bernie before she would vote for Trump and AI think there are a lot of people feel the same way. SAD STORY AND DOWN WITH OURT COUNTRY.
      l

      • hahaha. can’t get along with anyone? I’d have to say you are wrong, Orley. If he could not get along with anyone. Why is he doing well in the business world?

  2. MolokaiAdvertiserNews

    I will stick with Natural Born US Citizens and Constitutionists like Rand Paul and Ben Carson, maybe even Trump as the three most qualified to be POTUS, if, and I mean IF, they will arrest Obama to NDAA prison for life along with the lifetime criminals Clintons and Bushes.

    Obama is a criminal imposter, a totally seditious fraud in the White House not even eligible for POTUS. A criminal alien NOT US Citizen, serial liar, and #1 Enemy of USA ! Obama is NOT the POTUS, Not even eligible! So PLEASE stop referring to Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro as “The President”.

    By law, the USA needs to ARREST ALL illegal aliens STARTING with Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro!

    Obama was born at Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. His Grandmother even testified that she witnessed his birth there. Yes, Obama was born at Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya, not Hawaii. Obama is a criminal imposter, a totally seditious fraud not even eligible for POTUS because he is not a Natural Born Citizen of USA. Obama is NOT the POTUS, Not even eligible! So PLEASE stop referring to Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro as “The President”. In Hawaii now, again, the Criminal Alien, the Treasonous Usurper and I.D. Fraudster Barack Obama should be arrested to NDAA prison in Honolulu immediately to save USA. Does any police officer or Military now surrounding Obama to protect him from angry and betrayed American Citizens in Hawaii have the courage to put Obama into handcuffs and arrest him for I.D. Fraud, SS Fraud, Election Fraud, TREASON, Impersonating a Federal Official and US Citizen…etc? Come on, save USA!

    Please read the section in the book “Laws of Nations” wherein the term “Natural Born Citizen” is defined. It was the reference book used by the framers to write the US Constitution. There is only one office that requires the holder to be a “natural born citizen” and that is POTUS. The definition for “natural born citizen” requires that BOTH parents be citizens of the US. This is to avoid any conflicting loyalties in the commander in chief during a time of war. Obama was born to a Muslim-African father and therefore is NOT a natural born citizen as defined at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Seeing as he fails to meet the requirements for being a natural born citizen, he is not, nor was he ever constitutionally eligible to be president. Neither is Senators Ted Cruz and Rubio, but both of them seem to think they can get away with it because Obama and the complicit DNC et al has subverted the NBC Constitutional requirement. Not going to happen, if every candidate is required to show proof of their status as NBC.

    Stop calling Obama “The President”, he is NOT eligible for POTUS, therefore he is not the POTUS, successfull election fraud 2008 and 2012 notwithstanding. It is not White racism against Obama because of the color of his skin when he is charged with I.D.Fraud, election Fraud, SS#Fraud, Usurpation and violtion of Oath of Office, and TREASON. The color of one’s skin for the most part didn’t matter until Obama was elected and his Criminal Fraud and TREASON became known. Those who now feel that a Negro can not be trusted with high office now have real life experience to back up their sense of caution. Too bad, Ben Carson would make a good POTUS or VP. But because of Obama and Pelosi and Muslims and Black Racists attacking White People, it will take a generation to get back to where we were before Obama’s criminal usurpation and further corruption of the Executive Office. It was historic alright, but it also cast a pall over ever wanting to elect a person of color again, especially one with no proof that he was ever eligible for Office of POTUS.

    Obama tells more lies to promote his attack on Americans’ Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Obama made the claim that violent felons can go online and buy weapons “with no background check, no questions asked.” This newist Obama-Lie came as part of a lengthy speech from the White House on the executive actions Obama is taking to increase gun control in America.

    Americans have no lawful contract with the illegal alien criminal Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro who is not even eligible for POTUS, because FRAUD vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, elections, and even judgments. The elections of Obama in ’08 and ’12 are based on Obama I.D. Fraud, and a conspiracy with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and DNC et al, therefore We The People have no valid contract with Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro to allow him to occupy the Office of President of the united States of America. United States v. Throckmorton [1878] 98 JU.S. 61, 70. The illegal alien Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro is criminally impersonating a Citizen of USA by fraud I.D., and he is usurping the Office of POTUS. Obama is criminal alien Usurper. Our biggest national security threat is Barack Obama. He must be ARRESTED as a criminal, as an illegal alien, Usurper, I.D. fraud, Election Fraud, etc., by Hawaii law enforcement and/or where ever by FBI, CIA, HS, CG , ICE; not impeached as IF he was POTUS.

    ARREST Barack H. Obama II aka Barry Soetoro illegal alien Enemy of USA, Jihadist, Criminal! Since Obama usurped office, terrorism has gone up, race relations have hit an all time low and mass school shootings have increased almost annually. Obama’s beloved Muslim Terrorists attacked the West with renewed brutality last year. After kicking off 2015 with the shocking Charlie Hebdo massacre, Islamists outdid themselves by killing 130 people in four simultaneous Paris attacks in November. If that wasn’t enough, the San Bernardino, California shooting by Muslim immigrants proved that terrorists remain quite capable of striking the U.S. Meanwhile, we have a criminal Muslim alien jihadist infiltrator usurping the Office of POTUS named Barack Obama who seems more concerned about Islam’s reputation than protecting USA from Muslim Terrorists. How could any American not be angry? Did you know that this was this the kind of change Obama promised? TREASON!

    • You are so right. I can’t thank you enough for your posting. I specifically note your posting as to what
      constitutes a Natural Born Citizen. I learned this when I was quite young. I am now 80 yrs old. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

    • If born in Kenya Obama would not even be a US citizen because his mom was under the age required to confer citizenship. If born in Hawaii he would be a US citizen , but fail to be natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen. To be natural born citizen both parents must be US citizens. Which means neither Cruz nor Rubio qualify.

      • There is no age stipulation for giving birth and conferring citizenship! The only requirement is that an American citizen must have lived in the US one year before having giving birth and five years after the age of 14!

        • Wrong again, Dennis. Wordwaryor is correct. You would be correct if Barry were born today, but Immigration law at the time of Barry’s birth stated that when one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other was an alien, the U.S. citizen parent, in order to confer citizenship, must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, and with FIVE of those years being AFTER the age of 14. Thus, Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to be 19 at the time of Barry’s birth, but she was only 18 at that time. Further, U.S citizenship status is an entirely different thing than “natural born citizen” status, as you should understand after reading my earlier post.

    • The book of laws is not part of the constitution or the USC legal code of America! As much as you may not like it, Obozo is an American, refer to 8 USC section 12 Part 3, sub paragraph d! Written into law in 1790 by the first congrass!

      • Dennis Dumas: I agree with most of what you have posted, but in this specific post you say that “Obozo is an American.” I disagree and I’m calling you out on your “assumption.”

        If Obama was born in Kenya, there is no way he is an American citizen. Furthermore, he had Indonesian citizenship and has never given it up, so that means he has dual citizenship, which disqualifies him from being eligible to be president.

        This post negated all the expertise you seemed to have, with your supposed proficiency in legalese. And your spelling… CongrASS???

      • Wrong again, Dennis. The correct Code citation is 8 U.S.C. Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, §1401. Further, §1401(d) does not apply to Ted for the reason I explained in my first post for this thread. Only §1401(g) applies, which identifies Ted’s father as an alien. BTW, what is a “congrass?”

    • WOW, I hate Obama too but you beat the hell out of me… Please tell us how you really feel.

    • The only actual Constitutionist I see running is Cruz

  3. The writer of this article is a liar just like the mainstream “news” media. Donald Trump did NOT raise the question of Cruz eligibility. Democrats started it by threatening a lawsuit to keep both Cruz and Rubio out of some of the states. Then the media picked it up and began questioning Trump about it and trying to make it appear that Trump had started it. It’s no wonder that nobody believes anything that comes out of the mouths of these tv talking heads!

    • I stand with you and the Molokai Advertiser News. You both are 100% RIGHT ON1

    • Right on brother! The media just assumes that we are all stupid, with short memories, and not paying attention. But you must admit, unlike us, the media is having some success in deceiving Americans on this issue! Keep speaking out brother and telling the truth!!!
      Trump/Crus 2016

    • That’s true but Trump is not above anything!!!! Why is nobody talking about the ORIGINAL birther?? BILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Technically, you are correct. There is a Congressman (nut-job) from Florida who has already said he is going to file suit the moment Cruz is chosen. The only real answer her is to vote for Donald J. Trump. We know he is a U.S. citizen who was born in New York! Vote Trump in November!

  4. Is it time to have an American sired, American
    born President, who has always lived in America?

    • Iwould trust Cruz or Trump or Carson before the Washington insiders!! All the others are Washington whores or obummer azz kissers that are already bought and paid for!! They have not been able to buy Cruz and they hate him and will do anything to destroy him! If anything happens to those three ,I hope they bomb the white house when it is in session! The only way it seems we can eliminate the career political sewer rats!!

  5. CRUZ. IS. ELIGABLE , PERIOD !

  6. There are two simple factors regarding the eligibility of a person to qualify, legally, to run for the office of president, based on the concept of “natural-born citizen ( I prefer “native-born citizen”). The arbitrary stipulation that a person be a “natural-born citizen,” as a legal qualification is simply that, an arbitrary stipulation. What was the underlying reason for the stipulation and the intention, relative to a fulfillment of purpose, of “natural-born citizen?” The oath of office requires a swearing of “true faith and allegiance” and a promise to “preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.” As with persons who are granted clearances for access to classified, government information, it is the liability to influence, undue pressure, coercion, etc., from a foreign government, due to the human collateral of relatives under the jurisdiction of that government which might be brought to bear against a president, or any American citizen in such a situation. The office of president requires an impartiality with respect to the law, the Constitution, and the ability to make decisions without any mental reservation.
    The definition of “native-born citizen,” which fulfills the purpose for the stipulation, is a person born of two United States citizens. With president Obama, the country, for the first time, moved away from a long line of white, Protestant and Catholic, native-born citizens whose lineage was the same. Although many have pointed out the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, no one, not the congress or the courts, has attempted to deal with the issue. It is, after all, the arbitrary stipulations of executive orders which represent the sentiments of the president and are not those of the deliberative, representative, legislative body, the Congress of the United States, just as it was “Dreams of My Father,” (not “Dreams of My American Citizen Mother”) which was the subject of his book. It is the utter waste of time and energy and verbiage over these issues of controversy which could have been completed avoided if the government had simply complied with the stipulation of the Constitution and done the correct thing. It is not a matter of “freedom of choice” to be
    non-compliant with the law.
    It is long past time to correct the ongoing problems.

    • Although you might believe you are right regarding natural born citizen, and the fact that you post a quite lengthy post espousing your beliefs, it does not make your assertion to be fact!
      First: the term “Natural Born Citizen” has never been defined by Congress, who has the sole authority to govern citizenship, and naturalization, and to define the terms!
      Second: the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on this issue simply because their duty is to interpret the Constitution, and not to define the constitution! Again this duty falls upon Congress.
      Third the first congress of the United States in 1790 laid out the conditions for citizenship under the term “Natural born” refer to 8 USC Section 12, Part 3, sub paragraph d.
      There are only two circumstances by which one can become an American citizen. They are as follows:
      1.) you apply for citizenship. In which case if approved, you renounce you alligence to your former country and swear an oath of alligence to America. This is called the naturalization process!
      2.) you are naturally born citizen of one parent who is an American citizen at time of birth, regardless if birth takes place on Us soil or not! You American birth rite is conferred upon you at birth simply because one or both parents are American citizens!
      The test to 8 USC is as follows.
      If one parent is a US citizen, both parents are on board a ship of Norwegian registry, and are in international water, to which no country can claim as their sovereign land! Is that child born of no nationality? Certainly not…. His American citizenship is conferred upon him simply to to the fact that he is born of one American parent! I have been witness to this very example while on board a cruise ship in the Atlantic!

      • Wrong again, Dennis, and not just in your misspelling of “allegiance.” The U.S. Code that you cite is not only cited incorrectly, but has nothing to do with (and makes no mention of) “Natural Born.” In your example of parents aboard a ship in International waters, the citizenship of the child at time of birth would that of the father’s country, as a child inherits both its father’s name and the father’s nationality. Upon docking in the U.S., and declaring the child’s birth to Immigration officers, the mother could confer dual citizenship upon the child according to U.S. Code, but until that happens the child has no U.S. citizenship. Besides you are still confusing statutory citizenship with “natural born” citizenship, which requires no statute as it is instantaneously settled and indisputable at time of birth.

  7. This isn’t an issue, admin go find another story

  8. The real problem with “O” is not so much that he may or may not
    have been born abroad but the Fact that his Mother renounced his
    citizenship to put him in a muslim school in Indonesia. The big question
    should be did he ever reclaim any American citizenship.

  9. This article is, indeed, BS. Cruz is a citizen and should be our next President. I am glad to see people here paying attention.

    • No politicians for me. I vote Trump! READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP!

      This should be on the front
      page of every newspaper.

