As has been previously explained, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are both constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States according to Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the president be a natural born citizen, which the Framers clarified while they wrote the Constitution.
The fact is that according to documents that Congress issued within two years of the Constitution, it’s clear that the president must have parents (plural) who are citizens in order to be considered natural born citizens.
Accordingly, last November H. Brooke Paige filed a complaint to remove both men from the ballot in H. Brooke Paige vs State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos lawsuit.
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.”
Trending: Science is Settled
That’s probably true. And fellow Texan Devvy Kidd adds that the lawsuit will bring about two things:
- Standing will be challenged and;
- like so many other decisions made by judges, the argument will be made that the Secretary of State can’t verify eligibility.
“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 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. Cruz supporters sound like Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah supporters. Some claim, “Well if Obama can do it so can we.” One man’s lawlessness does not justify continuing to ignore and violate the Constitution.
Cruz supporters appear to follow the same two step that Cruz danced in an encounter with Texas Tribune’s Patrick Svitek. 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.
Sounds 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– as is every naturalized citizen. Bruce McKay in which he writes:
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.”
“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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. citizen.
“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 U.S. 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 is that Rev.Stat § 1993 passed in 1934, allowing for transfer of citizenship to be conferred to children of mothers who were U.S. citizens. Previously, the law had only allowed fathers to transfer citizenship.
McKay points to another case in a lengthy discourse, which is worth the read. However, he concludes that Cruz acquired his citizenship similarly to Bellei. He then asks:
“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.”
Both Cruz and Rubio must be measured by this standard. If Americans had dealt with the usurper-in-chief instead of, in the infamous words of Oklahoma Representative Markwayne Mullins, not “giving a sh*t,” then America would not be at this crossroads where people who claimed to be Constitutional are more than willing to violate the Constitution so their candidate can also be illegally elected.
Tim Brown is an author and editor who writes for FreedomOutpost.com,SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews