As we’ve covered
before, both Senators
Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco
Rubio are both constitutionally ineligible for the office of President under the Constitution’s demand
that a person must be a natural born citizen. A lawsuit was filed in November
that seeks to remove both men from the ballot.
I’m not going to
go back over the understanding of how one comes to the understanding of what a natural born citizen is. I link to them throughout the article and they are tied
to what our founders
read and wrote as the founding of the United States took place.
The complaint was
filed by H. Brooke Paige in the H.
Brooke Paige vs State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos lawsuit. Paige has no attorney, but has put forth the argument in a
45 page document and currently seeking signatures to get on the primary ballot.
Interestingly
enough, Cruz was
never challenged when he ran for Senate in 2012 and he never disclosed that he
was a citizen of Canada during that time, an act
some have said is a commission of fraud under both Texas and US Election law.
According to Dr.
Rich Swier, “No one can say for certain, but I think it is a very fair guess,
that had Ted Cruz disclosed to Texas voters in 2012, that he had always been
and remained at that time a legal citizen of Canada, his Republican opponent,
Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, would have won that race and become the
next U.S. Senator from Texas.”
That’s probably true. And fellow
Texan Devvy Kidd adds that the lawsuit will bring about two things:
1.
Standing will be challenged and;
2.
like so many other decisions by
gutless cowards wearing black robes, the argument will be made it’s not the job
of a Secretary of State to verify eligibility
Are we really to
believe number 2? “I guess anyone can simply send in a form and get on a ballot
for any office no matter who they are or even if they meet requirements for
that office. Unfortunately no one challenged Cruz here in Texas,” writes Kidd.
“This one got by most of us: Ted
Cruz is in the U.S. Senate Illegally?”
While many
understand that Marco Rubio is
nothing more than an anchor baby (except
for people like Trey Gowdy), for some Ted
Cruz is a bit of a different animal. They like many things he has said and his
stands on certain issues. I have been one of them. However, the fact is that
according to documents that Congress issued within two years of the
Constitution, we know that one must have parents (plural) who are citizens in
order to be considered natural born citizens.
Most of the time,
I fail to hear any real argument to the eligibility of Rubio, but Cruz is a
different story. The line goes similar to those who cover for Barack Hussein
Obama Soetoro Sobarkah that his mother was a citizen and yada, yada, yada. But
I reject that just as I do Cruz. Others claim, “Well if Obama can do it so can
we.” As if one lawbreaker is license for you to break the law! Fools! One man’s
lawlessness does not justify continuing to ignore and violate the Constitution
just because the guy wearing your team’s jersey is doing it!
These people do
the same two step that Cruz did in an encounter
with Texas Tribune’s Patrick Svitek, in
which Svitek said, “I’m sure you’re aware that the Constitution requires the
president to be a natural-born citizen, Don’t get this wrong – I’m supporting
your candidacy – but I hope this doesn’t become an issue for you.”
“I have never
breathed a breath of air on the planet Earth where I was not an American citizen,”
Cruz responded.
Did you catch
that? It’s sort of like, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” Cruz
did not admit to being a natural born citizen, but to being an American citizen. Well, so is every
naturalized citizen. So?
There’s ample indication, however, that members of the US Supreme Court
have consistently taken the position that foreign born children of US citizens
who acquire their citizenship by means of Congressional enactments are
considered by members of the Court to be “naturalized citizens.”
His evidence? He
points to two court cases: Montana
v. Kennedy and Rogers
v. Bellei. “In the case of
Montana v. Kennedy, the facts of the case were that Mauro Montana was born in
Italy in 1906 to a father who was an Italian citizen and a mother who was a
native-born US citizen,” writes McKay. “His mother brought him to the United
States the year following his birth, he was never naturalized, and he resided
in the US until he was ordered deported as an alien. His case came before the
Supreme Court in 1961 which held that Mauro Montana was not a US citizen.”
He then wrote,
“By contrast, in the case of Rogers v. Bellei, the facts of the case were that
Aldo Bellei was born in Italy in 1939 to a father who was an Italian citizen
and a mother who was a native born US citizen. Further listed as a fact in the
case opinion was that he ‘acquired United States citizenship at his birth under
Rev.Stat § 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, then
in effect.’ (The issue before the Court was whether Bellei was subject to
losing his citizenship because he hadn’t fulfilled the statute’s residency
requirements, but the point is that the Court considered him to be a citizen.”
The only
difference between the two individuals was the Rev. Stat § 1993 that passed in
1934 and allowed for transfer of citizenship to be conferred to children of US
citizen mothers. Previously, it had only allowed fathers to transfer
citizenship.
McKay goes
further to point to another case in a lengthy discourse that is worth the read.
However, he comes to the conclusion that Cruz acquired his citizenship in a
similar manner to Bellei.
He then asks the
most pressing question, “If a natural born citizen today is the same as a
natural born citizen was in 1788, and if someone whose nativity circumstances
matching those of both Aldo Bellei and Ted Cruz wouldn’t even have been a
citizen until 1943, how, then could Ted Cruz be considered to be a ‘natural
born citizen?’ Answer: He couldn’t.”
And this is what both of these men
are up against. If the people had dealt with the usurper-in-chief instead of,
in the infamous words of Oklahoma Representative Mark Wayne Mullins,
not “giving a sh*t,”
then we would not be at this crossroads where people who claimed to be
Constitutional are more than willing to violate the Constitution so their guy
can get in. It’s complete lawlessness!
I think Paige
will have a pretty good stand in all of this, since there is a clear
presentation of what is a natural born citizen.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/01/08/rubio-cruz-have-ballot-access-lawsuit-filed-against-them-for-ineligibility/
No comments:
Post a Comment