      Charley Reese’s Final column!

      A very interesting column.
      COMPLETELY NEUTRAL.

      Be sure to Read the Poem at the end..

      Charley Reese’s final
      column for the Orlando Sentinel… He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is
      retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

      Be sure to read the Tax
      List at the end.

      This is about as clear and
      easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral,
      neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the
      Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who
      it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments
      made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth
      the time. Worth remembering!

      545 vs. 300,000,000 People

      -By Charlie Reese

      Politicians are the only
      people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

      Have you ever wondered, if
      both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have
      deficits?

      Have you ever wondered, if
      all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have
      inflation and high taxes?

      You and I don’t propose a
      federal budget. The President does.

      You and I don’t have the
      Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of
      Representatives does.

      You and I don’t write the
      tax code, Congress does.

      You and I don’t set fiscal
      policy, Congress does.

      You and I don’t control
      monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

      One hundred senators, 435
      congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545
      human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and
      individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

      I excluded the members of
      the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In
      1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to
      a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

      I excluded all the special
      interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They
      have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one
      cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million
      dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter
      what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine
      how he votes.

      Those 545 human beings
      spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their
      fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

      What separates a politician
      from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being
      would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for
      creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force
      the Congress to accept it.)

      The Constitution, which is
      the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of
      Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is
      the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority
      party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget
      they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
      agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a
      budget in over three years. The President’s proposed budgets have gotten almost
      unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

      It seems inconceivable to
      me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted
      — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a
      single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
      When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
      federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to
      exist.

      If the tax code is unfair,
      it’s because they want it unfair.

      If the budget is in the
      red, it’s because they want it in the red.

      If the Army & Marines
      are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan
      ..

      If they do not receive
      social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the
      people, it’s because they want it that way.

      There are no insoluble
      government problems.

      Do not let these 545 people
      shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish;
      to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom
      they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

      Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists
      disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,”
      “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing
      what they take an oath to do.

      Those 545 people, and they
      alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

      They, and they alone,
      should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the
      voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of
      them out of office and clean up their mess!

      Charlie Reese is a former
      columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

      What you do with this
      article now that you have read it… is up to you.

      This might be funny if it weren’t so true.

      Be sure to read all the way to the end:

      Tax his land,

      Tax his bed,

      Tax the table,

      At which he’s fed.

      Tax his tractor,

      Tax his mule,

      Teach him taxes

      Are the rule.

      Tax his work,

      Tax his pay,

      He works for

      peanuts anyway!

      Tax his cow,

      Tax his goat,

      Tax his pants,

      Tax his coat.

      Tax his ties,

      Tax his shirt,

      Tax his work,

      Tax his dirt.

      Tax his tobacco,

      Tax his drink,

      Tax him if he

      Tries to think.

      Tax his cigars,

      Tax his beers,

      If he cries

      Tax his tears.

      Tax his car,

      Tax his gas,

      Find other ways

      To tax his ass.

      Tax all he has

      Then let him know

      That you won’t be done

      Till he has no dough.

      When he screams and
      hollers;

      Then tax him some more,

      Tax him till

      He’s good and sore.

      Then tax his coffin,

      Tax his grave,

      Tax the sod in

      Which he’s laid…

      Put these words

      Upon his tomb,

      ‘Taxes drove me

      to my doom…’

      When he’s gone,

      Do not relax,

      Its time to apply

      The inheritance tax.

      Accounts Receivable Tax

      Building Permit Tax

      CDL license Tax

      Cigarette Tax

      Corporate Income Tax

      Dog License Tax

      Excise Taxes

      Federal Income Tax

      Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

      Fishing License Tax

      Food License Tax

      Fuel Permit Tax

      Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

      Gross Receipts Tax

      Hunting License Tax

      Inheritance Tax

      Inventory Tax

      IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

      Liquor Tax

      Luxury Taxes

      Marriage License Tax

      Medicare Tax

      Personal Property Tax

      Property Tax

      Real Estate Tax

      Service Charge Tax

      Social Security Tax

      Road Usage Tax

      Recreational Vehicle Tax

      Sales Tax

      School Tax

      State Income Tax

      State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

      Telephone Federal Excise Tax

      Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

      Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

      Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

      Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

      Telephone State and Local Tax

      Telephone Usage Charge Tax

      Utility Taxes

      Vehicle License Registration Tax

      Vehicle Sales Tax

      Watercraft Registration Tax

      Well Permit Tax

      Workers Compensation Tax

      STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

      Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most
      prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
      middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

      What in the heck happened?
      Can you spell ‘politicians?’

      I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get
      there!!!

      GO AHEAD. . . BE AN
      AMERICAN!!!

  10. Cruz is a hell more American then obama ! How in Hell obama ever got in ,is a question we all should ask our selfs What good has obama done for the American people ? The missing captail in obama is missing because I have no respect of him ! He is a muslim that wants to destroy America.

  11. How come nobody questions obummer’s right to be president? Here is a student visa, sealed personal folder, altered birth certificate and a dead man’s social security number!! The white house political sewer rats won’t allow anyone to search is records because they are all bought by the oil companies of the middle east! If there ever was a time to have term limits it is now so that we the people can take back our country and fumigate the that house or tear it down to save America!!

    • The reason why Barry gets away with this farce, with no one in any branch of government challenging him, is really quite simple. Barry is merely the president, or CEO, of a governmental services corporation doing business as the District of Columbia municipal corporation. He is not the President of our Republic. That seat is currently vacant, as are all seats in Congress and in the Judiciary. When Americans vote in state and national elections they are voting only for the installation of corporate officers – not public officials. For a better understanding of this, I suggest you go here: http://annavonreitz.com/14thamendmenthoax.pdf

  12. Michael Dennewitz

    It’s only too bad that there WON’T BE AN ELECTION!! The PMIC will have declared martial law, long before election day!! He has NO INTENTION of EVER giving up his “kingdom!”

    • He’ll give it up and willingly. There will be an election this year. Obammy’s history. You might ask how I know this? It’s his destiny to leave. It’s his destiny to be tried in court after his departure. All will be revealed and his usurpation will be brought to light. Eight years he’s ruled by fiat. This will haunt him for 8 more years. I see divorce in his future within 8 months after he leaves office. He will finally know that money isn’t everything. That ill gotten gains will never buy happiness.

  13. Under the US Constitution, Cruz CANNOT be elected to the Presidency, but neither can Obama. Under the US Constitution the candidate MUST Be born in the USA, The American public is now stuck with Obama for a “THIRD” term, which is also illegal. OBAMA is a “FRAUD PRESIDENT”, WHO IS NOW ATEMPTING TO GET A Third term, also

  14. PatriotParatrooper

    Vitalls laws of nations were in affect when the constitution was written. So everyone who signed the constitution understood what a natural born citizen is. It’s a citizen borne of that country, of two parents born of that country, otherwise it’s just a place of birth and your allegiance will be to your fathers country. Obama is a case in point. He’s not a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter where he was born. His father is Kenyan. So, by definition, we have a ursurper in the White House who is guilty of treason. Cruz was born in Canada, he doesn’t fit the natural born definition. The only exception to this is military de pendants born abroad. They are considered us citizens, case in point is McCain. He was birn in Panama, but is considered the same as he was born in the us. I think this should be pushed, and it should be deemed that Obama was and is ineligible to be president. Then everything he has passed or signed would be null and void.

    • All the stops are pulled out to make us THINK our Constitution is of no importance. If true, why is it ALWAYS under attack?

    • That’s Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, a treatise on International Law which the Founders were quite familiar with. That reference book was used often by Thomas Jefferson, who maintained a copy in his library, and also by John Jay, a
      legal scholar, and key advisor to the framers of the Constitution.
      John Jay is the person who wrote to General Washington, leader of the
      Constitutional Convention, asking that the term “natural born
      citizen” be added to the Constitution’s requirements to serve as
      POTUS. John Jay was also a writer of the Federalist Papers, and he
      often referred to the Law of Nations as a legal reference. Jay later
      went on to become the first chief justice of the Supreme Court.

    • Sorry, but McCain too was ineligible to serve as POTUS. Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in
      foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department’s Foreign
      Affairs Manual) reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.” As you can see, since McCain, who was born of two U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama was not eligible, how much more absurd is the unfounded belief that Ted Cruz, not born of two U.S. citizen parents, and not born on land controlled by the U.S., could possibly be eligible for POTUS by reason of birth?

      • McCain’s birth certificate says that he was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station infirmary which was located in the Canal Zone and which was US soil at that time. I believe that he is eligible {shudder}.
        .

        .

        ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
        Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • As you can see from reading what I posted, the State Department says that “U.S. military installations abroad [in other countries, such as Panama] ….are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment [the U.S. citizenship Amendment]. To understand why this is true, one must first understand what a “U.S. citizen” is. The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship which did not previously exist. Before this, all Americans were State Citizens, as well as American Nationals, and that’s what most of us still are. A U.S. citizen (notice the lower case “c”) is actually a subject of the District of Columbia. In the contemporary controlling definition of “United States” found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9), Congress defined “United States,” in a geographical sense, to mean the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and no other thing. So you see, a military base in any world location other than these 6 stated ones is NOT part of the United States.

      • PatriotParatrooper

        What you are referring to Regarding people born at US Military bases refers to foriegn nationals giving birth at a US Military Bases or a consular facilities are not considered US Citizens because a military base or a consular facility is considered US Territory. Which is different from being born on US soil. Therefore, they are not US citizens. Case in point is Puerto Rico, They are a US territory, But they are not US Citizens.

        • US territory IS US soil. Birth in the Texas territory or in the Utah territory of citizen parents made one a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. Birth on foreign soil which almost always involves being born with foreign citizenship/allegiance does not.
          .

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • PatriotParatrooper

            When you quote Texas or Utah territory, it falls under the same requirements as the US citizens fell under when the constitution was adopted. You had to be born in this country, or had lived in this country, I believe it was 15 years, prior to the constitution being ratified. If you met these requirements, you were considered a US Citizen, but you were not considered a natural born citizen.

        • Sorry, PatriotParatrooper, but your understanding is fatally flawed. First of all, your contention that those born in Puerto Rico “are not US citizens” is contrary to what is stated in both US Statutes (66 Stat 236) and 8 U.s. Code § 1402. “All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.” The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens known as “citizens of the United States.” The Amendment stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The reason why the Foreign Affairs manual states that children born on US military bases are not citizens within the meaning of the 14th Amendment is because such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and the reason why this is true is because the United States (actually a federal corporation known as the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation – see 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)) only has jurisdiction over that 10 mile square, and over the territories of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Anyone who is, or claims to be, a “citizen of the United States” is only a corporate citizen, a.k.a. a subject. Those born in the several states of our Republic are state Citizens, and are the ones qualified under the Constitution to be “natural born citizens” if both their parents were such Citizens at the time of birth. McCain can only have a legitimate claim to being a “citizen of the United States” (a corporate citizen), and only because of legislated Code (8 U.S. Code § 1403). A “natural born citizen” requires no Act of Congress to be declared a citizen, and never did.

          • ” The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens known as “citizens of the United States.””. . .No, it didn’t. The Ark decision of the Gray court did that.

            I would agree with your analysis except that the States ratified the 14th Amendment and it is the law of the land. Given that people moved freely throughout the States it never made much sense anyway – we are one nation under the Constitution.

          • Sorry, Paul, but the 14th Amendment was announced as ratified on July 9, 1868, and stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” Before this, those born or naturalized in the United States were State Citizens only. Wong Kim Ark was born in 1871 to Chinese subjects, and the case regarding his citizenship was not decided until 1898. Ark’s claim to U.S. citizenship was challenged on the basis of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, but Justice Gray, in writing the SCOTUS decision in the case, stated that the 14th Amendment, passed 14 years prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act, rendered the Exclusion Act subordinate to the 14th Amendment. Actually, the case should have been argued on the merits of the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, for the same men who authored and adopted the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, including both Trumbull and Howard, took part in formulating the treaty. The Burlingame Treaty, in Article VI,
            stated, “But nothing herein contained may be held to confer
            naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon
            the subjects of China in the United States.” Further strengthening this argument is the fact that in 1883 the Congress passed an act entitled “AN ACT TO EXECUTE
            CERTAIN TREATY STIPULATIONS RELATING TO CHINESE.” Section 14 of
            this act read “that hereafter
            no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to
            citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby
            repealed.” Interesting, don’t you think?

          • Glad that you agreed with most of my points. As to the 14th Amendment, it never was properly ratified by the required number of states. Secretary of State Seward simply announced that it had been ratified, so everyone thought that it had been. I suggest that you listen to Thomas Wood’s explanation as to why the ratification was unlawful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMfkACt0yLw Thomas Wood is a historian, political analyst, and best selling author with 12 published books. After you discover the truth about the 14th Amendment, you may want to look into the reasons why certain other Amendments (such as the 16th and 17th, for example) were also never lawfully ratified. The 17th was the most harmful, as it unconstitutionally changed the way that Senators were chosen. Since it was repugnant to the Constitution, it is invalid even if it had been ratified (which it wasn’t – 36 states did not ratify!) See this telling explanation: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd522.htm

          • It was a minor point and I agree with you that Lincoln & Co. made a right mess of the country.

