Senator Ted Cruz
Ineligible Candidate for U.S. President
___________________________
Born December 22, 1970
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
to Rafael Edward Cruz- born in Mantanzas, Cuba
naturalized US citizen in 2005
&
Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, U.S. Citizen
A Ted Cruz GOP ticket could result in the biggest October Surprise ever perpetrated on the American People. The only reason none of the Obama eligibility lawsuits were heard by the Supreme Court was due to lack of standing, meaning the court did not find that those who had filed the lawsuits against Obama were personally harmed by his ineligibility to serve as President of the United States. That will not be the case if either ineligible Cuban Senator is allowed to be nominated as either the GOP Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee. The Democratic nominee will indeed have "standing" and their lawsuit should go forward to quite possibly have the entire GOP ticket removed from the November ballot.
Based on the many facts outlined in this article, the GOP appears to be in grave jeopardy of losing its place on the General Election Presidential ballot, if SCOTUS is asked to determine if Senator Ted Cruz meets the qualifications for President under the Constitution's "natural born US citizen" requirement. This catastrophe would likely cost the Republicans the White House and both houses of Congress, as conservatives would be so infuriated with the incompetent Republican Party, that they would refuse to vote for any race.
Section 1 of Article 2 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:
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.
I really like Senator Cruz and wish that we could legitimately elect a brilliant political scholar like him to serve as our U.S. President, but we have suffered the consequences of living under the leadership of an "unnaturally born U.S. citizen" for far too long.
Do we as a people really wish to put aside the wisdom of our founding fathers and nominate another ineligible Presidential nominee simply because we agree with this honorable man's politics?
As one of the very first people to question the eligibility of our current usurper in chief, I am sorry to report that after much research, I have concluded that Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz is not eligible to serve as our "natural born U.S. citizen" President under our U. S. Constitution (Sec1:Article 2:Clause 5). Not only was he not born in the United States, but his father was not even a U. S. citizen at the time of his birth. Not until 2005 did Ted's Cuban born father even decide to renounce his Canadian citizenship and become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen." http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
In 1969, at his new oil company job, he met his second wife, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson, a computer programmer from Delaware. Cruz and Wilson lived in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where their only child, Rafael Eduardo "Ted" Cruz, was born.[29] While in Calgary, the couple owned a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers.[7][8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz
That was after his son was an adult and had assumed the office of Solicitor General of Texas in 2003, it appears that his father did this to clear the way for his son to eventually pursue the office of the Presidency.
Supporters of Cruz's eligibility often use the argument that our founding fathers were relying on Blackstone's interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" yet under this definition, Ted would still not be eligible simply due to his father's citizenship allegiance at the time of his birth and throughout his childhood.
...So that all children, born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country.
“Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,”
Before the Constitution was written, the closest reference we have to the term Natural Born Citizen can be found in the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book 1 chapter 19 section 212:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate."
There is ample evidence that our founding fathers were actually relying most heavily on the book "The Law of Nations" written in French (considered the diplomatic language of the time) by Emerich de Vattel in 1758 which states quite clearly that: natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Furthermore both Blackstone and Vattel stipulate that it is the father who confers his citizenship upon the child not the mother and certainly not the mother alone as "parents" are stated in the plural form.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
During the 2008 Presidential election, this definition was ignored by our Electoral College, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the mainstream media and most of the American people in order to usher in our first 1/2 African President. Even if one were to suspend reality and consider Obama's fraudulently manufactured birth records to be legitimate, Barack H. Obama, Jr's father was a British Subject of the British Protectorate of Kenya at the time of his birth in 1961.
"of parents who are citizens."
The plural form cannot be ignored when judging the legitimacy of a "natural born citizen." Like our usurper and chief, Senator Cruz is eligible to be a Senator but not a U. S. President. How can we support a man, who is a purported Constitutional scholar who fails to understand the clear meaning of "natural born citizen" as it relates to his own eligibility to serve as our President?
Why we require a higher level of citizenship for our Commander in Chief?
John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes:
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain
Therefore since Senator Cruz clearly does not reach this minimum requirement of being a "natural born citizen" as he was not born in the United States, nor was he born to two U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he needs to remove himself from the race. By doing so, Republican voters and donors would then be free to select and support another Presidential nominee, who does meet the eligibility requirements set forth in our U.S. Constitution.
_________________________________
Published:
Alberta-born Sen. Ted Cruz has given up his Canadian dual citizenship. The renunciation became official on May 14, roughly 9 months after he learned he wasn’t only an American.
Cruz received notification by mail on Tuesday at his home in Houston.
“He’s pleased to receive the notification and glad to have this process finalized,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
Cruz’s birth in Canada was never a secret. But it proved a political liability, with detractors taunting him as “Canadian Ted” and critics suggesting that his birthplace made him ineligible to run for president.
The dual citizenship came as a surprise to Cruz and his parents when The Dallas Morning News reported on it last August.
The senator provided a copy of his Canadian birth certificate at the time. He vowed almost immediately to shed his Canadian citizenship, and promised to tell The Newsfirst as soon as he succeeded.
“Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American,” he said the day of the initial report.
_______________________________
Despite Senator Cruz's assertion that he was only 4 when he moved to the US, as you can see from my research, Ted Cruz actually spent his first 8 years of life in Canada. During his formative years in Canada he was being raised by a Canadian, former Cuban refugee and supporter of Castro father and an American mother, while attending a Canadian school in the culture and lifestyle of Canada, not the United States.
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you a man."
only if you believe birther orgy conspiracy theories, if this article true then McCain, Romney, Romeny's Father and about 10 others would not have been able to run for PotUS
ReplyDeleteGreat read. https://www.omahawelldrilling.com
ReplyDelete