  15. This provision of “natural born” goes back to British Common Law from whence it was taken. When those British common law provisions are considered to explain the term and qualifications, Ted Cruz qualifies as a “natural born” citizen, and thus qualified to run as president. I would not put it past the Democrats to try an “October surprise” just before the election and file suit or get some underling Democrat hack judge or RINO to render a verdict that Cruz is not qualified. Perhaps some of the Democrat run states who have obstructed Cruz from being on the ballot, would quickly work their way through the courts and a judgment is rendered. If the judgment comes forth that Cruz is eligible, then it will complete deflate the argument and I doubt it would even be appealed.

  16. Cruz is only candidate I’ll vote for Prez.
    If he is not on ballot
    It is time to secede

  17. Here is the Deal if you are breeder of animals and sell registered stock with Papers and you have a female and another breed of animal breeds her by mistake then you will not have registered pups or whatever cat or goats you will not be able to sell them with Papers Period and that is the same as a female citizen being bred by a male from another country no matter where they had the baby Wake Up People and Quit Being stupid You know the Male will want them to be as the country they come from Period

  18. Human politics is NOT going to save this nation! Trump is a loud-mouthed, arrogant, self-centered, foolish, unkind, overbearing, ungodly buffoon! Rich? Yes . . . in terms of money, but not in wisdom! He will not be a wise leader! He appeals to many right now, but they will turn on him quickly when they see his inability to produce what he claims he stands for! You don’t “bully” other world leaders and gain true respect, nor does money buy everything!

    • READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP!

      This should be on the front
      page of every newspaper.

      Charley Reese’s Final column!

      A very interesting column.
      COMPLETELY NEUTRAL.

      Be sure to Read the Poem at the end..

      Charley Reese’s final
      column for the Orlando Sentinel… He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is
      retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

      Be sure to read the Tax
      List at the end.

      This is about as clear and
      easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral,
      neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the
      Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who
      it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments
      made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth
      the time. Worth remembering!

      545 vs. 300,000,000 People

      -By Charlie Reese

      Politicians are the only
      people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

      Have you ever wondered, if
      both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have
      deficits?

      Have you ever wondered, if
      all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have
      inflation and high taxes?

      You and I don’t propose a
      federal budget. The President does.

      You and I don’t have the
      Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of
      Representatives does.

      You and I don’t write the
      tax code, Congress does.

      You and I don’t set fiscal
      policy, Congress does.

      You and I don’t control
      monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

      One hundred senators, 435
      congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545
      human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and
      individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

      I excluded the members of
      the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In
      1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to
      a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

      I excluded all the special
      interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They
      have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one
      cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million
      dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter
      what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine
      how he votes.

      Those 545 human beings
      spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their
      fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

      What separates a politician
      from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being
      would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for
      creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force
      the Congress to accept it.)

      The Constitution, which is
      the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of
      Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is
      the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority
      party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget
      they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
      agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a
      budget in over three years. The President’s proposed budgets have gotten almost
      unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

      It seems inconceivable to
      me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted
      — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a
      single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
      When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
      federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to
      exist.

      If the tax code is unfair,
      it’s because they want it unfair.

      If the budget is in the
      red, it’s because they want it in the red.

      If the Army & Marines
      are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan
      ..

      If they do not receive
      social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the
      people, it’s because they want it that way.

      There are no insoluble
      government problems.

      Do not let these 545 people
      shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish;
      to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom
      they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

      Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists
      disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,”
      “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing
      what they take an oath to do.

      Those 545 people, and they
      alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

      They, and they alone,
      should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the
      voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of
      them out of office and clean up their mess!

      Charlie Reese is a former
      columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

      What you do with this
      article now that you have read it… is up to you.

      This might be funny if it weren’t so true.

      Be sure to read all the way to the end:

      Tax his land,

      Tax his bed,

      Tax the table,

      At which he’s fed.

      Tax his tractor,

      Tax his mule,

      Teach him taxes

      Are the rule.

      Tax his work,

      Tax his pay,

      He works for

      peanuts anyway!

      Tax his cow,

      Tax his goat,

      Tax his pants,

      Tax his coat.

      Tax his ties,

      Tax his shirt,

      Tax his work,

      Tax his dirt.

      Tax his tobacco,

      Tax his drink,

      Tax him if he

      Tries to think.

      Tax his cigars,

      Tax his beers,

      If he cries

      Tax his tears.

      Tax his car,

      Tax his gas,

      Find other ways

      To tax his ass.

      Tax all he has

      Then let him know

      That you won’t be done

      Till he has no dough.

      When he screams and
      hollers;

      Then tax him some more,

      Tax him till

      He’s good and sore.

      Then tax his coffin,

      Tax his grave,

      Tax the sod in

      Which he’s laid…

      Put these words

      Upon his tomb,

      ‘Taxes drove me

      to my doom…’

      When he’s gone,

      Do not relax,

      Its time to apply

      The inheritance tax.

      Accounts Receivable Tax

      Building Permit Tax

      CDL license Tax

      Cigarette Tax

      Corporate Income Tax

      Dog License Tax

      Excise Taxes

      Federal Income Tax

      Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

      Fishing License Tax

      Food License Tax

      Fuel Permit Tax

      Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

      Gross Receipts Tax

      Hunting License Tax

      Inheritance Tax

      Inventory Tax

      IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

      Liquor Tax

      Luxury Taxes

      Marriage License Tax

      Medicare Tax

      Personal Property Tax

      Property Tax

      Real Estate Tax

      Service Charge Tax

      Social Security Tax

      Road Usage Tax

      Recreational Vehicle Tax

      Sales Tax

      School Tax

      State Income Tax

      State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

      Telephone Federal Excise Tax

      Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

      Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

      Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

      Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

      Telephone State and Local Tax

      Telephone Usage Charge Tax

      Utility Taxes

      Vehicle License Registration Tax

      Vehicle Sales Tax

      Watercraft Registration Tax

      Well Permit Tax

      Workers Compensation Tax

      STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

      Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most
      prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
      middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

      What in the heck happened?
      Can you spell ‘politicians?’

      I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get
      there!!!

      GO AHEAD. . . BE AN
      AMERICAN!!!

  19. IF OBAMA, WHO WAS BORN IN KENYA, CAN BE ELECTED, CRUZ SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR SHOT TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

  20. The question: is TED CRUZ eligible to run for President of the United States is a NONE ISSUE. The so-called News Media (remember the one’s that slobber and get tingly feelings up their inner thighs when Obum-bum walks in the room) are the one’s running this bull sh*t. NOTE: MOTHER was a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. END OF ARGUMENT! Trump DID NOT bring up this crap. And any thing he said would be immediately misquoted and entered out of context by the same a$$ holes that start this crap to begin with. Of which John McCain and his closet democ-RATS are also about. Don’t blame The Donald for this one.

  21. It is the Naturalization Act of 1790 AND the Constitution combined, that makes Cruz eligible. Cruz at least had a parent that was happy to become a US citizen and one that was already a proud US citizen. Not one that was a Communist sympathizer and denounced their’s like the O’bobo in chief we have now…..
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada

  22. AnonymouseIsAWoman

    Ted Cruz is a native born citizen as one of his parents was a US citizen and the proper paperwork was filed with the US government. The United States is unique in granting natural citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of parental citizenship, or anywhere in the world as long as one parent is a US citizen.
    Personally, I do not like Trump. He made his fortune through crony capitalism, involving redevelopment funding and the use of eminent domain against property owners and residents who were in the way of his taxpayer subsidized projects. Perhaps people need to review the eminent domain decision by the US Supreme Court that decided it is perfectly legal to take property from unwilling owners, sell them what the government cronies think is a reasonable amount, and then give that property to private corporations to use to increase their profits. Trump also used to have some interesting things to say about things like gun control.
    I suggest that anyone who has more intelligence than a polecat ferret actually look at some of The Donald’s past opinions, and consider whether or not these might resurface the minute he is elected.

  23. I have researched this extensively. The problem lies with the fact that citizenship is not the issue but the specific issues of qualifications form President and Congressmen in the Constitution. For President, the qualification is that the person must be a naturalized citizen. That means that the person must be born IN the US to parents (plural) who are also US Citizens. Furthermore, if the father is a foreigner, the child is a citizen of the father’s country. as a historian I have researched the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Naturalization Act of 1802 opens the door for a naturalization process that provides that Congressmen can be qualified through a naturalization process. But that does NOT meet the Constitutional requirements for President. While Cruz, Rubio and Obama can become naturalized citizens they cannot qualify for the Constitutional requirement for becoming President. A naturalized citizen is not a natural born one.

  24. Sadly I say this: Ted Cruz has held Canadian citizenship for 42 or 43 years, I say that very clearly shows his choice of the country he wants to be a citizen of. Ted Cruz is not only a Canadian citizen, but, I also sadly say, I believe he is an illegal immigrant in America and illegally elected a senator. Holding citizenship in another country for this long is enough to say he is not a United States of America citizen. (and skip the chit his mother was a citizen, she, in fact, may have taken Canadian citizenship just like his father did).

  25. peeweetanner@yahoo.com

    TRUMP WILL DO ANYTHING IF SOMEONE IS GETTING IN HIS WAY HE HAS THE MONEY AND POWER BUT NOT THE PRESTAGE

  26. Yes, the Constitution does say that anyone running for POTUS must be born of two natural-born American parents, which definitely should have left Barry out of the running. By “O’s” own admission, his father was a Kenyan and never was an American citizen. The office of POTUS and Vice President are the only two elected offices with this requirement. The Founders foresaw exactly the situation which has arisen around Obama and that is why they made that stipulation. The Democrats tried on several occasions to have that requirement removed from the Constitution and it was published in the Federal Register every time an attempt was made but it never was accomplished. Most of the Dems knew that Obama was ineligible but when they couldn’t get the language changed, they ran with it anyway. They were desperate to regain control in the Congress and the Executive branch. Nancy Pelosi sent a differently worded nomination letter to the State of Hawaii than all the other states, so she definitely knew.
    See Larry Klayman article below:

    Cruz and Rubio: Neither is Eligible
    By Larry Klayman

    WND.com
    January 8, 2016

    Having established that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim under
    Shariah law thanks to his Muslim father and by virtue of his actions, and thus
    as the winner of the “Muslim of the Year” award, it now appears that our
    ineligible “leader” can be more precisely defined as a Shiite.

    This week, Obama again failed to back up and defend our oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni Arab nation, when the terrorist Islamic Iranian government sponsored the setting afire of the Kingdom’s embassy in Tehran. This comes on the heels of nuclear missile tests and other acts of provocation by Obama’s mullah brethren in Iran. Clearly, the “Muslim of the Year” has shown his true colors; he is not only Muslim, but in his heart a Shiite. No wonder he so eagerly bowed down to the ayatollahs in Tehran and deceitfully and illegally rammed through a so-called treaty paving the way for these Islamic maniacs to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, Western Europe and of course Israel. The Shiite lover’s dream of an Islamic caliphate is, today, on the brink of reality.

    In a predictable twist of fate, however, the more novel story this week is the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” eligible under our Constitution to run for, be elected and serve as president of the United States. First raised with regard to the Muslim of the Year in 2008, “eligibility” has reared its head yet again. Long since buried when this requirement was applied to our president – indeed courts have refused to address the issue in several cases I and others filed – not surprisingly it has now taken on public and legal interest now that two white guys, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both born to only one citizen parent at the time of birth and in the case of Cruz also born in Canada and until recently holding dual citizenship, are in the spotlight of a presidential primary election. As any reader to this column and WND knows, “natural born citizen” is defined thanks to the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations as a person born in the United States or its territories to two citizen parents. The framers and thus the Supreme Court look to this codified treatise to define crucial terms in the Constitution.

    Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban-Canadian father, and until last year was a dual Canadian-American citizen. In 2014 he conveniently renounced his Canadian citizenship in the nick of time to run for the presidency. Rubio, on the other hand, was born in the states, but his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. Thus, these Cuban-American senators are technically ineligible to be president.

    While I really like Cruz and see him as a true patriot – I feel otherwise with regard to Rubio who is in my view a two-faced phony – it is indeed ironic that they would now undergo intense scrutiny by Democrats and some Republicans alike such as Sen. John McCain, who hates Cruz, while our black Muslim president effectively escaped all scrutiny, despite having likely been born in Kenya to only one American parent. We now have confirmation that indeed the concept of affirmative action is embedded in our living Constitution.

    Donald Trump is of course the current political benefactor of this debate, as Hillary Clinton initially was in 2008 when she ran in the Democratic primary for president against Obama. But the bigger consideration is the reason the framers inserted the “natural born citizen” requirement into the Constitution. Except for the offices of president and vice president, all other references in the Constitution refer only to “citizen.” Thus, there has to be a difference in legal interpretation.

    The reason is that our framers, most of whom were grandfathered out of the “natural born citizenship” requirement given their recent immigration from England, realized that the newly formed nation would encompass many persons with dual loyalties, those whose families owned land and wealth and had close relatives in the British kingdom. They thus wanted our president and vice president to be one step removed from foreign influences.

    Until the election and king-like rule of the Shiite Muslim of the Year, the issue of natural born citizen was merely theoretical. But with the favoring of Islam and foreign interests at every turn of his presidency, to the detriment of the United States, we now can see why the framers inserted this into the Constitution.

    For Sens. Cruz and Rubio, it is too bad they were not also born to black mothers or fathers. If they had been so fortunate, like Shiite Obama, they may have escaped scrutiny. But for these Cuban-American pale faces, their chances to win the Republican nomination for president is likely doomed. By my estimate, there is roughly a third of the Republican electorate which knows and cares enough about the Constitution to cause them to vote for other GOP presidential candidates. And, this makes The Donald the likely winner at this point of the primary season.

    Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/cruz-and-rubio-neither-is-eligible/#sX8bheWhLuzI7xAX.99

  27. This question should have been settled before he decided to run for president. Maybe he can get Calgary, Alberta to join the Union in time for the election.

    • This question should have been settled when the Constitution was written. A clear concise definition of of Natural Born Citizen would have made a lot of this confusion moot. But, there is the likely hood that some judge or lawyer would challenge that definition. While we are to blame for our choices, it is the lawyers and judges that do the most harm with their “legal opinions”.

  28. If the dictates of the Constitution matter, Senators Cruz and Rubio and not eligible to run for the presidency. Cruz’s situation is a bit murky, but Rubio’s isn’t. Senator Rubio was born in 1971 on American soil to Cuban refugee parents. The parents were not even naturalized citizens at the time of his birth. Rubio is an Anchor Baby. Does this mean that if a Cuban or Mexican woman gives birth to a child on American soil that this person can someday run for the highest office of the land? According to the Constitution, that person would not be eligible.

  29. I really like the fact that you are reading the U.S. Constitution and discussing the legalities of who can and cannot run for President of the United States, I also want to bring up another topic for discussion, I’ve been reading magazine articles and watching these news shows about Trump, the Republicans are trying to figure out a way to not nominate Trump as their candidate, even if the people want him to be. To me that is VERY UN-AMERICAN of the GOP. They are running scared of Trump, because he’s holding them accountable for their non-actions, and calling them out on it. Jeb Bush just knew he was a shoo in because of his last name, and Carly thought she would get the Republican nomination because she was a woman, but she was wrong, her record shows she’s not qualified for running our country, we are already heading into bankruptcy as a country and don’t need her help finishing us off, like she did as a former CEO of a multi-million dollar company. I’m Proud to be an American, and to see so many people smart enough to think for themselves, and look up things and do research of our U.S. Constitution, and not blindly believe what the press says, or be like lemmings and run off of a cliff just because the rest do it. The Regime that’s in the Whitehouse now, don’t want Trump as POTUS, because he’s not one of them and he wants to do some good for our citizens,and give back America to us, the people in Washington D.C. now are just happy as clams with the status-quo as it is now.

  30. Cruz was born to an American mother!!!! He is a natural born citizen. The Constitution does not require him to be born in the U.S.A. You would have to believe that any mother who even went on a short vacation and possibly had an early delivery on foreign soil would make that child NOT a natural born citizen…That is how idiots think!

  31. ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’DONALD TRUMP 2016

  32. If McCain, Goldwater and Romney were eligible then Cruz is eligible. All three were, as was Cruz, born outside the USA but were born to Citizen(s) of the US. I would think that, if I questioned any one of the candidates, Rubio would be the proper one to question. If I have the facts straight, his parents came to the USA as legal immigrants seeking citizenship and, since that takes a few years, Rubio was born during that time. That would make him a so called anchor baby but not ‘natural born’ because his parents were NOT citizens.

    The flap about Obama eligibility probably could have been settled for certain IF he had submitted a legal birth certificate.

    • WRONG~! Cruz’s Parent’s are Not BOTH Citizens..{& the Mom may have given up her citizenship} The Parents of the other 2 are american Citizens PARENT’S that were assigned & where they were by the US Government & were in the SERVICE of the US Government. HUGE Difference. They HAD to be there. Military Personal Assigned or Foreign Diplomats Assigned~! No Choice had to be where they were. { 2 Parents American Citizens.}

      • From the beginning the requirement was the male parent but a law was
        passed several years ago making the female parent also bestow
        citizenship. I do not remember the date of the law but I read it on the
        net since this flap began.

        The mother, according to what data I found, was still a US citizen when Cruz was born.McCain was born in Panama, Goldwater in Arizona before it became a state and Romney was also born outside the US, don’t remember exactly where.

        • No LAWS come BEFORE the Constitution~~or after it~! Understand about mcCain~~but Congress may have made a Mistake there, if not on our Proppperty. But he had 2 Citizen Parents in the service of the USA Government 7 was assigned ther so that may be why Congress went for that. But I read a Piece today from someone I respect that may say that is even Wrong~ it is:
          http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd703.htm

          • The reason is that the ONLY way that the known definition of a word, term, or phrase found in the Constitution can be changed is by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Congress cannot just arbitrarily decide to change the meaning of the Constitution, as they are currently trying to do with the 2nd and 1st amendments.

          • You are CORRECT~!

        • Yes, the intent of the founding fathers has been violated on a number of occassions – Chester A. Arthur whose father was a Canadian citizen (foreign national) like Obama, Rubio, Cruz & Jindal was a usurper.
          .

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • Think again idiot, Romney was born in Detroit, you’re thinking of his father.

    • Citizenship is NOT what is in question, it is whether he is a Natural Born Citizen, which he is not, and ISN’T EVEN CLOSE!

  33. SOSADFOROURCOUNTRY

    This statement by the author of this article: “There was never any doubt that Obama’s mother was an American citizen…” Is not correct. There is DNA evidence to support that Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT BHO’s biological mother. Regardless, for POTUS eligibility, being a US citizen by birth to only one (1) US citizen parent does not qualify the requirement by the US constitution that both “parents” be US citizens. Neither BHO nor Cruz nor even Rubio qualify for POTUS under this requirement even if born on US soil. BHO does not qualify regardless because a Kenyan BC shows he was born there to a “black female” and not in Hawaii as claimed. Rubio’s parents did become US citizens but not before he was born. Only Ted’s mother was a US citizen.

  34. “The
    Constitution and the laws of the United States are straightforward,” Cruz said
    in a CNN interview. “The very first Congress defined the child of a U.S.
    citizen born abroad as a natural-born citizen.”

    That is a bogus and self-serving comment. James Madison made it clear that a person born of foreign soil was not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be POTUS: https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/new-evidence-1790-naturalization-act/

    • What Cruz is referring to is the Naturalization Act of 1790 that the first congress passed which mentions Natural Born Citizen. What he fails to also state is that the Naturalization Act of 1795 replaced and voided the 1790 act and that Natural Born citizen was removed, and that no other act that followed addressed NBC. It is a perfect example of NOT telling the whole story, only enough that you look right.

  35. It seems to me that the Constitution says that it should be parents, not parent in order to be President. That would mean that we have someone sitting in e White House illegally and Mr Cruz would not be eligible either with only one parent an American citizen.
    Another note. Before Abraham Lincoln it was illegal for a lawyer to hold public office.

    • ” Another note. Before Abraham Lincoln it was illegal for a lawyer to hold public office.”

      What changed?

      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

  36. There is no valid question. Of course, Cruz is eligible. The Court is never going to say otherwise. The Court’s indecision in this matter is the only issue; and it has been for over 200 years.

    • Nominate Cruz and lose the election. His ineligibility is going to haunt him through the election and kill his chances. If you want to live under the socialists for another four years, support Cruz. Choose wisely.
      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

  37. The problem with Obama’s birth certificate is that it was a forgery to cover up who his real father is. Anyway if Obama was born in Kenya he would still be a U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen who was not becoming a Canadian citizen. Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. to two Cuban citizen’s who were becoming U.S. citizens. A child belongs to the parent not the country. I don’t believe in birth place citizenship should be the law but it is.

    • He would still be a usurper squatting in the Oval Office. A natural born citizen is a person born on US soil and born of citizen parents {plural}.
      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

      • OK so a person who is born to an unmarried couple one of which is a U.S, citizen and the other is not would also not qualify even if the birth took place in the U.S.? Again I do not believe that the child belongs to the country but to the parents. Ted Cruz did not have to become naturalized to become a citizen, he belonged to his mother who was a U.S. citizen. He was always recognized by the U.S. as a citizen.He may also have Canadian citizenship but he is a natural born U.S. citizen because he belonged to his mother.

    • Stop stating misinformation. Neither Cruz nor Ovomit are “automatically” US citizens. Go to the USCIS website and look up citizenship from the parents. The current law is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which both Cruz and Ovomit would fall under. It states that children born overseas to one citizen parent are “considered” US citizens, IF the parent files form 600 (Certificate of Citizenship) and pays a fee by their 18th birthday. If this was not done, neither of them are even US citizens.

  38. Getting a little tired of stating this, but the problem is not Cruz’s citizenship (he is a citizen) – it’s his not being a “natural born” citizen which is one of only three requirements to make anyone eligible for the only two jobs in the U.S. that require it — POTUS and VPOTUS!

    To be a “natural born” citizen, both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. The issue for the Founders was divided loyalty from birth. Cruz is a Canadian-American and also a Cuban-American from the facts of his birth. Not his “fault”, but he, like Jindal, Rubio, and Santorum (and, yes, Soetoro-Obama), is not eligible. Electing an ineligible candidate does not change the Constitution!

    Cruz knows the real issue, but is playing it as a “citizenship” issue when he knows damned well it is a “natural born citizenship” issue — and that is intentionally dishonest, and an attempt to mislead voters. I will not vote for him, and am very concerned about his ability to comply with his current sworn oath as a Senator to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States….” It is not his right to pick and choose which parts he will honor.

  39. Thomas White and Melvin Bailey were flying near the Cuba border and dropping Christian tracts when their plane developed engine trouble and spent about 5 or7 years in a Cuban prison as supposed CIA spies. They met a evangelical minister in prison. The churches may be closed but the house churches were alive and well. So much for a so called Christian Donald Trump. I was a Presbyterian like Donald, but I finally got Baptized in the Holy Spirit and was empowered. Donald, grow up. I have spoken with my Texas Senator before he was elected and unlike you a Chrino, a Christian in name only, Ted Cruz is a true Evangelical and knows His Savior Personally.

    • I wonder what God thinks of how Cruz is lying to the people about his citizenship status? The fact is that Texas has given us a fair share of dirtbags in politics, including the New World Order Bushes and “patriot act/dhs.TSA Bush, “The Great Society” Johnson who was part of Kennedy’s assassination, and now “the Canadian natural born US citizen”, not to mention illegal government actions like WACO, the 150 year violation of the second amendment, and refusal to secure their portion of the border. We really don’t need anymore advise from Texans!

      • Are you slow brained? May I suggest you talk to Ted Cruz. He is like his father, fights Communism. I have explained the Senate has reprimanded him because he stands on what he says. He is a straightforward Conservative who you wish you would have the stamina to go against the grain. I met him when he was running for the Senate. I found out how Christian and Conservative he was. What surprised me was his knowledge about Pro-Life issues. Boy are you ignorant. As for his citizenship, if he was an alien, don’t you think he would have had to go through citizenship procedures. Are you a shill for the Democrat Party? He is nothing like LBJ or the Bushes. He is not a Globalist as some of the Bushes. Did you see him attack the President of the Sierra Club concerning the lie of Global Warming. Now if you want to make a difference go to your Republican Precinct meeting after the Primary, then get yourself elected to go to your County Convention, then get yourself elected to go to your State Convention. Get educated and become salt and light. Quit Griping and learn who is on your side. I did and was given a little training by the Christian Coalition to get involved. No, you won’t take the time to do the above will you? We don’t have a state income tax like the Democrats tried to do. We have a governor who is fighting to stop funds to the Baby Killing Planned Parenthood. Why? because a group of Christians got involved on a grassroots level to make a difference. GROW UP!
        Do you know about the protection of Transgenders by the Dallas City Council, or the same attempt that was thwarted in Houston, or the misdemeanor fine in San Antonio for saying that Same Sex Marriage is wrong? I have educated myself and I know what the liberal Democrats are doing in Texas and you won’t get your education from the even liberal media in Texas. Again quit implying that Ted Cruz is a liberal. Follow the actions in the Senate, you don’t like moderated, neither do I ,Cornyn. Lets fined a more conservative person to run for Cornyn’s position and realize Ted Cruz is on your side. Wake Up.

        • I never implied that Cruz is a libturd, what I stated was that IF he was as devoted to Christ and his faith as you say and as conservative as you say, then he would NOT violate the Constitution by running for POTUS. It is you who is slow witted, you seem to think that he deserves a pass because he is on our side. You have no problem overlooking that he is not eligible, but I’ll bet you spoke out about Ovomit, NAH, I doubt you have the conviction to have done so! At this point there isn’t a single candidate that I like, but when I do vote it will be for one who meets the Constitutional requirement, and that is NOT Cruz.

          • Who are you supporting, Trump? That is laughable. He will be like a guppy swimming amongst sharks. John F. Kennedy spent less time in the Senate than Ted and same for Obama. You still need to talk to him. Do you want to talk to him and find out where he stands on every issue? Ted will not make us spend billions on Global Warming. He will sign laws that will stop killing babies. He will build up defense. He will attempt to end illegals entering into this country even if you think he is not naturally born. He probably know more about the Constitution than you ever will. Talk to him. Go See Him, learn about him and quite make judgements you have no knowledge of. He has already said he will remove all of the illegal executive orders this Barry Soetoro from Indonesia has signed. They don’t like Ted in the Senate because he stands on the principles laid out in the Constitution. I doubt if Donald even understands our Constitution. Ted knew when I asked him what the establishment clause in the First Amendment originally meant, that is a state government tax supported church and that it never meant to remove prayer, the Bible, and the 10 Commandments out of the Public Square. Majority Rules with minority rights as it was before a crooked Supreme Court changed all that. Can you believe one of those Justices said they had to remove the Bible from the public school because it could cause insanity in the children. According to the Constitution and law, HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

          • Blah,blah,blah. All you have done with that entire babbling rant is try to justify voting for an ineligible candidate. NOT ONE of you comments so far has provided ONE piece of documented proof to support your claim. Here’s an article just posted that might clarify why you are wrong!

            http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/12/senator-ted-cruz-was-for-the-constitution-before-he-turned-against-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1913828

            Senator Ted Cruz Was For The Constitution, Before
            He Turned Against It…

            Posted on January 12, 2016 by sundance

            …”When
            Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after
            making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for
            sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living
            Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted
            never convinced me — nor did I convince him.

            At
            least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather
            originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his
            ambition”… ~ Laurence H Tribe
            (Harvard)

            Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not “Natural Born”

            (Via Free Republic) The question of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen”
            may be close in some cases, but the case of Ted Cruz is easy. Constitutionally
            speaking, Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not “natural born.”

            Regarding citizenship, the
            Constitution grants Congress power over a uniform rule of naturalization, not
            over citizenship generally. Any citizen whose citizenship is derived from an
            act of Congress is thus a naturalized citizen, constitutionally speaking, and
            thus not “natural born.”

            The basic principle is stated in United States v. Wong Kim
            Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-3 (1898):

            The Fourteenth Amendment of the
            Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
            and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject
            to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States,
            and needs no naturalization.

            A person born out of the
            jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being
            naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of
            the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised
            either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the
            enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,
            or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the
            judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

            (Emphasis added.) That this
            principle still holds was recognized in Rogers v. Bellei, 401
            U.S. 815 (1971)— implicitly in the majority
            opinion of Blackmun, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Harlan,
            Stewart, and White joined:

            [O]ur law in this area follows
            English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of
            birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute [and] the
            [Supreme] Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant
            a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.

            (pp. 828-30) and explicitly in the
            dissent of Brennan, joined by Douglas:

            Concededly, petitioner [Bellei]
            was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation
            of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis
            for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within
            the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be
            naturalized overseas . . . .

            (p. 845, emphasis added) as well as
            in the dissent of Black, with Douglass and Marshall joining:

            Congress is empowered by the Constitution
            to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone
            acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is,
            constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

            (p. 840, Emphasis added).

            The argument that Cruz is “natural
            born” because he was never naturalized is based on the false premise that Cruz
            was never naturalized.

            Cruz was naturalized (presumably at
            birth) by statute under Congress’ power to make a uniform rule of
            naturalization. And since he (apparently) has no other claim to U.S.
            citizenship, he cannot be considered a “natural born” citizen.
            (link)

          • Who are you supporting anyway. I am Supporting Dr. Carson, at least and until the Primaries. By the way, why should we listen to someone who seems think he know everything yet is unwilling to participate, even to attend his Precinct Caucus or Convention. You have know idea what is at stake and only care to gripe about what you think is a travesty of injustice. Are you for Hillary and are just making these comments to confuse others? Thank God I have carefully studied the candidates I support. Hello, what have you done to find out?

          • Listen to yourself, you seem to think that people already have to have decided on a candidate, yet we are 10 fking months from the election. You immediately ASS-U-me that a person that speaks out against a supposedly conservative candidate is automatically a libturd. Try looking at my profile and all of the comments that I have made, and if you still think I’m a libturd then you’re an even bigger idiot! You can bet that I’m a libturd’s worst nightmare! Carson? I wouldn’t vote for that dipshit if he was the only candidate. He is for forcing immunizations, he has spoken against the second amendment (then conveniently apologized and backtracked when called on it), he sided with the Travon Martin thug supporters. Besides that, arson came on the scene AFTER Ovomit started his second term, he was NONEXISTENT prior to that. I’d be willing to bet he voted for the mudhen-in-chief at least once. But you know absolutely nothing about Carson, who also made several comments about his youth that have been negatively critiqued by individuals who knew him then.

            Lastly, it again is you assuming that I claim to know everything. What you aren’t paying attention to is that nearly EVERY comment I make I also provide the physical evidence to back it, something that libturds never do nor do Cruzbots.

            I use my brain for more than keeping my skull from imploding, I rely on NO ONE ELSE’S claims without first doing the necessary research to ensure it’s correctness.

            The one thing that you can truly believe is that the socialists/Communists that have invaded this country through our government have been very effective at dumbing down the populace, and it shows when discussing Cruz’s eligibility.

            My job as a Constitutionalist and Oath-keeper is to try to get the facts and truth to the misinformed so they make the best informed decision, because their poor decision will affect us all – look at Ovomit.

          • I finally ready your reference to the Harvard Professor who disagreed with Cruz about the purpose of the Original Intent. I apologize for not having read it. This professor is wrong. And a lot of our history has been rewritten. Thomas Jefferson as been called a theist and that was the farthest thing from the truth. Why would he start church services in the Capital as Vice President in both the Supreme Court Chambers (they were originally in the basement because they were never meant to be a third with the other two branches)and the Congressional Chambers and they lasted about 60 years. His inference to the separation of church and state never meant what this Supreme Court did. He clearly was talking about the Establishment of a State Church and collecting taxes to support it. Not only that, there was a court case in 1879 that made that clear. That is only one example that has screwed our government and our kids for 53 years. Now we can agree that the Supreme Court is all screwed up and Kagan and Ginsberg need to be impeached because they refused to recuse themselves according to federal statutes because they presided over same sex marriages. I have the sources of these statutes if you need them. I am sorry that you felt it necessary to use expletives because we can agree on many issues. Our history was rewritten between 1875 and 1925 according to the information I have received. This Saturday there is a series by David Barton on Trinity Broadcasting in the afternoon called “Foundations of Freedom”. I have a DVD series on our true history which can be obtained from http://www.wallbuilders.com.

          • I found this recently, food for thought–https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fharvardlawreview.org%2F2015%2F03%2Fon-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen%2F&h=sAQFrRIkK

          • Your link won’t open, try unhighlighting thought —

          • Excuse my lack of computer expertise. I don’t think it will change your mind. The only thing, I can’t imagine, let’s say an American female soldier has a baby in Iraq and she isn’t married or is married to a foreigner or simply had shacked up with someone, I don’t think anyone would tell her her child was an alien or not a natural born citizen of the US, if you think about it.

            Harvard Law Review

            Issues

            Forum

            Ordering

            Submissions

            About

            Harvard Law Review Forum
            On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
            Commentary
            by
            Neal Katyal
            & Paul Clement
            Mar 11, 2015
            128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161
            We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the
            Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have
            different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential
            election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able
            to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from
            spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not
            constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was
            delivered at a hospital abroad.

            The Constitution directly
            addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In
            addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of
            residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
            All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm
            that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely,
            someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a
            naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made
            equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the
            current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the
            parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S.
            citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the
            Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2. See, e.g.,
            8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,
            Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934,
            Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

            While some
            constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources
            either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials
            clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from
            birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme
            Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in
            understanding constitutional terms are British common law3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.

            4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
            Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born
            Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based
            on the citizenship of a parent.

            As to the British practice, laws
            in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the
            British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and
            explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).
            These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the
            British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents,
            Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
            The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these
            statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the
            statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War.
            They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,

            7. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

            No
            doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after
            the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that
            children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and
            explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.”
            The Naturalization Act of 17908. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
            provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may
            be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be
            considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of
            citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been
            resident in the United States . . . .”9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted).
            The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly
            persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also
            members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this
            instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed
            the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the
            First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born
            Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).

            The
            proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the
            concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly
            includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need
            to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals
            born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have
            changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on
            paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted
            citizenship at birth.

            11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
            The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth
            to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father
            had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But
            Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and
            fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current
            presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and
            subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a
            citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are
            “natural born Citizens.”

            The original meaning of “natural born
            Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in
            including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared
            in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a
            letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United
            States, suggesting:

            [W]hether it would not be wise
            & 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 [sic] army
            shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).

            As
            recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the
            Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to
            “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be
            intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those
            corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).
            The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S.
            citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign
            birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he
            served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude
            that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious
            loyalty, from presidential eligibility.14. See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).

            While
            the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still
            taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was
            born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
            Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no
            question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a
            “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed,
            because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator
            Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the
            Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major
            party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside
            the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a
            U.S. citizen parent.16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].
            Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious
            question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President,
            wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of
            the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012). Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously
            agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving
            that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as
            limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with
            the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the
            Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s
            own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
            And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor
            George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was
            born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its
            statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
            and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and
            unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.

            There
            are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential
            election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to
            candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is
            refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual
            must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.”
            Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a
            naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since
            the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally
            a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the
            phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such
            citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent —
            whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen
            from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so
            choose.

            * Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
            ** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

            Tags:

            Constitutional Law

            Harvard Law Review Forum

            Legal History

            PDF

            Westlaw

            Mar ’15

            Vol 128
            No. 5

            Read Next

            Harvard Law Review Forum

            Does Meaning Matter?

            A Response to Professor Fallon

            Response by David A. Strauss

            Fourth Amendment

            Heien v. North Carolina

            Leading Case

            Havard Law Review

            Join Our Mailing List

            Facebook

            Twitter

            Harvard Law Review ©2016

          • The child would be an American citizen but not a ‘natural born citizen’ per Constitutional requirements. The HLR article is an opinion piece that holds no weight in law. It is a highly biased, incomplete article designed to support a progressive point of view.

          • The whole concept of the argument in your comment is that “IT SHOULDN’T OR DOESN’T MATTER”. IT DOES MATTER! The framers wanted to limit eligibility of POTUS to a person that has TOTAL allegiance to the US and the Constitution. For the sake of brevity I’ll address the very last paragraph in your comment:
            [There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.] Really?!?! This isn’t a serious issue, especially after already having an ineligible individual in office for 7 years and who has shown EXACTLY what the framers were trying to prevent!
            [Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.”
            Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a
            naturalized citizen cannot serve.] This statement is WRONG! ANY CITIZEN EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is ineligible. There are plenty of citizens who are citizens by birth but are NOT Natural Born Citizens. As with the reference to your military whore who gets knocked up by a crowd of anonymous sperm donors. The child is a US citizen by birth , BUT NOT A Natural Born Citizen (unless she can prove that the father is/was a US citizen at the child’s birth).
            [But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.] Again it refers to CITIZEN, NOT Natural Born Citizen. These idiots continue to include wording that is NOT there! The Constitution uses the term Natural Born Citizen ONCE and it is ONLY in reference to POTUS.
            [Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent —whether in California or Canad
            a or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth] This is partially correct, only so for those born outside the US IF the other requirements are met according to the actual USINS.
            [and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.] Wrong! The people can’t just choose to ignore the Constitution, the only way that the people can choose is by having congress pass a Constitutional amendment to change the definition of NBC or remove it.

            http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html

            http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/01/18/natural-born-citizen-status-is-inherited-its-not-bestowed-by-the-constitution-or-acts-of-congress/

            Also, many “scholars” and those against Vattel, should sit down and actually read the Constitution.

            ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 10 tells any that to know the power of Congress you must read “The Law of Nations”.

            ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 tells the requirements to be president. (a natural born citizen). Did you read “The Law of Nations”? It states clearly what is a natural born citizen. Both parentS must be citizens at the time of birth. Any rulings past that conflict with what is written in the constitution are null and void if the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

            ARTICLE 6, CLAUSE 2 states that the constitution shall be the supreme law
            of the land.

          • I am glad that you can hold to your convictions..

          • One last remark, as you have said tht the Bush’s were globalists, one worlders, do you see that being born in the US, is not half as important as we the people remain vigilant as to the Character of the person running for office?

          • We The People are given that charge and both eligibility and vigilance are both necessary. Unfortunately we only get shots at it via a vote every four years and that is contingent on the candidates being eligible or by convincing Congress to take action which is virtually impossible. Eligibility comes first, voting second and impeachment a distant last. Let’s use all three to maximize our control and chances.

            Congress should vet presidential candidates and it should be a cut-and-dried procedure. Have the following sealed, official documentation delivered to the Chairman of the Presidential Qualification Verification Committee:

            a.) Your birth certificate

            b.) Your parents’ birth certificates or naturalization papers

            When nominated, similarly have provided:

            a.) The birth certificate of your proposed running mate

            b.) The birth certificates or naturalization papers of parents of proposed running mate

            Concurrently also provide documentation via sealed and certified US mail showing 14 years of residence within the United States or its possessions or territories which may include a mixture of _______________.

          • So in your opinion you think that just because someone claims to be conservative then they should be President, no matter where they are from. The fact is that it shouldn’t be only POTUS that requires Natural Born status, ALL government leadership positions should require it. It is the single biggest problem with this country, we have too many foreigners in positions of authority who have had a negative impact on our country. And I believe that POTUS should be held only by second generation Natural Born Citizens.

            None of this will matter pretty soon, this country and the world is going to soon experience a catastrophic collapse. It’s on the horizon!

          • Your lack of understanding and Senator Cruz’s voting record certainly needs to be looked at. You have no idea how he has voted in the Senate nor while supposed moderate republicans don’t like him. He doesn’t just talk the talk, He walks the Walk. Trump when he was losing to Dr. Carson, called him a child molester and that Dr. Carson couldn’t change. A Christian who is born again can and does change. He, Trump calls himself a Christian because he goes to a Presbyterian Church, I did too but I met Jesus as my Baptizer in the Holy Spirit and I changed. Dr. Carson, a well known neurosurgeon especially with children, in no way a child molester shows more compassion and understanding of individuals than Trump cares to. What I have noted with you is Stubborness, and Stubborness my friend is a sin of idolatry. You idolize your own self aggrandizment over substance.

          • Oh, really?!?! So now you know what I know or don’t know?? Here’s just a portion of what I know about you “wonder boy” Cruz:

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for South American Refugees (2014 – link) “Soccer Ball and Teddy
            Bear Delivery” before he was against SA/Mexican refugees and promoting a border wall (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for Trade Promotion Authority (2015 – link), before he was against Trade Promotion Authority (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for Taking More Syrian Refugees (2014 – link), specifically dismissing the threat of terror embeds, before he was against taking Syrian Refugees (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was against Ethanol Subsidies (2013 – link), before he was for Ethanol Subsidies (2016 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for Anchor Baby Birthright Citizenship (2011 – link), before he was against “birthright citizenship” (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for the Iran Deal “Corker Cardin Amendment” (2015 – link),
            before he was against the Iran Deal (2015 – link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research Outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was for Mitch McConnell (2014 – link), before he was against Mitch McConnell (2014 link) – He cannot square that factual circle. ~ Research outline

            ♦ Ted Cruz was against Chris McDaniel (2014 – link), before he was for Chris McDaniel (2015) – He cannot square that factual circle – Research outline

            I find it interesting that you make a point of saying Carson wasn’t a child molester, WHY?, I never stated any such thing! And you claim that Carson shows more compassion and understanding than Trump, yet where is your proof. At least Trump is speaking out against the government on everything they are doing, while Carson agrees with them on several issues. Seems to me Trump is showing more compassion (for the people ) and understanding.

            I may be stubborn, and that is often a good thing, but unlike you, I’m not STUPID! You might try reading your bible again and not take God’s word OUT OF CONTEXT! In Samuel, God’s reference to rebellion and stubbornness has to do with against his word, idiot! You’re a typical socialist Christian, you listen to the false prophets who take most of scripture out of context and use it only to justify you misconceptions. You need to READ THE BIBLE instead of repeating what others are claiming. It’s the same with the Constitution, if you and others like you read it for a change, instead of listening to others telling you what it says, you just might actually understand it!

          • Rattlerjake, Let me ask you since you went to Harvard. You seem to know a lot about American Government, are you familiar with David Barton and Wallbuilder.com? I am just trying to get a picture of where you are coming from. I do not doubt you are familiar with Senator Cruz and his educational background. What do you think of Barton and Wallbuilders?

      • One last thing. The one thing that LBJ got passed in ’53’ was that the pastors would lose their 501c3’s if they talked about politics. He was upset with some pastors in Texas that were pointing out all his short comings. Now our Christian Pastors across America are afraid to speak out on social issues affecting us today. Needless to say he had no Father as God. Need I say more. He also being a democrat pulled a democrat concerning a box of votes that people never knew where they came from like the Democrats still due today. We need that piece of Crap legislation that he got passed removed. The dems are screaming voter suppression about picture ID’s to vote. Well, someone gave us a great argument against that. India there are 1.27 Billion people. 400 million of them make less than $1.25 a day. Yet, every voter in India has a Picture Voter ID. Listen You are probably mad about what I said to you but you need to get educated. The best way and fairly quickly is to get a series of DVD’s by Wallbuilders.com produced by David Barton, you will get even more angry to discover how our history was rewritten between 1875 and 1925. Get Educated, attend your Precinct Convention or Caucus depending on your State, get a slate of candidates to go to your County or Parrish Convention or Caucus, then do the same for your State convention. Bring resolutions to be passed. GET INVOLVED ON A GRASS ROOTS LEVEL.

  40. The trouble with the POSITWH and his birth certificate was that the useless piece of garbage didn’t want to show one. Then the one he does show is not right. So the question remains where was the useless sewer rat born? Him being raised as a Muslim should have precluded him from being President.

  41. I guess Obama is not a American either ,with his fake Birth Documents . He is only half of a American because he is half Kenya . A person to become President has to be able to prove at least two Generations born with in the United States .

    • ” A person to become President has to be able to prove at least two Generations born with in the United States .

      If that is true, you will need to provide a cite to back your assertion. I have never seen that requirement listed anywhere.
      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • Where the hell do you morons come up with these claims? “…..two generations…”, show it to me in writing on an official historical document!

  42. Cruz was born in Canada and had a Canadian citizenship. President was born on American soil (Hawaii is a state of the US). And for all you birthers, the NSA and all the other US investigation agencies know. The President had to pass a very thorough BACK GROUND TEST for secret clearance.

    • Obama’s father was a foreign national – he is a usurper squatting in the Oval Office.
      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • What fking planet did you come from? Ovomit passed no such test, in fact a simple query on e-verify shows that Ovomit fails because he is using a fraudulent social security number. As a previous S2 in the military, I can tell you without a doubt that Ovomit could NEVER pass even a basic background check. Glad you opened your mouth steve, now we know of one more idiot.

  43. There is no eligibility question for either Obama or Cruz. This is a dead issue being brought up by people who a) don’t know our laws, or b) just want to stoke the fires of ignorance. Why Patriot News wastes time and space with this non-issue is beyond me. They must not have anything worthwhile to say.

    • Your opinion notwithstanding, if you nominate Cruz we will lose the election. Find someone we can all support please.
      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

      • What I said was not my opinion, it is fact as stated by the laws of this land. I am not commenting on who will win/lose an election, but on who is eligible. Why is that simple point so hard for people to understand?

        • So you say. The founding fathers say you are wrong.

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • The law that the founding fathers wrote was changed decades ago. You are behind the times by a few decades on this issue. Have a nice day.

          • Again you flap your lips but nothing relevant comes out.

            Have any kind of damn day you like.

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • I only state facts, as written in the laws of this land. Sorry you don’t like those laws. And yes, I will have a good day, without anger and hatred.

          • Still haven’t said anything. . .boring.

            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • It’s idiots like you that are willing to ignore the requirements that are established in the law that YOU refer to. What a fking hypocrite! The “birthers” are the only ones who have insisted that we abide by those laws, yet individuals like you and the rest of the left call it wasting time instead of upholding the Constitution.

      • No, this issue is old hat. It was brought up months ago and dealt with. It was in Patriot News a while back. I commented on it then. It is still a dead issue. It is because of overly mouthy people who feel compelled to call people who know the facts “idiots”, that constructive things are not getting done in this country. Have a nice day.

        • You are man idiot! You think that the issue is over because you commented on it “a while back”, or because it is old hat?

          So I guess a murder investigation is a dead issue when it is old hat, or maybe the IRS coming after you for back taxes, that’s a dead issue because it happened months or years ago. It’s never over until the truth is acknowledged and the “incident” solved. It’s the reason that Ovomit’s ineligibility is still in the courts, why people are still questioning and pushing for Benghazi and 9/11 investigations. People like you are what is wrong with this country, you don’t want to be bothered with details, could care less about the truth.

          • No, the issue of the eligibility of Obama and Cruz to be President is over. That is a dead issue. You need to learn to stay on subject. The “Birther issue is all I commented on, period. Have a nice day.

          • No, it is not a dead issue and will not be a dead issue so long as we have ineligible candidates
            on ballots. Nominate an ineligible candidate and lose the election.

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Your information on this issue is so wrong. You are completely wrong. There are two basic laws that define who is eligible to be President. The first states the the President must be a “natural born citizen”. The second law defines what a “natural born citizen” is. Obama and Cruz both qualify as “natural born citizens”. A “natural born citizen” does not have to physically born in the United States or any of its territories. They only need to be born to any parent who is a citizen of the United States. That has been proven in both cases. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, as some people would have you falsely believe, his mother was a citizen of the United States, making him a a “natural born citizen”. Done deal. God, I wish people would learn American History before they say this stuff! Have a nice day.

          • You keep saying the same thing. . .nothing.

            If Obama was born in Kenya he is not a citizen at all much less a natural born citizen.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

          • Are you really as stupid as you portrait yourself? If you’re commenting on the birther issue then the issue of Ovomit and Cruz is not dead. Where do you think the “birther” movement started? It’s understandable why you can’t even garner enough upvotes to equal your comments, there aren’t enough people stupid enough to believe the crap you say!

          • The phrase is “portray yourself”. The “Birther” Issue started with Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump. They started this, not knowing or understanding United States Law. Yes, there are people who are still trying to make something out of nothing, wasting the court’s time. These will all be thrown out. It has been over seven years and nothing has come of any of the legal cases. If any of the motions filed had been legitimate, we would have known by now. But, if you had actually looked up the pertinent laws and read them, then you would not be out here shouting at the moon. The law says both Obama and Cruz are legal to be President. And, yes, I study history. Notice I don’t feel the need to call people “stupid” to make my point. The facts are in the laws of this country. This is my last post on this issue. If people do not want to listen to the truth, that is something I cannot do anything about. Have a nice day.

          • False, Hillary & Co. started this and I will be forever grateful to her for it. It is the ONLY thing about that woman that I can like.
            .

            .

            ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
            Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

  44. That my friend is the definition of a politician, They are masters of speaking out of both ends of their torso.

  45. If the current pos in the white house is eligible to be president than anyone is eligible! At least Cruz’s records are not sealed. He is one of the few in Washington who should not be charged with treason. That is the reason DT should be elected. He will clean house and hold the law breakers accountable.

    • He is not.

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • So basically you think that if they can do it then we can do it. You aren’t very bright!

  46. There is no “Ted Cruz eligibilty question”, just as there was no question of BHO’s eligibility. They were born of American mothers who were citizens, and thus are natural born citizens. There had to be no legal action to establish their American Citizenship. McCain was born in Panama. The matter was decided when Chester A. Arthur was elected President. He was born in Canada of an American mother. Please, ladies and gentlemen, decide on the policies of your chosen candidate, and do not allow clouding of the water. If you don’t vote, you have given your complaints of the outcome no weight. We live in a participatory republic.

    • Only a fool would think that there is no eligibility question. It is as important as any other requirement that is in the Constitution. There are underlying agendas going on here, just as with Ovomit being illegally in office. It is the job of the people to ensure that government follows the Constitution, which they haven’t been doing for many years. You are a fool.

      • I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer, also a retired Labor Data Analyst. I have a BS in Communication and an MS in Human Resource Managemant. I have also been Chief of a private security agency. So I am nobody’s fool. The matter has been settled with the Presidency of Cheser A. Arthur. There is no point in our further discussion, as you are obviously not interested in discussion, without name calling. Fair winds and following seas, Sir.

        • Illegal acts do not change the law.

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • Wow, I’m so impressed. Another squid with a bunch of useless titles and degrees, none of which proves you’re not an idiot. When people like you start throwing out all of your bogus qualifications, it shows you THINK you’re intelligent; yet you can’t even spell MANAGEMENT!

          • I’ll not get into the weeds with one who resorts to calling names, except to state that the Constitution DOES NOT define the term “natural born citizen”. It uses it, but does not define it. It also implies that a natural born citizen could remain outside the United States until the age of 21, reside in the US for 14 years, until the age of 35, and be eligible for the office. You need not reply, as I have said all I intend to one as rude as you, Sir. Fair winds and following seas.

          • I agree and it is sad that they left the door open for an indoctrinated ‘natural born citizen’ but I suppose they couldn’t forsee the deliberate efforts to do just that. I think we should require that all presidential candidates prove that they spent the first ten years of their lives and the most recent ten years of their lives in the United States and parents should be investigated for their patriotism and support of the Constitution. Nothing’s perfect I guess 🙂

          • I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Smith. Your last sentence about covers this prolonged “discussion”. Nothing is perfect!

          • And I appreciate your participation, without dissent and discussion it would be hard to present the evidence.

          • Listen bonehead, the founders didn’t need to define Natural Born Citizen because in that time everyone KNEW what the term meant; it was as common as the term pizza is today. We know this because the term was defined in a book called “The Law of Nations” by Vattel. We also know from historical documents like letters and the federalist papers that this book was used as an important reference by the founders in writing the Constitution. Secondly, the Constitution implies NOTHING. It states EXACTLY what is necessary to be eligible for POTUS. Again you show your utter stupidity and ignorance of the most important document in this country. You’re a perfect example of what the dumbing down of America produced! Wake up and read actual documents for a change and stop listening to politicians, like Cruz, who makes claims but has NOT YET provided documentation that substantiates his false claim.

  47. Obama’s birth place or BIRTH citizenship doesn’t concern me. What disqualifies him is his adoption by Lolo Soetoro whereby he became a citizen of Indonesia and American citizenship was forfeit. There is no record that US citizenship was ever reestablished. Therefore, we have no president because he is Indonesian.

  48. THOUGHTS ON THE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF CRUZ AND RUBIO FOR THE
    PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

    Article II, Section 1, pa. 5: “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.”

    Why is it that only natural born Citizens, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
    the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President?

    The answer is simple. Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had parents born in England or various other European countries. If the Constitution had not made an exception to the
    requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen, no one living in the United States at the time of its adoption would be eligible to the office of President since they were not Natural Born Citizens, or ‘natives’ as required by the common law of England at the time (which further required actual birth in United States territory a
    requirement that has been modified by court interpretation since then). It is very clear that being a Citizen born
    of foreign parents is not the same thing as being a natural born Citizen, and a child born of foreign parents is therefore not eligible to be President under the Constitution.

    Why is there a requirement that only a Citizen born of Citizens, or a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be President?

    Again, the answer is very simple: It is a loyalty issue. Children born of foreign parents have divided loyalties, many times dual citizenship, loyalty to their parents and to the country of the parents. They do not necessarily
    owe undivided loyalty to the country of their birth.

    Since the common law is the only precedent requiring ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ we need to inquire what is the common law.

    “The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, contained the ‘natural law’ applicable at the time of the writing of the Constitution and was read and applied by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

    Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the
    father’s citizenship was a ‘loyalty’ issue.

    Let’s see who is a “Natural Born Citizen” under the common law precedent at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law as required by the common law of England applicable to the
    United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution — it specifies that a child must be born in
    the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.

    A ‘Citizen’ or what is also called a ‘citizen by birth’ on the other hand is one who by ‘constitutional or statutory’
    provision, and not necessarily by ‘natural law’, is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born.” A ‘natural born citizen’ does not mean the same thing as ‘citizen by birth’. The law of
    nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be ‘natural born’ citizen of that state.”

    If Osama Bin Laden’s mother had taken advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Saudi Arabia (or any other foreign country like Kenya) to have a baby born in the United States she might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,”
    and if the mother and child returned to Saudi Arabia and raised the child there, learning to speak English without experiencing fully first hand United States history or culture and then at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the next fourteen years in the United States, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, he would be eligible to run for President under the erroneous interpretation of the main article to which this comment applies even though he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ under the Constitution. This will no doubt raise concerns over the loyalty of Osama Bin Laden to be commander-in-chief of the US army and rightly so as absolute loyalty and our national security by the commander-in-chief of the army are the reason for the language found in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and in fact such concerns were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington who together with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
    drafted the Constitution.

    It is interesting that the above facts apply directly to President Obama, the son of a foreigner from Kenya, a man of obviously divided ‘bowing’ loyalty, a Muslim who lacks undivided love for this country as evidenced by his repeated verified failures to salute the flag, his efforts to incite class and racial conflict and institute
    ‘wealth redistribution’ i.e., socialism, contrary to the free market principles and natural rights incorporated in the constitution.

    However, this is not clearly applicable to Rubio or Cruz, so, why do I maintain that they are not eligible? Because the principle of ‘loyalty’ and ‘national security’ incorporated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution applies not only to them but to anyone who becomes President in the future as much as it applies to
    President Obama and potential candidate Hillary Clinton in the area of national security at the present time.

    It is not likely but not impossible that Cruz or Rubio or Trump, or maybe Clinton and any future candidate will disregard the separation of power between the legislative and executive powers, the war power in particular, or attack differing religious beliefs, and the separation of church and state; and the encroachment on private property and excessive fiscal spending that is bankrupting the country; or the fraudulent use of corporations
    like Solyndra, and scandals like ‘fast and furious’, and IRS intrusions, or appoint communist or socialists and/or
    Muslims and convicted felons as proletarian Czars; and disregard the immigration problem of ISIS into the United States, or the nuclear problem with Iran, North Korea and the invasions in the Ukraine by Russia., evidencing total disregard for the protection of America, its ambassadors and the world, and
    finally but not least the lack of transparency and constant lying to the people.

    From the Judicial point of view, consider the following:

    The question is this: Is it necessary that a person be born of a father who is citizen in order to be a natural born Citizen? The case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark is inapplicable as that case does not address, or even mentions, who is or is not a “natural born citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution holding merely that a person born in U.S. soil was a citizen but not holding that he was a “natural born citizen”; The case of Perkings v. Elg is not applicable as Marie Elg was a “natural born citizen” because her parents were both, at the time of her birth, naturalized U.S. Citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) involved the question of whether a Missouri constitutional provision which limited the right to vote to male citizens denied the privileges and immunities clause of citizenship of the Fourteenth Amendment to a female citizen otherwise eligible to vote. Other states did not
    so restrict the right to vote. The court found that the privileges and immunities clause did not include the right of suffrage as it existed at the time the constitution was adopted and had no choice but to affirm the judgment
    of the lower court. The case has never been overruled by the Supreme Court and the case stands today for the same proposition it did in 1874, although with the passage and ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment the issue of female vote has no further force. In the Happersett case however, in the course of reaching its conclusion, the court found pivotal and necessary to determine whether Minor was a citizen of the United States finding that she was a “natural born citizen” and articulated the now-famous quote frequently cited 88 U.S. at 167-168: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that at common law, [as that term is understood in September 17, 1787], 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. Thus, the Court (and inferentially, the Founders) acknowledged that a “natural born Citizen” is one born of two citizen parents, consistent with the teachings of Emmerich de Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations essentially concluding that children follow the condition of the father (Think of ‘Dreams of my
    Father’, by Mr. Obama).

    Emmerich de Vattel ‘The Law of Nations’ was of critical influence on the Founding Fathers. De Vattel is the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the revolution. I J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775 Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition of
    Vattel’s Law of Nation and remarked that the book ‘has been continuously in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889)…See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 US.. 452, 462, n. 12 (1978). Further, James Madison’s notes document that various delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 cited de Vattel. Finally John Jay’s letter to Washington, argues for higher eligibility requirements, that the president needs to be a “natural born citizen” rather than merely a citizen of the United States representing a sharp
    departure from the Committee of Detail’s recommendations, made on August 22, [1787; See Madison Notes, August 22, 1787]; Clearly the Founders would not accept a lower standard of merely being a citizen born in US soil, when a higher standard was available to assure clear and undivided allegiance and fidelity and guaranteeing the survival of the new nation, erecting as effective a practical barrier to the entry into the presidency of foreigners, securing our liberties on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis as possible. They adopted a higher standard of a citizen whose parents were also citizens, and did not accept the lower criterion, like the politically correct progressive position argued by leftist-socialist-Marxist-progressive liberals,
    that any-one-who-is-born-here-can-be-president.

    Finally, consider this question: Is an anchor baby born of Mexicans living in the United States who has resided in the United States for 14 years and who is 35 years of age, a “natural born Citizen” as
    contemplated by the Founders and eligible to be President?

    A fairly compelling and documented argument can be decisively made that this is a result the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Indeed, the record plainly discloses that such a result was one they intended specifically to foreclose by setting a higher presidential eligibility standard. And this reasoning applies to Cruz and Rubio.

  49. Richard Daugherty

    Cruz needs to be vetted. This could take a couple of yrs. For the time being he need to drop out. No more Obama’s!

  50. actually while rubio was born in this country neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth so that makes him ineligible and an anchor baby

  51. By Cruz’s reasoning that he is Constitutionally qualified, every “love child” of every GI that ever went overseas and sowed his wild oats is Constitutionally qualified to be president. Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that is what the Founders envisioned when they put the requirement of “natural born citizen” into the Constitution? Second, why does this “special” level of citizenship apply only to the Office of President? Why not the House, Senate, Supreme Court also? Obviously the presidency was a special office to the Founders. And why did one of the Founders, John Jay, write that letter to George Washington about “Permit me to hint,
    whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the
    American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural
    born Citizen. ” Does that not really sound like they intended to refuse the Office of President to people like Cruz?

  52. Trump should be embarrassed to question anyone’s claim to citizenship after the laughable and fruitless debacle he engineered with that “crack team” of investigators he sent to Hawaii to investigate the Obama birth certificate. But The Donald is such an egotistical, self-absorbed know-it-all that there is practically nothing that would embarrass his arrogant ass!

  53. The article is right on as regardless about how you feel about Cruz the question of his right to be President has never been tested. If Republicans quibble about Obamas birth they are hypocritical to accept Cruz’s argument. McCain was born in a US Territory on a US Base which is considered American ground whereas Canada is not.

    • Correct which is why I refuse to allow Cruz or Rubio to waltz into the Oval Office without a fight.

      I’ve gotten conflicting info on McCain’s birth certificate. One source says Coco Solo infirmary and the other says the Colon Hospital. I guess that’s a fight we’ll have another day maybe.
      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

    • All the more reason why We The People need to take control back from the government.
      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

      • Redundant, redundant, redundant, redundant You must be on rowdy
        Trumps campaign program. He appears to me as a spoiled kid that always gets his own way and if you get in his way he will do what ever it takes, Rave on buddy, at least Cruz is a gentleman.

        • I think that Trump, among others, would do a pretty good job as POTUS. At least he’s eligible.
          .

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

  54. Sorry, but Cruz is NOT eligible.

    Ask him that. No one does even though he claims he is a master debater. And yes, he is still married. Great skill you got there Cruz.

  55. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    vn.
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  56. The simple fact is Ted Cruz is not eligible. Neither is John McCain or Barrack Obama. What people do is ignore the actual text of the 1790 law. It does not define the term “natural born citizen”. It references it by the phrase “shall be considered as”. In other words if a person was born under these conditions the person shall be considered as a natural born citizen. Consider this sentence:

    For the purpose of this rodeo a mule shall be considered as a horse.

    Something called a horse must exist to consider a mule a horse. Then people ignore the 1795 law which repealed the 1790 law and said those persons were simply citizens. These two prior laws alone show there are two types of citizenship a person can be born with. A person can simply be a citizen or can be a natural born citizen. One also finds that another term used for citizen is “native born citizen”.

    Another thing people do is to reference some of the numerous Supreme Court rulings that reference the meaning of natural born citizen in various discussions of citizenship and then claim the court said the meaning of “natural born citizen” is “born a citizen”. Yet when one reads the rulings it is clear that is not the case.

    The third thing I have found is that people will cite various incarnations of Title 8 over the years which define who is a citizen by birth and claim the law is defining the term “natural born citizen”.

    All of the writers who have made the claim that being “born a citizen” is the meaning of “natural born citizen” all seem to have approached their research with the predetermined goal of defining “natural born citizen” as being “born a citizen”. When a person can simply read through the statements and see logical fallacies of the presentation makes it hard to take the writers seriously. Especially, when one has read the source material being referenced and the errors in the articles are glaring obvious.

    But what does the term “natural born citizen” mean? When one does the research we find the treatise “Law of Nations” written by Monsieur De Vattel and published in 1758 is the source and legal definition of the term. This is the document that was known to those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. In Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph number 212 it states in French

    Les Naturels, ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Paren Citoyens.

    In the 1760 English translation of this work this sentence is translated as

    Its natives are those who are born in the country parents who are citizens.

    The later translations translate this sentence as

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    When I started my research back in 2010 like many people I thought it simply meant born a citizen but I was curious about the issues because of all of the attacks on Birthers. After all, where there is smoke there is fire. If the media and others ignored the issue it would not have drawn my attention. But, apparently unlike so many others, I did not make the assumption what I thought was correct. Consider that “Law of Nations” was used in the writing of the US Constitution and is referenced in Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph/Clause 10. That shows the importance of the document.

    The Republican Party ignored this issue back in 2008 when they nominated John McCain and has a history of ignoring it. The first ineligible President and Vice-President was Chester A Arthur. Like John McCain and Barrack Obama and others he was challenged. Like Mr Cruz he was born in Canada. At Mr Arthur’s death he burned his papers. So it is no surprise that neither Party wants to deal with the issue. But keep in mind Mrs Clinton will bring it up. After all, she was the first Birther and challenged Mr Obama’s eligibility. Had the Courts addresses the issue in the first place we would not be in the current mess. And what is also interesting is the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did not certify that Mr Obama was eligible for the office of President, they simply certified he was the nominee of the Democratic Party. The Republicans certified John McCain was eligible for the office of President. Think about that. They obviously suspected he was not eligible to serve as President. Thus we have the problems we have today because people do not know the US Constitution, nor are they following it.

  57. I am a huge Cruz supporter. He is the best shot we have at getting a president who will turn around all of Obama’s illegal, self-made laws and giving us back our country. He will be the best president out of the entire group of people running for this office, and that includes Donald Trump.

    • What will you do if Mr. Trump wins the nomination? vote for killery clinton.?

      • Of course not!! I am a Cruz fan, which, alone, should have told you that I’m not an idiot. lol

        • I like Mr. Cruz also, but I think Mr. Trump has shown he cannot be bought and maybe he uses some tactics that I really think he should have worded it differently, but he is not afraid to attack obama or the clinton’s as in reality he’s running against them both. Mr. Cruz I don’t think he will bring as much fight as Trump and that worries me. But if Cruz should get the nod, I’m all in for him, and wish him success. I know you’re not an idiot, sorry about that . have a wonderful day and peace.

        • No but it does tell me that you only support the Constitution when it suits you.
          .

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • You are an idiot. You insist on supporting an individual for POTUS that is ineligible. Give us your proof that he is eligible. Provide documented proof, NOT opinions. We’re waiting.

    • What you show is that you will violate the Constitution to vote for an ineligible candidate. If Cruz stood for the Constitution as he says, then ask yourself, “Why is he willing to ignore the eligibility requirements to become POTUS? If you believe he is eligible, than you obviously either don’t care about the Constitution or you have never read it. If you vote for Cruz, then you also support Ovomit’s illegal terms!

      • You are the one ignoring the eligibility requirements. What you said is just not true. And I also care about the constitution, which you obviously do not. Either that, or you simply don’t understand the eligibility requirements. I suggest you read up on that before you hop in and start calling other people traitors, which is exactly where you were heading with this nonsense.

        What Obama did is not like Cruz at all. We know where Cruz was born and under what circumstances. We have no idea where Obama was actually born. We simply don’t know who he is, where he came from, or who is backing him. There is no honesty from him. Everyone who actually knew his birth circumstances has died or been killed, and others are now afraid to step up. And even if I did believe you about Cruz, I sure wouldn’t call him names as you have, without understanding the laws regarding the circumstance of the birth of a candidate before making harsh, false claims.

        • What Obama and Cruz did/didn’t do is irrelevant. They are ineligible to be POTUS per the founding fathers and four different SCOTUS decisions.
          .

          .

          ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
          Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

        • You think you know the Constitution? Prove me wrong! Here is your chance, but none of this opinion or hearsay, give us documents that substantiate your claim. I have asked this of nearly a hundred idiots like you and have yet to have ONE give me anything in writing!

          • Prove yourself right. Show us the law or SCOTUS decision that says a person who is born of a foreign national parent(s) or born on foreign soil is eligible to be POTUS. We’ve showed you Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington, James Madison, Emerich De Vattel and six SCOTUS decisions all of which indicate that a person born on foreign soil or born of a non-citizen parent is ineligible. Prove us (and them) wrong.

          • I think you replied to the wrong person. But to answer your comment, that’s a no brainer, even a sixth grader could answer that one. First of all there is NO law or SCOTUS decision that says a person who is born of a foreign
            national parent(s) or born on foreign soil is eligible to be POTUS.

            There were NO Natural Born Citizens at the time the Constitution was written, because everyone was a “British subject”. Once the war was over and the people free of British rule they wrote the Constitution, and included the words that allowed for those who were currently in the “new” United States to be eligible to be POTUS. Article II, Section I, Clause 5: “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”.

    • Too bad you’re not a HUGE Constitution supporter 🙁

      .

      .

      ” Why should we ‘accept US law, statutory or case.’ when Natural Law (and thus Natural born Citizenship/
      Allegiance) is ultra vires – or beyond the legal scope of power and authority of Man OR government?”

  58. Not voting for a politician! READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP!

    This should be on the front
    page of every newspaper.

    Charley Reese’s Final column!

    A very interesting column.
    COMPLETELY NEUTRAL.

    Be sure to Read the Poem at the end..

    Charley Reese’s final
    column for the Orlando Sentinel… He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is
    retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

    Be sure to read the Tax
    List at the end.

    This is about as clear and
    easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral,
    neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the
    Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who
    it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments
    made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth
    the time. Worth remembering!

    545 vs. 300,000,000 People

    -By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only
    people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if
    both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have
    deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if
    all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have
    inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a
    federal budget. The President does.

    You and I don’t have the
    Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of
    Representatives does.

    You and I don’t write the
    tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don’t set fiscal
    policy, Congress does.

    You and I don’t control
    monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435
    congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545
    human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and
    individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of
    the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In
    1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to
    a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special
    interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They
    have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one
    cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million
    dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter
    what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine
    how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings
    spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their
    fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician
    from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being
    would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for
    creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force
    the Congress to accept it.)

    The Constitution, which is
    the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of
    Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is
    the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority
    party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget
    they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
    agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a
    budget in over three years. The President’s proposed budgets have gotten almost
    unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

    It seems inconceivable to
    me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted
    — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a
    single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
    When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
    federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to
    exist.

    If the tax code is unfair,
    it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the
    red, it’s because they want it in the red.

    If the Army & Marines
    are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan
    ..

    If they do not receive
    social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the
    people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble
    government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people
    shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish;
    to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom
    they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

    Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists
    disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,”
    “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing
    what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they
    alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

    They, and they alone,
    should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the
    voters have the gumption to manage their own employees… We should vote all of
    them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Charlie Reese is a former
    columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

    What you do with this
    article now that you have read it… is up to you.

    This might be funny if it weren’t so true.

    Be sure to read all the way to the end:

    Tax his land,

    Tax his bed,

    Tax the table,

    At which he’s fed.

    Tax his tractor,

    Tax his mule,

    Teach him taxes

    Are the rule.

    Tax his work,

    Tax his pay,

    He works for

    peanuts anyway!

    Tax his cow,

    Tax his goat,

    Tax his pants,

    Tax his coat.

    Tax his ties,

    Tax his shirt,

    Tax his work,

    Tax his dirt.

    Tax his tobacco,

    Tax his drink,

    Tax him if he

    Tries to think.

    Tax his cigars,

    Tax his beers,

    If he cries

    Tax his tears.

    Tax his car,

    Tax his gas,

    Find other ways

    To tax his ass.

    Tax all he has

    Then let him know

    That you won’t be done

    Till he has no dough.

    When he screams and
    hollers;

    Then tax him some more,

    Tax him till

    He’s good and sore.

    Then tax his coffin,

    Tax his grave,

    Tax the sod in

    Which he’s laid…

    Put these words

    Upon his tomb,

    ‘Taxes drove me

    to my doom…’

    When he’s gone,

    Do not relax,

    Its time to apply

    The inheritance tax.

    Accounts Receivable Tax

    Building Permit Tax

    CDL license Tax

    Cigarette Tax

    Corporate Income Tax

    Dog License Tax

    Excise Taxes

    Federal Income Tax

    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

    Fishing License Tax

    Food License Tax

    Fuel Permit Tax

    Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

    Gross Receipts Tax

    Hunting License Tax

    Inheritance Tax

    Inventory Tax

    IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

    Liquor Tax

    Luxury Taxes

    Marriage License Tax

    Medicare Tax

    Personal Property Tax

    Property Tax

    Real Estate Tax

    Service Charge Tax

    Social Security Tax

    Road Usage Tax

    Recreational Vehicle Tax

    Sales Tax

    School Tax

    State Income Tax

    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

    Telephone Federal Excise Tax

    Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

    Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

    Telephone State and Local Tax

    Telephone Usage Charge Tax

    Utility Taxes

    Vehicle License Registration Tax

    Vehicle Sales Tax

    Watercraft Registration Tax

    Well Permit Tax

    Workers Compensation Tax

    STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

    Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most
    prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
    middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

    What in the heck happened?
    Can you spell ‘politicians?’

    I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get
    there!!!

    GO AHEAD. . . BE AN
    AMERICAN!!!

  59. Even the Judges are wrong on a Natural Citizen not just to one parent either that has been here in the Us One year No Two People that were born here and have a child together would be a Natural Born Period you have heard the song born and bred in the Usa that don,t mean a person the comes here and becomes a citizen and then a person from another country comes here like in the Case of Obama says that his father was from Kenya and never was a citizen of the USA why would they even put the Laws in the Constitution even that would be the case Period Wake Up folks and call your people in congress and tell them what would be a natural Born Citizen! what if the mother has a cercerion Birth what then would that be a natural born I think Not

  60. Why does Trump not address the issues?

    • You must be Rumpelstiltskin! He has been addressing the issues, it just so happens that this IS an issue. A candidate who is ineligible and running for POTUS is very important. But you are likely like many other Cruzbots that won’t hesitate to ignore the Constitution if it means you can vote for Cruz!

  61. Cruz at least came to the front early on while Barry played flute for several years until the illegal birth certificate could be doctored to look similar to the real thing except for the several misstatements and technical errors such as using the wrong typewriter. You recall the one they used had not been invented yet.

    • So because Cruz came forward early you think that makes it OK? Cruz did this because his citizenship was in question from the minute he became a candidate for POTUS. He hasn’t provided his birth certificate, he provided his mother’s and gone off on the tangent that he is natural born because of her. Do you not see that there is something strange about this whole situation? Half of the Constitutional experts say Cruz is natural born and half say he isn’t – so how do you chose who to believe? When I see physical evidence that proves that Cruz is lying, I believe the evidence, not the opinion of claimed experts!

  62. Well of course. That’s why it was always so stupid of people bashing Obama about his birth cert. I think he was born in Hawaii BUT EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN NIGERA, His MOTHER was a US citizen and so would he be. Such a waste of time and makes people look so stupid. That is one Fact Trump is so right on….there are a LOT of Stupid people in Washington and USA. Can’t we Do better?

    • That is false. Momma was not old enough to confer citizenship if born on foreign soil. If Obama was born outside of the United States he is not even a citizen much less natural born.

      You post is indicative of the level of ignorance that is prevalent today since civics and critical thinking was stripped from the curriculum.

      • Try looking it up instead of making it up. Its better.

        • I have looked it up. . .

          Obama has admitted that he was born in 1961 to a mother alleged to be an American citizen who was 18 at the time of his birth, and a father who was a Kenyan national and a British citizen, not a U.S. resident.
          Pursuant to Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I. A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944), the federal statute in effect at that time, the candidate could not acquire American citizenship, because he was born out of the country and only one parent was an American, and she was disqualified under the Act because she did not have five continuous years of residency following her fourteenth birthday before the child was born, as she was only 18. Sen. Obama could not have become an American citizen except through a naturalization process at the time of his birth.
          The immigration laws in effect at the time of and as amended five years after Obama’s birth simply did not allow for citizenship at birth for children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent and a non-citizen parent if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen

        • It is you that has failed to do the research., it’s obvious by your vague comments.

    • Really?!?! You think it is stupid to bash an individual who seals ALL of his records, then when called out on the birth certificate provides an OBVIOUS fraudulent document, not to mention his fraudulent social security number, and his fraudulent selective service card. You think that a mother as a US citizen (even though, if Dunham was his real mother, she didn’t meet the requirements to confer citizenship anyways) makes you a citizen? Try reading the Immigration and Naturalization Website and you’ll find that his citizenship is NOT automatic, especially until he proves his place of birth and lineage. But to you it is trivial, because the Constitution and the individual who is POTUS, to you isn’t very important and “a waste of time”. There really ARE a lot of stupid people in the USA and you are one of them.

  63. Process of Acquisition means if one parent is a US citizen, the child will be no matter where they born. Say someone vacations in Tahiti and gives premature birth…the baby is a US Citizen if the Mother is.
    Both Cruz and Obama had mothers who were US Citizens. People should know this. Are you a citizen? Your kids are gonna be Citizens no matter where they are born.

  64. Trumps answer is I will

  65. I would support Cruz but he in NOT a natural born citizen.

  66. Elizabeth Valentino

    My opinion is that if obama can be president, why then can’t Ted Cruz be president? He is an American citizen, but is obama? He was born in Kenya, Cruz was born in Canada, what’s the difference then? The constitution says “CITIZEN’S'”, PLURAL, THAT MEANS TWO (OR MORE)!

    • No, the Constitution says ‘Natural Born Citizen’ thus the controversy. Fortunately the founding fathers left lots of clues and SCOTUS panels have agreed.

  67. This is a non issue. The real issues are: America’s future economy and debit, ssocialist, commie presence, securing the borders, fighting radical islam, saving the Constitution, restoring federal and state checks and balancing, restoring states rights, reforming the IRS, EPA, BLM, NLRB, and other over bloated bureaucracies. Federal and state over reach need to be reduces and contained.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*